[ Page 4471 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Cocke –– 4471

Mrs. Dailly –– 4472

Mr. Cocke –– 4473

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4473

Mr. Gibson –– 4474

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4476

Mr. Stupich –– 4477

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4478

Mr. Lea –– 4478

Mr. Mussallem –– 4481

Mr. Wallace –– 4482

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4485

Mr. Gibson –– 4486

Mr. Stupich –– 4486

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4488

Mr. Gibson –– 4488

Mr. Cocke –– 4489

Mr. Gibson –– 4489

Mrs. Dailly –– 4490

Mr. Wallace –– 4490

Mr. Lea –– 4491

Mr. Cocke –– 4492

Mr. Stupich –– 4492

Division on section 2 –– 4492

On section 3.

Mr. Stupich –– 4493

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4493

Mr. Wallace –– 4493

Mr. Stupich –– 4494

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4495

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): This evening we have in the gallery visitors from Chatham, Ontario, and I would ask the House to welcome my cousin, Mrs. Olive Suter, from Chatham, and her friend, Mrs. Leda Hasler.

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment before I recognize the committee on Bill 33. Does the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources have something to bring to my attention?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if there has been a change in what constitutes proper dress in this assembly, because there was a directive issued a few years ago by Speaker Murray in this regard and I'm wondering whether ... I don't recall having received any notice that there has been a change.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm talking to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter of any written authority respecting decorum and dress -particularly dress - in the House, is one that I have diligently searched for direction on.

The only thing that I have been able to find so far is recorded in Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons by Dawson. The reference is very brief, and it says:

"The old practice of wearing hats in the House has disappeared and the occasional member who appears in a hat in the House today does so merely out a sense of bravado. Several Speakers have enforced other dress regulations in the House although without any written authority. Members have occasionally attempted to remove their coats in the chamber in hot weather and the Chair has frowned on the practice but now that the chamber is air-conditioned, the point is unimportant."

With respect to our own air-conditioning, we have a partially air-conditioned chamber. It is not a full air-conditioning system, but there is a method of cooling the air in what are actually the heat ducts of the system, so it does deliver cool air into the chamber. It is not efficient, hon. members, as would be a complete air-conditioning system, and on extremely warm days the temperature here will rise above 70 degrees, as it did today. However, we are in most circumstances and on most days able to keep the temperature around 70 or 72 degrees at the maximum in the chamber.

It's a matter that was brought to the attention of the members at a past session of the Legislature, as I recall, as a member of the House at that time, by the then Speaker Murray. I have to point out, however, that there was no written authority for so doing. It's a matter, I think, of tradition within the House, and each one of us is accountable for our own dress and our own method of conducting ourselves in this chamber.

I would also draw to the member's attention that there is a motion on the order paper proposed by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with respect to the relaxation of rules respecting dress in this House, which could at any time be called for debate. It is not my intention to suggest that that motion should be called, but it is there. So it obviously gives us an indication that at least some members of the House are concerned about that particular matter.

I think that if there is a desire on the part of all members to see some sort of strict rules maintained respecting dress in this chamber, this could be a matter of discussion between the parties of the House. But may I remind you that any rules that come into effect will be with respect to all members in this chamber and not just some.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): My recollection is that the Whips of the House were requested to have a chat with you, sir. Have they had that chat?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we've had a discussion and a meeting between the Whips and the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party. The consensus at the termination of that meeting was that the onus was on the members within the Legislative Assembly to conduct themselves according to what they considered to be proper decorum in the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 2.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you're surprised that we found some problems with section 2. 1 just want the members to know that there are problems with many

[ Page 4472 ]

sections of the bill, but this is the section dealing with the czar. The czar is called the "inspector" and the section suggests that, "There may be appointed, pursuant to the Public Service Act, an inspector of independent schools and such other employees as may be considered necessary to carry out duties under this Act."

Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is running along to take his jacket off.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You're not worth listening to, but press on anyway.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The Munchkins are restless tonight.

MR. COCKE: The real question that we have before us is that one person is being given the responsibility where, in any other system, a number of people are given responsibility.

First, the inspector's responsibility is to act as the next person to the minister with respect to the independent schools, to take full responsibility for the designations, and to take full responsibility, generally speaking, for the running of the independent school system. He is going to be a very busy man, Mr. Chairman; busy because of the fact that each school is going to be treated separately; busy because of the fact that he's going to be looking after all granting; busy because of the fact that he's going to be looking after certification of teachers -busy, busy, busy.

I would like to ask a couple of questions. I would like to ask first: where will the inspector get his staff? Will it be part of the present bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education, or will this be an entirely separate situation? We found out this afternoon, when the Minister of Education suggested that next year the money for operating will be under the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) budget, that it's still very likely to be in the Minister of Education's expenditures. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this minister is going to have a tremendous amount of trouble in finding exactly how much of the grants are going to be because of the fact that he has an inspector who is going to have to deal with each authority and each school separately.

So, Mr. Chairman, what are we looking for in this particular individual? Are we looking for some kind of a very Messianic type of person - one who can handle almost every aspect of a school system; one who, on his own, can make the kinds of decisions that are necessary when you consider his power? His power would be in every aspect of seeing to it that independent schools.... That's really a misnomer at this point - we know they are no longer independent the minute the inspector is appointed. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what is the minister looking for in an inspector for independent schools?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): The inspector will obviously be someone who's senior, experienced and reliable.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver-Centre): Your son-in-law?

MR. LEA: That means you can't appoint a Socred.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): On section 2, Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate, the powers given to this inspector are simply amazing. Once again, we have a sign of a great centralization move in this government. But even worse, or comparable to it, is the very fact that this inspector is given so many functions. Perhaps we should have the minister reminded again of his bill and the functions that this clause sets out for him later on.

He decides who gets the money, who is certified, which schools have adequate facilities, who sits on independent school committees. He can also decide whether a school has any programme, or is proposing any programme, that would, in theory or practice, foster racial or ethnic superiority.

I know I'm getting into another section which we'll deal with later, but I'm just trying to point out again, Mr. Chairman, that the powers that have been given to this one inspector are simply amazing and I think cause great concern to the public, to the independent school people and certainly to anyone, as I said earlier, interested in what is happening in education in this province - massive powers to one person.

Again, we want to find out how the minister, if he's determined to pursue this centralized course, is going to select the person. What sort of staff are they going to have? Are we going to have to have practically a whole new building created to house this staff? After all, there are going to be over 15 5 schools, which will have to be inspected. He's going to have to check their facilities to see if they're adequate or not.

I think we have to have an explanation. He's asking this Legislature to pass a bill that is obviously going to involve the most major change we've ever seen in this province, and we don't have answers. I think we want to know now from the minister how he's going to select the inspector. What sort of staff? How much money is going to be involved in this? Also, finally, I would like to ask the minister about this whole matter of this superperson who's going to make all the decisions in the independent school area. What about the fact that one person alone - and this has to relate to the minister, of course, to some degree - is going to make all these educational decisions? Yet the public -J want to repeat, Mr.

[ Page 4473 ]

Chairman, the public - who will be footing the bill for the independent schools, has no opportunity for any input into these major decisions - certification, programmes, facilities. Everything is delegated to this one person. Where does the public come into this? I think we'd be very anxious to hear why the minister has set it up in such a manner. Once again, how is he going to select this person? But basically, does he really think, Mr. Chairman, that the public tax money should go to support such a structure?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister answered: "The inspector should be senior, experienced and reliable." That's the kind of answer I would have expected the minister to give this afternoon. But I thought that after the dinner hour maybe he would have taken a little time with himself to consider the light-hearted answers he was giving this afternoon. "Senior, experienced, and reliable." Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what level? Will it be a deputy level? Will it be an associate deputy level? What would the level of the inspector be? What will the level be in the department? Will he be part of the Ministry of Education? Will he be part of the Ministry of Finance? Will he be part of the Provincial Secretary's department? Incidentally, the fact that the minister is carrying this bill through the House doesn't necessarily mean that he will be the minister in charge. As we know, the minister is designated by order-in-council. So we don't know who the secret minister might be. It might be the Ministry of Highways, God forbid. But it's a possibility.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We better debate that. Under what section can we debate that?

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to stand up and give us his interpretation of what the inspector means really. We know perfectly well that he says that there are rough sections in the bill; he says that he's asking us to pass a bill through this Legislature that's going to have to be cleaned up next year. Incidentally, that's the most significant statement that he made all day, that we have to clean up the bill next year; he couldn't clean it up to begin with. But I just want to know something about this inspector.

I would also like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the minister is looking at the "may" in the section. That is, "there may be appointed, pursuant to the Public Service Act, an inspector" - and whether or not that may be taken seriously. Does that mean there's the possibility of someone else being appointed other than an inspector to be in charge of independent schools?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, may I urge that the members opposite read the section they're debating, because it quite clearly states that "there may be appointed, pursuant to the Public Service Act, an inspector of independent schools, " which means that the inspector will be appointed by the public service the same way that the superintendents of schools are appointed today.

Mr. Chairman, the members opposite me say that this is a horrendous and impossible task for anybody appointed under the Public Service Act. But may I remind them, just for one example, that the district superintendent in the city of Vancouver has complete charge of 90 schools. He's in charge of the hiring and ordering of supplies and all kinds of business activities that are not part of the inspector of public schools' duties at all. So the workload is hardly of the magnitude implied by the opposition, and the manner of appointing the inspector is very clearly pointed out in section 2. It's all pretty straightforward.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby North said it best, and that is that what we're doing here is centralizing. The minister talked about the superintendent in the city of Vancouver. Obviously, by a bit of a hint to this committee, he's indicated that that would be the level. I'm surprised at that, but that's fine. If that's the hint, I'd like the answer a little more definitively later on, But he says that the superintendent of Vancouver is in complete charge of 90 schools. You have a school board in Vancouver, and you don't have that kind of awesome power that's granted the inspector. The inspector sets grants, certifies teachers, treats every school, if he so wishes, differently, and checks all the programmes.

Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely separate situation. The school system in this province, as the minister should know by now - he's been minister for some months - is generally fairly systematic. But what we've got going here is not a systematic setup. It's not at all systematic. Each school is treated separately as a separate entity. This inspector is the person who's being granted the power to treat them all in a different way, if in fact that's his and the minister's will.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be very careful, in discussing this section and in asking that this section be passed, that we discuss not only what the section says in those two or three paragraphs, but also just what kind of power the minister plans to have in the hands of the inspector, and whether he feels that he should centralize in this fashion.

Now I know that the First Minister does. The First Minister wrote a letter some few years ago on November 1,1973. This is what the Premier said about the public school system, and I guess that's why this minister is trying to centralize- He says:

[ Page 4474 ]

"My personal view is that many of us are not happy with the results of the product of the public education system, and we do notice that the independent schools have turned out, in many cases, better-rounded students. I feel that for this and for many other reasons we cannot have a solely antiseptic educational system such as has been the direction of the past."

Mr. Chairman, do we do that by centralizing all authority into the hands of one person? What are you thinking of in terms of the future of the public school system in this province, with that kind of thinking over there? If the Premier had his way, it would seem to me that he would have all children going to the independent school system. I suspect that we have to show some real concern around this position. This position is the key position in the whole area of funding the private school system. I think the minister owes us some explanation of why it is he has decided to centralize in this way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Attack the minister.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): No, Mr. Member, I'm not going to attack this minister. I'm going to attack this section, though.

This section, as nearly as I can see, is the administrative guts of this Act. The minister, by this section, and the government, by this section, are proposing to set up an administrative apparatus that is a blank cheque.

We are not told what staff the inspector will have to do his duties. He has 150-some schools. I presume he will need a considerable staff. From whence will they come? Will they be recruited de novo, or will they come from the existing establishment of the Ministry of Education? If they do come from the existing apparatus of the Ministry of Education, we must expect that they will start out with a certain point of view towards independent schools.

It's natural that their expertise will be towards the public school system and their concept of how things ought to be done will be fashioned by what they have learned in administering the public school system over the years. So I ask the minister: Is it his intention that the inspector will use that regular apparatus? If so, will it be purely the central apparatus of the Ministry of Education with new field personnel, or will he rely as well on the district personnel and the district superintendent to perform the delegated functions of the inspector in each of the existing public school districts of British Columbia? In the alternate, if he proposes that the inspector would set up a completely new staff, would the minister advise the committee of that and say how many people he thinks will be required to do this work?

Those are questions of practical detail, Mr. Chairman, but I have some comments as to principle as well under this section. The inspector is given absolutely enormous powers. Let me list some of them. He has the power of the purse over independent schools. He may give them everything, he may give them nothing. He may even, under the authority of section 12, give them something in between. He can say: "Well, you haven't been behaving quite as I want so your grant is reduced."

The power of the purse, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is the definitive power when you are trying to administer something. If you have the power to say your money is going to be cut off, you have the power to call the tune. Thus under that one power the independent schools have to appreciate that they will be losing their independence unless there is some check and balance placed on this inspector.

He has the power of certification. We had much discussion this afternoon as to concern about that procedure. He has the power to appoint committees. These committees will not be independently appointed; they'll be appointed by the inspector. If the inspector wishes to appoint committees that will give him the kind of news that he would like to hear, he has the power to do that. He has the power of assessing different independent schools as to which class they fall into, whether they fall into group I or group 2, with very important financial consequences as between the two groups. He has that power, as with all of these powers, without right of any appeal except the appeal to the minister. His decision is final. As we know, in the history of the way these things go, appeals to the minister very seldom result in an overturning of the decision of the bureaucracy. Certainly as a matter of routine, the minister isn't going to genuinely review all of the decisions of the inspector; it's simply not possible. It's too big a job with the many other things the minister has to do -looking after ICBC alone. So we can't really expect that this right of appeal to the minister means too much.

The minister has the authority to decide whether or not the curriculum of any given independent school is acceptable to the provincial government, whether it's close enough to the core curriculum. He has power to assess whether or not any individual independent school is too far divergent in practice from the educational standards laid down by the Ministry of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt? Is it the intention of the House to debate all of sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 together, or shall we debate them separately?

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, just to explain what I'm proposing to do, I'm trying to debate the

[ Page 4475 ]

inspector and the powers that he has. This is the appointment section for the inspector. I don't think we can really discuss that office without saying what he's able to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is true, hon. member, but it's incumbent upon the Chair to uphold the standing orders, and standing orders say that we must debate these things one section at a time, unless by agreement of the House we could take sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 together, since they all deal with the inspector.

MR. COCKE: On your point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring your attention to this aspect of the section where it indicates that when appointed, he carries out the duties under the Act. So what the member for North Vancouver-Capilano was pointing out was those duties. So how can one refer vaguely to the duties unless one can be specific? Now maybe we can expand on the duties, but I believe that we should work section by section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is aware of the dilemma, and this is why, rather than interrupt every member and caution him against the breaking of the standing order, it may be advisable - and 1, of course, have to abide by the expression of the House - to debate all those sections together. What is the wish of the House?

MR. COCKE: If we did that, it would be the principle of the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I would draw your attention to section 2 (3) , which reads: "The inspector is responsible to the minister for the administration of this Act." I am, under that subsection, describing the duties of the inspector. I am, I would say, completely within the four comers of this section. I see no need at this moment to refer to other sections. I'm discussing this section and I propose to continue to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered. Then it will be the responsibility of the Chair to make sure that the debate presently being considered under section 2 doesn't repeat itself under following sections.

On section 2, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. Please excuse me for interrupting.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your guidance is always appreciated and always wise.

I was saying that the inspector has the power to assess whether or not individual independent schools are too divergent in practice, be they pedagogical practice, or financial practice, or whatever it may be - from generally accepted provincial norms to qualify for provincial funding. In other words, if a school is too independent then the inspector has to pull them back and say: "Well, you've gone a little bit further than you can."

In the debate on second reading, I must say that 1, for my part, warned the independent schools this is one of the prices they are going to have to pay for the acceptance of public funding. But the important thing here is that the inspector is the individual that has to enforce this. It will have to be an extraordinarily sensitive and flexible person. The initial incumbent in the job will be even more important than most because he or she will be setting the practices that not only will govern future inspectors, but I suspect will cover amendments to this Act in the near future.

The inspector will have the power to treat schools in a differential way, and he may do that purely on the basis of how the principal parts his hair, if he wishes. He has that kind of discretion. The only appeal is to the minister. As I said earlier, the human possibility of the minister genuinely exercising this power of appeal in very many cases is simply not there. He doesn't have the time, even if he had the inclination, to override this very senior official on whom he must necessarily rely for the entire administration of this Act, and the schooling of up to 25,000 children in this province.

The inspector has the power to pull the rug out from underneath an independent school once it has come to rely on public finance. Let me illustrate how that might occur. Let us take a particular independent school that today has been struggling but getting along on independent funds, and let us say they become a group 2 school after proper application. Based on some remarks made by one of the minister's deputies a month or so ago, they get something like, let's say, 70 per cent funding gradually over two or three years build up.

At that point, Mr. Chairman, the inspector is in complete control of that school. The school has lost the independent financial sources it used to have. They have either been allowed to atrophy through reliance on the public purse or the services given by the schools have been sufficiently escalated as a result of the public funding to the point where only 30 per cent of the financing for that school is genuinely independent any more at that stage. Now what are the powers of the inspector at that stage?

Under section 12, if he feels that the school has ceased to comply with the standard described in sections 5 or 6 or a regulation under this Act upon which the certification was granted, the inspector may order that instalments under section 9 (2) be reduced or discontinued.

Mr. Chairman, that is the power for the inspector to go to the principal or the managing body of any

[ Page 4476 ]

independent school in this province and say: "I do not like the way you are running things in some particular or another. I do not like the fact that you are allowing a bargaining association to form here that's going to raise your rates. I do not like the fact that you are teaching Canadian history in that particular way. I do not like the fact that you are running your furnace on natural gas instead of oil." The reason could be almost anything, but the inspector has the kind of power that allows him to say to that school administration: "Whether you agree with me or not is immaterial because if you do not do what I say, I have the power to reduce your grant." So it becomes a question of when the inspector says, "Jump" the school has to say, "How high?" That's really about their only option with the powers that are given the inspector under this particular section.

He is, in one, the power of the minister, the power of a school board and the power of a district superintendent. That is why the comparison of the inspector with, let us say, the superintendent of schools in the city of Vancouver is incorrect. The superintendent of schools, in the city of Vancouver has someone to answer to who is locally and democratically elected, namely the Vancouver school board. Just as in my constituency, the superintendent who is also an appointed person by district 44 has to answer to the school board of district 44. This superintendent does not have to answer to any democratically elected, locally controlled body that is put there by the supporters and clients of independent schools in order to maintain some control on behalf of the parents and those supporting independent schools over the activities of the school administration. No, there is not this kind of democratic control under this bill. It is nowhere provided for. I say, Mr. Chairman, that without that kind of control, this inspectoral system and this section is inadequate. Not only inadequate, it is unacceptable to me.

There must be some democratically elected control at the local level over this inspector and, indeed, over this minister because we have well established in British Columbia the concept that those being served by the school system at a local level must have a very direct and distinct voice in the administration of that system.

In the independent school system, it just so happens that everything isn't in one geographically tidy unit like school district 44, let's say. Your independent school district, in fact, takes in the whole province. Therefore, it's only proper to me that any board elected to manage the conduct of the inspector or in some way stand there as a democratic buffer should be either elected by considering the whole province an independent school district, or two or three school districts. But in any event, it will be much larger than the existing public school district. But with the exception of that geographical difference, the principle should be the same. Where we have local control in the public school system, we should have a very considerable degree of local control in the independent school system. By local control I mean user control, client control, parent control, supporter control.

There are differences, of course. In the public school system, the school boards levy taxes. In the independent school system, that will not happen in quite the same way. There will still be a payment made by the supporters of the independent school which will approximate the burden of local taxation currently collected by local school boards, so the analogy carries on quite well.

To me, without this kind of democratic control of the inspector.... I do not mean to say that the minister is not a democratically elected person. What I'm saying is there must be local, democratic control, a user democratic control, a parent democratic control over the inspector for the independent school system. Failing that, the inspector simply has too many powers in too uncontrolled a fashion for me to be able to swallow this section.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're treading old ground because we went over this during the second reading. The member, of course, if he's read the bill, knows that the powers which the superintendent has are powers delegated by the ministry, that the matters the superintendent will be concerned with are those of curriculum. The inspector will be the equivalent of the superintendent in the public school system, most of whom are provincial employees and are paid for by the provincial government. While they also serve the local school board, they basically report to the Ministry of Education. So it's not really out of line at all with the public school system.

Where we run into difficulties, as the member would realize if he thought it through, is that you simply cannot, where you have one student in 25 attending the independent school system, arrange for appropriately elected local boards when the district is spread as thinly as it is in the independent school system.

Of course, the independent school system in British Columbia is extremely small because we've gone 100 years without supporting it, and that will be redressed now. But because a school must be in operation for five years before it qualifies for any aid, it's anticipated that the independent school system will remain too small for the kind of system that the member envisages might be appropriate in a province like Quebec or Ontario which has a very large non-public school system. But that notion must be rejected, Mr. Member, because it's impractical.

[ Page 4477 ]

We've been over that in second reading.

MR. GIBSON'. I'll be very brief, but I do want to respond to the minister's response. He suggested that somehow or other the independent school district, if that's what you would like to call it, would be too small to have the same kind of local democratic control that we have in our other educational process in the public school system.

But the fact of the matter is that in my own school district, School District 44, we find a way to elect a board there. There are fewer students than there will be in the combined independent schools even if only, say, 80 per cent of the school find their way into the system that we are describing. It is certainly large enough to constitute a very respectable school district, even if that district doesn't happen to be geographically contiguous.

Now the minister suggests that it would be difficult to find a way to choose members of a democratically elected independent school board. It would be nothing of the sort. In every school district election in the province, which is a simple enough thing to arrange, a voter would come in and they would be eligible to receive one of two ballots. They would be eligible to receive an ordinary public school district ballot, in which case they would proceed in the usual way, or they would be eligible to receive an independent school district ballot, which would be the same for the whole province, and they would proceed to vote on that.

There are refinements one could enter into this. One could ensure that there was a representative for each of some different classes of schools and some members at large and so on. The minister is a person who has studied the electoral process over the years, I know, and I cannot believe that his wit and imagination would fail him in so simple a process as this.

It's a question which has been found capable of solution in other parts of the world and I simply cannot accept that it is not capable of solution here. The reason it is not being solved, Mr. Chairman, is that it is not the minister's choice to do so. I disagree with him on that but let us understand that is the reason. It is not a question of technical feasibility; it is a question of the policy of the government. I disagree with the policy of the government.

MR. COCKE: The minister said it all in a few words, and you know, it just scares the living daylights out of me. He said the superintendent will be responsible to the minister as the superintendents of the public school system are now. That's the most revealing statement that that minister has made to date.

There have been warnings out to the school boards in this province that they are becoming superfluous, that all power is vested in the minister. All the school boards have to do is construct buildings, et cetera. Here he has come out and said it. He's going to do the same thing with our public school system that he plans to do with the independent schools system. I think it's a shocking display in this House. Mr. Chairman, it's not acceptable in the public school system and it's not acceptable in the independent school system.

We have tried desperately to convince the minister that the only way you can deal with local problems is to have local input, to have people at the local level that have some opportunity and some power to bring about solutions to their own problems. The minister has decided to centralize and further centralize not only the private school system that he starts with afresh but he's going to do it and is doing it with the public school system.

Mr. Chairman, that's a shocking admission.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister has asked some specific questions about this section that he may have overlooked, or indeed may not have any idea at this time. For example, one of them was: approximately at what level would this inspector be within his ministry?

He did mention and compare the -position somewhat with the superintendent of education in the Vancouver school district. I don't know whether we were to take from that that the inspector referred to in section 2 would be at approximately the same level of pay, rank and that sort of thing. Can he tell us anything more about what is expected to be the level of this inspector?

There's talk here of staff. We are wondering just how this system works. I was rather disappointed to hear him reply to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, because up to that point I had been hoping that there would be some opportunity for these separate schools to have some relevance to what was happening within the boundaries of the school district in which they were located,

While section 2 does say there will be an inspector, it also mentions that the inspector is going to have staff. Up until I heard that remark from the minister, I wondered if he had in mind using people who are working in education in local school districts.

For example, he pointed out the inspector, at least in some part, is responsible for reporting to him. It's his contact with what's happening in a local district. I wondered if he had in mind that local inspectors might do some of the work that the inspector is charged with doing overall.

But in order that the educational programme offered by the separate schools, the programmes in , Which they are involved, the programmes in which the public school system is involved and the facilities

[ Page 4478 ]

that are offered there, it would seem to me that all of this could be better melded together. The standards of education, the programmes offered, the standards of teachers even could have some comparability if the local inspectors were going to be used as people working for this inspector but in this somewhat different capacity apart from their other duties.

It would appear from the minister's answer - and I would like him to clarify that - as though he intends to use an entirely different staff that would be involved in nothing other than administration of this legislation.

In answer to a question this afternoon with respect to operating expenses - I don't know how it quite got into section I but it did - the minister replied to the effect that the money for this new programme will be included in the estimates brought forward by the Minister of Finance's budget rather than the budget put forward by the Minister of Education.

I'm wondering whether the expenses of section 2, as well, would come under the Minister of Finance or would they be under. . . ?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I guess what I would really like to know then, Mr. Chairman.... I misunderstood that answer apparently - at least, my colleagues tell me I misunderstood it. I thought we were going to be dealing with an item in the budget and that it would be under the Minister of Finance, but apart from that, regardless, that there would be a clearly defined item in the budget - a clearly defined vote - that would tell us just exactly how much it is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to maintain this separate school system. What I'm wondering is whether -that will be so, whether it will be in his ministry, and whether such costs as the costs of the inspector and his staff will also be clearly separated and identified as being costs of this separate school system.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the inspector will, I'm sure, receive a very fair stipend relative to other senior civil servants under the public service of British Columbia, but I'm certain he won't be paid the same as the superintendent of schools in the city of Vancouver - even the Premier isn't paid that well. It will be in relation to other senior people who work for the provincial government. The actual permanent staff, separate from the present staff which supervises the public school system, will be very small. Initially there will be evaluation teams assisting the inspector. I'm certain that will involve local superintendents and others who are well able to make comparisons between the independent schools in an area and the public schools. However, the exact method by which the inspector will decide on how to evaluate each individual school, to some extent, must be left up to the inspector himself.

Now the Minister of Finance brings down the budget every year and he says how much goes to each of the ministries. It's not the province of any single minister of the government to predict how much the Minister of Finance will provide for his particular needs. Of course, the costs of the independent school system will be presented in such a way that the members of this House, and the public, will quite clearly be able to define the costs of the independent schools.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like some clarification there. I believe the minister did leave the door open to the possibility that local superintendents of education may be used to do some, if not all, in the case of some school districts, local, on-the-spot work referred to in sections 5 and 6. He's leaving the door open for that possibility to a partial or even a total degree in some cases. What was that the minister said?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I said that the manner in which the inspection would be carried out would be determined by the inspector himself. I said that the permanent staff of the inspector would be small, and that the inspector would undoubtedly be calling upon evaluation teams to assist him in making the initial inspection of the various schools, because it's a large job to get around to the 150 schools or so that may apply.

But I'm not going to give commitments to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) as to how that man, who is not yet appointed by the public service, would conduct his job. That is going to be in the hands of the man who's appointed. He will quite properly decide on the best manner in carrying out his duties under this Act, so that it won't be a ministry appointment, it will be a public service appointment. The duties that he has are spelled out in the Act; to whom he reports is spelled out in the Act. For me to try and determine for you before that man is appointed exactly how he's going to carry out his duties, I think would be presumptuous.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, either the minister is not being candid with this committee, or he doesn't know what he is doing. There's no other choice that you can come to. Either he doesn't know what he's doing or he's not being candid with the House. How could the Public Service Commission hire somebody by looking at this Act? How could they? How would they know what the terms of reference of work would be? There's no way in the world.

What are they going to do? They'll post the job.

[ Page 4479 ]

What will the job posting say? They'll post the Act in all the post offices, all the little stores, all the provincial buildings. They'll post the Act all over the province and say: "Would anybody who would like to be the inspector please apply."

MR. GIBSON: What about where it says: "Post no bills"?

MR. LEA: So then people who feel they might like to be the inspector, even though they don't know what the job is, can apply. Once they've applied, the people who work for the Public Service Commission can go out and interview people who've applied for a job about which they don't know what the job is, and the Public Service Commission doesn't know either.

MR. COCKE: And the minister can't tell them, either.

MR. LEA: So out of all that, you hire somebody to be the inspector of the Independent Schools Support Act - to do what? What's he going to do? The Act doesn't tell you, so obviously what they're going to do is hire somebody who has his or her own idea of what should happen in the independent school system.

Now there are a number of people who have to be satisfied with that choice. The independent school people themselves have to be happy that that person will be the kind of person who will administer this Act in a way that they will find compatible.

MR. GIBSON: There's nothing about that in the Act.

MR. LEA: Even the very people who will be affected the most aren't going to have any say in either the person or the terms of reference that the person is going to work with. It is becoming more obvious as we go through this Act, that the minister and the government do not have any idea of what it's' all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're not here to discuss the official conduct of the minister - just section 2 of this Act.

MR. LEA: That's what we're talking about - the inspector of section 2 of this Act, appointed by the government and the minister who's shepherding this bill through the Legislature.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's not what section 2 say s.

MR. LEA: Section 2 doesn't say anything in reality, and that's what we're talking about. First of all, we don't even know whether there's going to be an inspector. That's No. 1, because in section 2 it~ says: "There may be appointed. . . ." It doesn't say: "There shall be appointed." So the first question is: is there going to be an inspector? That's the first question that the people of British Columbia have to ask, because the Act doesn't say that "there will" or "there shall"; it says "there may."

Now the minister says he doesn't even know who's going to decide whether there will or whether there won't be, whether there may or whether there shall. He says that isn't what section 2 says. What does section 2 say? It says: "There may be appointed, pursuant to the Public Service Act. . . ." That's supposed to fool us. You know what that is, Mr. Chairman. That's an order-in-council. So there may be appointed by order-in-council, which is a political appointee of the government, an inspector of independent schools. Of course, we don't know what the duties of the inspector are because the minister doesn't know, or if he does know, he won't tell us.

It says "independent schools." Well, we know that the Act no longer leaves them independent. So when you take a look at section 2, it's an absolutely ludicrous thing. It says: "There may be appointed." We don't know whether there will be one appointed "pursuant to the Public Service Act, " which again doesn't really mean that. It means an order-in-council, as we all know. That is, if there's going to be an inspector. But the Act doesn't say there will or won't be. It says: "an inspector" -which they don't tell us what he or she is going to do; no terms of reference - "of independent schools, " but the Act takes away the independency of the schools.

Every little sentence in this Act is ludicrous. This is not an Act, it's a political document. If the independent school people accept this Act.... Every time the minister gets on his feel, he prefaces his remarks by saying: "The people in the independent school system have been waiting a hundred years."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must stick to the relevancy of section 2, and you're straying from it. Please return.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't think I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Would you tell me how I am, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair says you're straying from relevancy.

MR. LEA: But I'd like you to point out to me how I am.

[ Page 4480 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The principle of the bill was considered during second reading.

MR. LEA: We're talking about the principle of section 2, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you must stick to the items and discuss them as they appear.

MR. LEA: That's what I'm doing - section 2. We're talking about the inspector.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

MR. LEA: So here we either have, Mr. Chairman, a minister who knows who and what that inspector will do and won't tell us - and that's unforgivable - or we have a minister who doesn't know anything about what the inspector's going to do, and that's unpardonable. There are no other options.

So what do we get from this section? We get the fact that there may or may not be an inspector. If there is an inspector, the inspector will be a political appointment of the cabinet by order-in-council. "Independent schools" is a [illegible], because we know the Act takes away the independency of the schools and such other employees, but doesn't tell us who or what or how many as may be considered necessary to carry out the duties under this Act. The minister won't tell who's in charge of the Act, so we don't know who to ask how many may be considered necessary.

Mr. Chairman, section 2 of the Act is a complete farce. I'm going to tell you that any grade I student from the independent or public school system could take one look at this and tell you that the Act is a complete farce. It must have been written after midnight by a crazed professor! It must have been; there's no sense to the darn thing.

Then it says the minister "may." Of course, we don't know who the minister's going to be yet. We don't even know who the minister's going to be. We don't know what portfolio's going to have the Act. That minister, Mr. Chairman, can't answer it, because he's not going to be the minister responsible for the Act. Or if he is, the government's not telling us.

Why all the secrecy around the Act? All the secrecy around section 2 of the Act is because they don't have a clue what they're doing. The only thing that they're going to do with the section is to make sure it's compatible with almost every other Act that this government has brought in. That is, they're going to centralize power. They're going to centralize the decision-making process and take away from the region and the community any independence that they may have. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is going to override school boards. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is going to take away the independency of the Resource Board....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're speaking to section 2 of this Act. I must ask that you be relevant.

MR. LEA: I am. I'm trying to show you how section 2 is the same as every other section in every other Act that this government has brought in - that is, that it takes from decision-making at the local level and brings it to Victoria, either to the cabinet itself or to appointments of that cabinet by order-in-council. This section does it, and there's a section in almost every Act that this government has brought in doing exactly the same thing.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that those people with the independent schools should run frightened. They should be out on that lawn screaming and asking that this minister not bring this Act in because it will take away the very thing that they cherish -independence. That's what this Act does. But what does the government do? It holds out a carrot. It says: "Do you want a little money? Accept the inspector from section 2." That's what it says. They hold out a little money, but you have to take an inspector. You have to lose your independence and you're going to have to be governed - no, not governed, ruled - by an inspector of whom no one knows the duties or the job, or what the terms of reference for his work are going to be.

By section 2 alone, this Act should be hoisted for six months. Section 2 (3) says: "The inspector is responsible to the minister for the administration of this Act." Which cabinet minister, not by name, but by portfolio, is going to be responsible for Bill 33, and consequently the inspector. Who? What portfolio? Is it going to be the Minister of Human Resources responsible for the inspector? Maybe. Is it going to be the Minister of Forests, or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Who's it going to be?

Mr. Chairman, it's ridiculous that we're going to have an inspector under section 2 of this Act when no one even knows what ministry the inspector is going to work from. Absolutely ridiculous.

"Section 2 (4) . The minister or the inspector may designate a person to act as inspector during the inspector's absence and a person so designated has the power of the inspector."

What the heck does that mean? Does it mean when the inspector is on vacation that they're going to appoint somebody to take his place? Does it mean when he's on a sabbatical for three years that they're going to appoint someone to take his place? What does it mean? It means nothing.

Sections 2 (l) , (2) , (3) and (4) , when you look at them, mean nothing, absolutely nothing. It's political

[ Page 4481 ]

verbiage, that's all it is. No, I won't rephrase it.

Mr. Chairman, how can the government and that minister ask a Legislature to pass an Act or a section of an Act that is so vague? We don't know whether in fact section 2 is going to be used because it doesn't say it will be; it just says it may. It doesn't tell us how much money; it doesn't tell us what terms of reference the person appointed is going to have. It doesn't tell us what powers, really, except that they will be wide-ranging and at the sole discretion of the inspector.

What it says, actually, in section 2 is that the inspector is going to have more power than the government, more power than the independent school, more power than the Legislature. He's going to be, in fact, a czar.

Now the minister says: "Who's it going to be? It's going to be a person who is experienced, who's reliable, " and what was the other? But experienced in what? Reliable in what? Reliable to make the right political decisions on behalf of that government.

We know it's an order-in-council appointment. We know that it's a person who is not.... The minister tried to slip that one by us as he tries to slip other things. The minister tried to tell us that it would be the Public Service Commission who will be hiring the inspector. Not true. It will be an order-in-council appointment. That's what it will be, pursuant to the Public Service Act. That's what it says in section 2. It doesn't say it will be the Public Service Commission doing the hiring. It will be the cabinet appointing, pursuant to the Public Service Act. Section 2 of this Act is an absolute farce, as the rest of the Act is.

One of the backbenchers, Mr. Chairman, wants to speak on section 2 of the Act but doesn't have the jam to stand up. He doesn't have it. As a matter of fact, everyone of those backbenchers - what they going to do? Are they going to sit there and shut up like they were told? The poor member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) , , the poor little rich boy, he's bored with everything, Mr. Chairman. He's a bored member of the House. He doesn't take part in it because he's bored and feels he's above it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. Please return to section 2.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, in section 2 we have a minister who won't tell us anything about it. He either doesn't know anything about it or he's keeping secrets from this Legislature and from the people. How can a government ask any Legislature to pass a section of an Act that is cloaked in mystery? How? The only reason they can is because they mean it to be cloaked in mystery. They mean it to be vague so that they appoint the inspector by order-in-council. I'll bet you that the terms of reference and the job is all laid out in the order-in-council. That will be the first time that either this Legislature or the people of this province will know what the inspector is going to be able to do and what powers have been given to him by cabinet. That will be the first time.

Yet those backbenchers of government will vote for this. They'll vote for it; the Munchkins will vote for it because there is still one cabinet position open. Why, I even heard that there's a certain member in this House who said he won't even run again unless he gets in the cabinet first trip. No, that's not you. There's the kind of dedication we need in public office - millionaires who get bored and say if they don't get into cabinet, it isn't the kind of job they want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask you to return for the third time to section 2.

MR. LEA: I'm not going to mention the name.

The minister is playing with words in section 2 as he plays with words every time he gets up in the House. Where's the money going to come from to pay the inspector? The minister gets up and says: "Well, it will be in the budget of the Minister of Finance." Of course it will be in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . What we're asking is what vote it will be under under what ministry. Will it be a special vote? If so, in what ministry? Will it be under the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Education? Secrecy! Mystery! Downright insolence!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister on second reading and on other occasions has said that he hopes the financial provisions of this Act will be able to take effect for the school year starting this coming September - next month - even though, of course the money to be paid won't actually be paid out until the end of that school year. In order to effect that in any consequential number of schools around the province, I would represent to the minister that it would be important to get his evaluation machinery in place at once. I would ask the minister if it is his intention to proceed with the appointment of the inspector immediately that this legislation is passed, if indeed it is.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) went to great pains to remark, and to continue to remark, that the members of the back bench were ordered to be silent.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there couldn't be a statement.... He's either not in possession of the facts or he's being too absolutely false in what he is saying - one or the other. Because when he makes a statement like this, he must have something to go on. If he has something to go on, I'd like to know what it is, because it's absolutely, patently untrue. He's either misinformed or it's a

[ Page 4482 ]

falsehood, one or the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're correcting a statement, are you?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm correcting a statement, but I'm going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Return to section 2, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: If in fact he has the facts, let's hear them If he does not have the facts, let him admit the falsehood in this forum.

All he can say is that it's purely political. That's the whole argument he presented tonight - it is wholly political. If this section 2 said "there shall be appointed an inspector, " the same noise and wind would have been delivered at that point. Why shall there be an inspector? Why can't you use the present inspectors you're got? There's no need to have the inspector. You'd have heard all this. If we had not had this clause at all.... The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano smiles and chatters as if he was the great wise man that came from the east, and he knows all and sees all, the man with felicity in speech and ease in manner. He smiles as if he knows all. I want to tell him there's a great deal he doesn't know. We tolerate him only because we like him - no other reason.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you. You're a gentleman.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But here is simple section 2 in this Act. We're talking now about wind and fury that meaneth nothing. If we would be honest with this Legislature and fair with this House, we would say our piece and be through with this section. But they've made up their mind. They walked out on second reading and now they want to make up for a great debacle. Let me tell the hon. member. They're only increasing the debacle and increasing the shame on their heads, because had they wishes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we'll return to section 2 of the Act.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I'm on section 2. There shall be an inspector, there may be an inspector or there should not be an inspector - either way we'd have got the same noise and fury that meaneth nothing. What are you going to say? Are you going to say we shall have Independent Schools Support Act and the rest blank? What do you want? Don't you want us to tell you what's going on? Do you not want to know the course the government wishes to take? It's all here. I say to the hon. members that if they want to criticize this section, criticize it honestly. Criticize it fairly, criticize it from facts, but not from wind and fury.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, we always enjoy the comments from the member for Dewdney. He's put his finger on the issue on section 2, because he said: "Doesn't the House want to know the course this government has embarked upon?" That's exactly what section 2 is all about.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, why don't you sit down and let it go then?

MR. WALLACE: The member interjects some of the Dewdney wind into the debate by saying: "Why don't you sit down and let it go?" I hope it's not wind he's referring to.

The reason that we have to argue this section is that it's painfully clear that this government has a very serious intent in relation to independent schools. It's one of the reasons I had some grave reservations in supporting the bill on second reading, even though I believe in diversity and choice in education as in everything else.

The dangerous trend is that in one sense the government appears to be supporting independent schools but, on the other hand, the essence of section 2 completely takes away that independence. It's the most ironic part of the whole bill because of the fact that in principle the bill is supposed to demonstrate the government's support for independent schools by providing a measure of public funding. But in the way it then proceeds to administer this Act, the one person who has the overriding authority in this section is the inspector.

Subsection (3): "The inspector is responsible to the minister for the administration of the Act." I can't think of any bill in this whole session that we've debated yet where a few words sums up so much intent and in practice demonstrates so much power in the hands of two particular individuals: the inspector, an order-in-council appointment by the minister, and that same inspector being responsible to the minister for the administration of this whole Act.

So when the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , whose humour we always appreciate, says: "does the House not want to know the course that this government is on?" my answer is delightfully simple, Mr. Chairman: indeed we do. And it's the course spelled out in section 2 which has me very concerned not only at the intent of this government but at the fact that I bet you the independent schools themselves are far from happy at this kind of extremely localized power in the hands of one person who in turn is responsible to the minister.

I won't break the rules of the House, Mr. Chairman, by going into details because these details involve the next three or four or five sections of this

[ Page 4483 ]

bill. But this inspector has an incredible range of responsibility - for teachers' certification committees, for external evaluation committees, classification of the schools. He's got to judge on the curriculum, he's got people testing programmes to decide about, and on and on and on.

I feel the minister, in answer to some of my earlier questions this afternoon, made it plain that he is not really fully confident that he can anticipate all the ramifications of this bill or all the ramifications of the principle of the bill. He pointed out this afternoon -and I at least commend him for his frankness - that there are many responses to the bill that he cannot foresee. Until he knows more about the number of schools that will apply for funding and many of the conditions that will apply to that application, he really doesn't know how specific he can be in this bill.

There's one area that he's mighty specific on and that is in giving to one person, the inspector, a whole range of responsibilities and a spectrum of authority which I don't think applies to any one individual under the Public Schools Act, perhaps excepting the Deputy Minister of Education, and I'm not even sure that that person has the range of authority that the inspector will have in this bill.

So we have to ask ourselves the question, Mr. Chairman: why is it that under the Public Schools Act there is some reasonable dissemination of authority among a group of persons, not the least of whom are the elected trustees of every school district in British Columbia, yet in this bill, which is supposed to emphasize the importance of an independent school system, we have in fact one person who can do almost anything in controlling the course and future of the independent school system by his recommendations to the minister of just a whole range of issues, many of which are extremely important as the ones that I have quickly listed -teacher certification, external evaluation, classification?

The inspector is going to be the person who's going to have to make a decision on whether a school's practising religious intolerance. That's one of the toughest parts of this bill no matter how it's decided by an inspector or by 10 people on a committee. It would be a very difficult part of this bill, as I pointed out in the debate on second reading.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this has to be the most distressing section of the bill, and the most disappointing. I personally believe in the importance of diversity in our society. I believe that when you have only one system, whether it's one system of education, transportation, marketing or selling peas, or whatever it might be, you have no choice. In the absence of choice, human beings tend to lose their inquiring spirit and they lose the capacity to make comparisons. The system stagnates, and it doesn't really matter what system we are talking about. So in principle I am very much convinced of the value to society of choice and diversity. It's that overriding conviction that enabled me to vote for this bill in second reading.

I'm equally convinced that it is dangerous in any democratic society to centralize too much power in the hands of one person. Again, I don't care whether you're educating the population or selling peas. It's just too much of a danger to centralize authority in the hands of one person.

Furthermore, in this particular issue, I know, and it's on record, that representatives of the independent schools had asked the minister for some kind of elected body - some body of persons elected from representatives of the independent school system -to act as some vehicle between, let us say, the inspector and the minister, or between the superintendent and the minister. It seems to work very well, Mr. Chairman, in the Public Schools Act to have elected citizens serving, advising and administering, or at least giving instructions to the administration - in other words, determining policy as to how the public school system should be run. Why should it be so different in the case of independent schools? What's so lacking in' the counterparts of public school trustees within the independent school system that they cannot be given some responsibility for running that system?

I know from the years I've been in this House, and especially in the early years when I sat close to the present Minister of Education when he was a Liberal, that he delivered a number of speeches in the spirit that it is not a good idea to localize a great deal of authority in the hands of one person and, particularly on matters such as education, it makes a great deal of sense to give incentives to local individuals at the local level to seek elected office and to use their talents by serving on school boards under the Public Schools Act. If it's good enough for the public school system, I fail to see why the pendulum should swing to the completely opposite end of the spectrum so that we finish up with one individual who has this enormous range of power, responsibility and authority.

It is just so obviously diametrically opposed to all that exists in the Public Schools Act and all that that minister said in answer to many of my questions when we debated the Education estimates. There were various questions I asked him on various areas we got into and, time and time again, his answer was based on local autonomy - the importance of allowing school boards to make decisions for themselves.

I asked him about the dangers of counselling -and I've no wish to get into that subject tonight -but he said a lot of the counselling in our public schools is "garbage." That was the word he used. He

[ Page 4484 ]

didn't approve of it and didn't like it, but the reason he couldn't do anything about it was that the school boards have local autonomy to teach that kind of garbage. Here we have the completely opposite end of the spectrum. We have the government acknowledging in principle that public money will be made available for the financing of independent schools but there's a big difference. In independent schools there won't be any local autonomy at all. Mr. Inspector, he will be the one. He will be the czar - the Napoleon of the independent school system. I am just not prepared to accept that. I don't think that is the spirit within which representatives of the independent school system met and had discussions and dialogue with the minister and his staff.

It's clearly on record that those persons in our society - parents and others - who believe in the independent school system also believe in the more democratic approach to the operation of education, whether it be within the public school system or the independent school system. They wanted, and made all kinds of offers of co-operation in regard to a proposed elected body of some kind. Even allowing for the trepidation which the minister confessed to this afternoon about this whole bill, and the unforeseen ramifications of this bill, this is just an incredible swing of the pendulum from that very basic idea that's incorporated in the Public Schools Act - namely, that local people shall be elected to set policy and to have autonomy within the system at the local level.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that the pattern of the public school system could not be implemented exactly or in similar fashion because of the scattered nature of the smaller number of independent schools over a wide geographic area. I'll buy that. But to let the pendulum swing all the way completely so that there is not a vestige of any elected person or body intervening between the inspector and the minister as far as this proposed independent school system is concerned, I just can't accept that. It's just not reasonable, unless in section 2 it is the clear intent of the government to emasculate the independent schools by taking away their independence.

While I personally have no children in independent schools and have no intention of sending them there, if I were a parent of a child in an independent school, I would worry. In fact I would more than worry; I would cringe when I read section 2 and I would cringe a little more when I read 3 ' 4, 5 and 6. It's quite obvious at first blush that this bill appears to answer many of the reasonable and legitimate requests which have emanated from the independent schools over the last decade. But when you look beyond that first superficial appearance of the bill, section 2 and the subsequent sections tell it all. If I were any kind of representative of an independent school, I would have the utmost apprehension about the difference between the stated intent of the government and the obvious course, to quote the member for Dewdney, that the government is on in regard to this bill. I think section 2 says it all.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's too late for the government to change tack a little bit. While I haven't prepared a specific amendment because I understand the Liberal leader prepared an amendment which would likely have been ruled out of order, I wonder if even at this relatively late stage the minister would tell us whether the government would reconsider this particular section of the bill even to the extent, let us say, of amending subsection (3) to say the inspector will report to a board of directors or board of officers who shall be elected by representatives of the independent schools - even one phrase of this nature. Perhaps we could even put in more detail as to the board of trustees or officers, whatever you want to call them. I'm not the least bit fussy about the word used to describe these people.

I think to set up a bill with such far-reaching ramifications and implications and to put all the authority in the hands of one person who in turn reports to the minister is just an incredible amount of authority and an incredible contrast to the fundamental democratic ideals that are incorporated into the Public Schools Act.

Now, if I've been unfair in suggesting that this was not an accident and that the government is very well aware of what it's doing in section 2 - namely taking away from the schools the very independence that they cherish - then I'll be willing to modify that opinion if the minister gets up and tells us in reasonable terms and with some kind of justification why we've got section 2 in the form that it is. But until I get some kind of explanation or the commitment by the minister to make some kind of amendment to section 2, even though I support the bill in principle, there's no way whatever that I can support this section.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: An interjection from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says that if you can't support this section, you can't support the bill. I don't agree with that at all. I've tried to make it very plain that I support the principle of fairer assistance by government to independent schools. That is the principle. The manner in which this government is proposing to do that leaves me with some grave reservations, one of which is incorporated in section 2. But just because you don't like a section of the bill which implements the principle doesn't, in the first place, change my support of that principle. I do feel that this section has either been written with

[ Page 4485 ]

either full understanding of its implications or it is a position which the minister has taken and, even in the light of debate in this House, is refusing to modify or back away from.

Again, I would express the hope that the minister will still offer some kind of amendment which would involve elected representatives ~of the independent schools in the policy making and the decision making within this new system or within the independent school system as it will be administered in this bill.

I don't really think that's asking very much. I think that is merely asking this minister and this government to demonstrate their solid belief in a democratic system and their willingness to realize that if this system is to work anyway, the more participation they have at a policy-making and decision-making level by those most interested in seeing it work, namely the independent schools representatives themselves . . . then he's missed the by a mile.

It's a pity, Mr. Chairman, that this late in the summer we have to still hammer away at something as fundamental as participation by people in any system. That participation is likely to spell success for the system, whereas excluding them from decision making and policy making is almost as certain to spell the doom of the system which the minister and his government feel persuaded to support.

So I say, as much in disappointment as in anger, the fact that all through history it has been shown that the more chance you give individuals and interested parties to express their opinion and be involved in deliberation, the more likely you are to reach the right decision. After all, that's very much the essence of our democratic system, where everyone is given an opportunity to express a point of view and to help formulate policy, and the wishes of the majority prevail. In this sad section, the majority, if I can use that word, Mr. Chairman, consists of one person and the wishes of the inspector will prevail. The whole sad use of even the word "inspector" reminds me of some of the novels that one reads about totalitarian states, where individuals are given an excess of power and at the same time given titles. Whether it's inspector, inspector-general or czar or whatever, this minister knows from the lessons of history that when you have a czar, all you ever have is turbulence and disagreement and sometimes even violence.

So I would say, regardless of the partisan political flavour of this debate, which is unavoidable, that if the minister looks at the solid proven facts of any issue where one person is given this kind of authority - in as important a system as education, above all others - one can only expect that there will be dissension and disagreement and maybe even worse.

So I would say that section 2 is not the way to go. I think it's possible to develop the principle of this bill, namely to have the government support independent schools. But to try and implement it in this fashion is really almost a contradiction of the whole principle.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we canvassed this point exhaustively during second reading. We've canvassed it on at least four occasions at length already today and I'll respond just once more to the proposals.

The bill which is before us is the result of just under a year's intensive work by a task force which the ministry assigned to this particular project. The manner in which independence to the independent schools could be achieved while at the same time producing the accountability in academic matters that would be required for public funds to be expended - that balance had to be achieved. The independent school system is very small in British Columbia which is the consequence of 100 years of denial of support. Independent schools are very diverse in their backgrounds. They spring from many different religions as sponsors of schools, from those that are independent of religion or the public school system.

All of the independent schools - and we anticipate there might be 150 or so which will apply for assistance under this Act - are provincial institutions in the sense that they don't represent any particular geographic district. They become responsible to the groups that brought them into being, that supplied the capital which permitted them to emerge in the first place and which provide, through the benefactors and the parents of the students who attend, the operating costs.

No system was suggested to the task force, and no system of any practical merit at all has been suggested in this debate, by which elected people could serve the diverse interests of these many schools. It would be completely unrealistic, for example, to attempt to appoint a body from religious groups because many of these schools represent no religion, or for those who do represent a religion, there are many different religions represented. We can't do it by election at large because the school population is so small -about 4 per cent of the total population - that it would be unrealistic to expect the electors of British Columbia at large to vote for such people.

Do we propose to have the equivalent of a provincial election simply for school trustees at large? The idea, MR. Speaker, is so impractical that I don't think any government properly could consider it. It's because of this inability of the task force which studied this situation for a full year - and many ideas were considered and rejected as impractical - that the ministry has....

Interjections.

[ Page 4486 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, of course, every independent school has its own governance, and will retain its own governance. The inspector - this man with such awesome powers which have been so loosely described here by the members of the opposition.... This is something, Mr. Chairman, which in practice is totally absurd in the scope and capacity which is suggested for the inspector of independent schools. Obviously we're going to come in for further discussion as we go through the individual sections which limit the scope of his interest in the way independent schools are to be operated.

What is proposed here is simply the minimum which is required to ensure that accountability of these independent schools exists - something, Mr. Chairman, which I'm sure if it were not properly included in this Act, would give those who wish no support for independent schools at all a legitimate reason for opposing this bill. Much of the opposition that we have to date has no real merit in the arguments that are put forward, but were we to have no proper system of accountability on the academic side, then, of course, these criticisms would have merit.

Mr. Chairman, I can only say, for the final time, that this matter was extensively studied by our task force. Many different proposals were made and rejected as being impractical, and however desirable the proposals of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) .... I'm sure were they put forward in another province where there was a different distribution of the students going to independent schools, a scheme along the lines that he suggested might well be practical to consider. For example, in Quebec and in Ontario they have a Catholic school system, but of course there are many more students who are involved in that exercise than here in British Columbia. We don't have that large a Catholic school population - nor Seventh Day Adventists, or what have you. But the schools themselves can apply for different levels of support according to their wishes. Nobody is taking their independence away because nobody is forcing them to apply for money.

I think that the independent schools can't be worse off than they are today. We're convinced - and our discussions with the independent schools themselves, with the parents and the students going to the independent schools, and with the general public suggest - that the independent schools will be very, very much better off as a result of this bill, finally after 100 years.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the minister might have answered my query about whether or not he intends to move immediately to appoint the inspector.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's been a great disappointment to me as minister, and I think to the government generally, that we've made as little progress as we have with legislation during this session. It's true we are considerably behind where we had hoped to be by this time in preparing the groundwork for inspecting the schools and putting the government in a position where it could responsibly give financial support. I think if the bill is put together expeditiously, we will still be in a position to keep our originally intended commitment to be able to fund the schools for this school year. Of course, if the bill doesn't pass and if we are unable to get proper administrative structure in place, then it will not be possible to do so, but I remain optimistic.

MR. GIBSON: When will you hire the inspector, though?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, I can only say it had been our hope to move as quickly as we possibly could, because time is of the essence. The government quite properly wished to have budgetary estimates passed in this House. We had four months interim supply and, as I recall, the estimates were passed even after the time when interim supply ran out, so that of course you can't do everything. It's been the policy of the government to be as generous in debate as possible but it does have its consequences in'bills of this kind. But we would move as rapidly as we possibly could, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Just one very quick followup. Well then, if the government intends to move quickly to hire the inspector, what I would like to know - and it's a very simple, straightforward question and. I haven't been able to find the answer to it - where in this bill or in the minister's estimates for this year, or in any estimates, is there legislative authority for the payment of the inspector?

HON. MR. McGEER: It would come under the general administration of the Ministry of Education.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really do have to follow that up because, of course, at the time the estimates were introduced, there was no such position as the inspector. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me how it could possibly be in those estimates. Perhaps I will leave the committee for a few moments, go back and get my estimate book, and have a look at the general administration section and seek the minister's guidance as to exactly which line will fund this position.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think we all want

[ Page 4487 ]

to follow up that last answer on the part of the minister. He did reply to many of us. He replied, for example, to myself when I asked whether or not the money for this programme, including the hiring of the inspector, would be clearly identified in estimates as a separate item. I was assured by the Minister of Education that this would indeed be clearly identified in estimates as a separate item and we'd know exactly how much we were putting int~ this programme. Now to say at this point that it's buried in some other figure I think is not really consistent with what he said earlier.

Mr. Chairman, while you were absent, the minister, talking about section 2, strayed very far away from section 2. For my part, during the time I was debating section I and section 2, 1 tried to stay very closely to them. But I have to comment on a couple of things he said.

For example, he suggested that the delay in this legislation was caused by the opposition. The implication was there. And can I just say, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, that it was not the opposition that arranged for a nine-week Easter recess. Now certainly the Minister of Education might have had something to do about that. He might have wanted the delay, but it was not the opposition that ordained that the Legislature would be away for nine weeks. That's simply in response to his accusation that it's our fault that this is being held up.

In addition to that, he made some general remarks to say that the Catholic schools and the independent schools - he switched from one to the other - would be better off, that there had to be accountability. Now all of this is going well away from section 2, but he made these very general remarks about how good this legislation was going to be. Yet, Mr. Chairman, surely the education of the students must be of prime importance. Not once did he mention the importance of that. What is this going to do for education in the province of British Columbia? Now I'll leave that. That should have been part of second reading; it should not have been part of the minister's comments with respect to section 2. But if he does it again, then perhaps I'll have an opportunity again as well.

However, Mr. Chairman, there was another point that is very appropriate to section 2 that I want to follow up on. The minister and I were kind of working our way along to agreement, as we did in section 1. We agreed right up to the point where he said I was wrong, without basing it on anything. But wherever we were dealing with material in the legislation, we agreed on our interpretation of it. The first time the minister did this, he came all the way along, and the second time he stopped just a little short.

In section 2, 1 recognize that the inspector is a person who is going to be appointed to do a job. I had hoped that the minister would comment on this reference to the Public Service Act because, up until that time, I thought that the inspector would be someone selected by the Public Service Commission as part of a competition process. Now it has been drawn to my attention by at least two members who have spoken that that's only one way that someone may be appointed in line with the Public Service Act, and the other is by order-in-council.

Now I had hoped that the minister would have commented on that and made it clear to the House that he did not intend the inspector and the inspector's staff.... Section 2 (l) does refer to the inspector and, I believe, to the staff as well. I think the minister's interpretation is important. I'll accept what he had to say about the way someone is going to be named to do a job. He's not going to tell that person how to do that job. But I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is at least going to sit down with that person and shake hands with him, or shake hands and then sit down - one or the other. I think there will be some discussion between them as to how this legislation is going to work. I think there will be some discussion with him as to how the Minister of Education feels certain sections should be interpreted, without him drawing a hard and fast line that the inspector is going to follow.

And I would certainly expect that there will be considerable discussion between the minister and the inspector, and that the minister will have something to suggest to the inspector as to how this section 2 will be interpreted. As we were talking about the interpretation, he did say that it's not that big a job -something perhaps double the size of the Vancouver school district.

So it's not an awe-inspiring position. There wouldn't be that many staff members involved, but he did say likely - he couldn't say definitely, and that's fine, but he did say it was likely - there would be inspection teams. The first time he said that, he suggested that the inspection teams might even call upon some local people. I think it would be good, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to go through with this thing at all.

Certainly if we're thinking about the education of the children as being of more importance and accountability than having the Catholic schools better off or the separate schools or the independent schools better off - if we're thinking about the children, who are the main part of the educational system - then it's important that there be some local involvement in this.

When he first said this, he said that the inspection teams might call upon, as I heard it, the local inspector for some advice and some participation in the work that the inspection team is doing. The second time he said it he stopped short of saying they might call upon the local superintendent; the first

[ Page 4488 ]

time I believe he did. I would just like that clarified. Not that it says it in here, but is it the minister's understanding that it would not be against the principles of this legislation - would not be against the details of section 2 - for the inspector described in section 2 to actually engage the services of local superintendents of education in the work that the inspector is responsible for, with particular reference to sections 5 and 6 of this legislation?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I said it was conceivable but I didn't give any commitments on behalf of the person who will eventually assume this responsibility. I don't intend to give firm commitments on that person's behalf as to how the job should be done. Obviously there will be policy laid down by the government, as there must be, with respect to all matters in supervision of the civil service. But under this Act it will be no more or no more less than would be expected under any piece of legislation. That's the nature of government. The member, as a former minister, well knows the relationship that exists between those who set the policy and those who carry it out.

So in that sense it will be a completely normal relationship, as one would obviously anticipate from this or any other Act. But exactly who will make up evaluation teams in any given area is going to be something that won't be a matter of broad policy on the part of the government, and would not be apart of firm direction that would be given by the minister. Therefore, if I was going to make any commitment of that kind now to the member in the excitement of the day, that would, to my way of thinking, be improper supervision of the individual under this particular Act. So for that reason, I'm not going to give any more definite opinions than I've already expressed.

Really, what I'm expressing is an opinion as to what I might do if I was charged with the responsibility. What we will give the inspector, Mr. Chairman, is the kind of policy direction that is normal and proper for an elected government.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate everything the minister has said. But just carry it one step further. If the local superintendent of education is going to be involved - and I agree that he might never be; in some cases he might be, in other cases, he might not be - at least the minister is saying at this point that he as the minister would have no objection to the local superintendent being partially relieved of his duties in the event that the inspector required that person to assist him in carrying out his work under this legislation. So the minister, in accepting the possibility that might happen, is also saying that he would not stand in the way of it happening insofar as he is connected with the local superintendents of education.

The other thing that he didn't comment on is the appointment under the....

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think that's a proper conclusion.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that it is conceivable that at least in some situations the inspector, as defined in section 2, might call on the services of the local superintendents of education. The minister agreed, as I understood it. I thought he agreed with me. Well, if he is now saying that it's not proper to conclude from that that he would not stand in the way of that superintendent so co-operating, and that he is not what he said.... I think we're getting a lot of double negatives in here, Mr. Chairman, but it would seem to me that what he is saying, in effect, is that while the inspector might very well call on the services of a local superintendent, he is giving no assurance that he would agree to that local superintendent co-operating in that matter. Now if that is what he said, I'd like him to stand up clearly and tell me if he did indeed say that.

The second thing is that he made no comment about the appointment under the Public Service Act, which, of course, leads us to believe that the inspector and all of his staff, in the absence of anything from the minister, will all be appointed by order-in-council, since he is not telling us anything about that question. Several members have asked that question.

MR. GIBSON: Through the kind loan of the estimate book of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , for which I thank him, I'm now looking at the estimates of the Ministry of Education wondering where the moneys will be found to pay the inspector - apparently, as the minister suggested, under vote 159, the administration and support services, if it is anywhere. It is not the minister's office; of course, it's not in the basic K12 programme; it's not in post-secondary education; it's not in student-aid programmes; it's not in teachers' pension funds; it's not, I presume, in metric conversion; it's not in advances re rural school taxes or building occupancy charges; and it's certainly not in computer and consulting charges, since the inspector will be hired under the Public Service Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt? I've just viewed section 2 again, and I don't see any provision for payment. Therefore I'm wondering if this is relevant to the section.

MR. GIBSON: That's exactly the problem, Mr. Chairman. You see, we are told under section 2 that

[ Page 4489 ]

an inspector is to be appointed. We are told by the minister in answer to a question I asked that an inspector is to be appointed as soon as possible after this legislation is passed - and since we are in .committee stage I assume that the government intends for that to be soon - yet the money doesn't appear to be available to pay him.

Now the minister said it must be in administration and support services of his department. He said that in answer to the question. I'm looking in administrative and support services, and there are 109 people listed there. There's one deputy minister. That job, as far as I know, is taken. There are three associate deputy ministers. Is it one of those associate deputy positions, or are they all taken?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member again that payment is not relevant to this section?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not for the Chair to decide. The fact of the matter is that section 2 does not in any of its provisions have any reference to payment. Therefore the member must find another section to debate this on.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Chairman, section 2 (3) ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Perhaps I can clear it up for the member and save a lot of time. The member is busy scanning this thing and doing a lot of arithmetic. Probably , he will notice $2,475, 090 for research and development. He will see three personnel listed there. If he were to divide the two he would come to the conclusion that those people were paid over $800,000 each, which, of course, is preposterous. I think the member must realize that in administration and support services there is adequate budgeting for this item. It will be so recorded.

I might add, Mr. Chairman that one cannot put a line item in the estimates for a position that has not been authorized through the Legislature. If the member thought that we could specify individual staff members in the estimate as individuals for positions that did not exist for legislation, then he hasn't been in the House long enough to understand the requirements of budgeting.

But he must also understand the manner by which payments are made by the comptroller-general. It requires, of course, an authorized vote to do so, and this is covered. Now I did give the members an indication that, obviously, as the positions develop and are authorized by the House, these will be properly identified as such in future reference. It's a question of the legislation being in before the lines in estimates.

M R. CHAIRMAN: We can appreciate the clarification, but this debate is not in order under this particular vote.

On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: I think that can be clarified, and I can understand your consternation. But, Mr. Chairman, one cannot appoint - that is, in our society, as altruistic as it is - without payment of the appointee. It says very clearly in the first line: "There may be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act an inspector of independent schools." If you appoint, you pay, and what the member is talking about is the payment of the appointee. Now I really think that we are nitpicking all to goodness if we don't permit discussion of where the payment comes from. The minister is stuck on the horns of his own dilemma. Frankly, I don't think that he should get away without answering the questions as to how the payments are to be made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order - is well taken. However, if the Chairman followed the logic of the member for New Westminster, we would be debating estimates under any and every section of any bill that came before the House.

MR. COCKE: No, no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The fact is that most bills, as the member for New Westminster knows, have a section that provides for the revenue and payment. It's not usually section 2 of the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated your observation that most bills have a funding section, and that is what is distinctive about this bill. It does not have a funding section. Therefore the appointing of an inspection that we are being asked to do or to authorize, and that the minister says that he intends to proceed with immediately when this section and when this bill is passed, cannot be done. The inspector will not be able to carry out his duties under section 2 (3) , to be responsible to the minister for the administration of this Act. This very important Act that we are now laboriously working through clause by clause will fail for lack of funds.

The minister very generously gave me a lesson in public finance, and I thank him from the bottom of my heart for the benefit of his many years of wisdom and experience in this House.

In my own junior time, I have, however, learned enough to know that public service positions are

[ Page 4490 ]

listed on the line-by-line estimates in the establishment column. The minister may rely on the research and development vote with great imagination but public service positions and the inspectors to be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act are listed. I asked him to identify precisely and clearly which one of these 109 listed positions is the inspector.

If not, I say that any payment that he seeks to make under this vote of the inspector will be illegal. I will certainly challenge it in public accounts. Failing that, I ask him to find the funding in this bill or else bring in a supplementary estimate and admit that it was a little bit of oversight on the part of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind the members again that debate on payment is irrelevant to section 2. 1 trust the House would abide by that ruling.

HON. MR. McGEER: You've made your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I've answered the question and the member is wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: He has no answer. Which of those 109 positions?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we respect your handling of the chair and the rulings which you make. But if I may point out to you on this matter, the minister had considerable leeway to explain to us, under this section, how the inspector would be paid. He was not called to order at that particular time that he should not have been discussing or explaining it to the House. All we are asking is an opportunity to reply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just because one member is discussing a certain topic under a certain section of the bill does not "Make it relevant, and the Chair is bound by the standing orders, not by the practice of some members in this House.

MRS. DAILLY: You were saying, Mr. Chairman, that even though I happen to know the minister has misled this House that I cannot bring it up at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the imputation that the minister misled the House.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot because I can read from Hansard, which proves he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whether or not the member can substantiate what she said, it is a remark that is unparliamentary, and the Chair is duty bound to ask her to withdraw.

MRS. DAILLY: I will withdraw. But when you will allow me to speak on this particular matter of payment, I will then point out the verification of my statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the manner in which the minister has tried to answer the very valid questions of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano as to when and how and in what manner the inspector will be appointed. I have to entirely support the concept of the member for Burnaby North that the answer the minister is giving tonight are completely at variance with answers he's already given in this House. On July 20,1977, page 3895 of Hansard, the minister said: First of all, on the independent school, there's no money in the budget for this." That's right here in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish the member would abide by the ruling that matters of payment are irrelevant to section 2. Would the member please proceed?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, may I say this with the greatest of respect: you pointed out in your answer to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that normally a bill of this type incorporates in the bill some details on funding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order?

MR. COCKE: My point of order is that when the words "pursuant to the Public Service Act" are included in this section, that includes funding. That's why that was put there. That's why these few words were put there. In this Act there is no funding section, and so in order to get around the funding section they put "pursuant to Public Service Act."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it's absolutely necessary that we understand what this means. It means funding, or appointment by the Public Service Commission, which includes funding. And, Mr. Chairman, the fact that it doesn't say "pay" doesn't mean that pay is not included in this section, the only section in this Act where this matter can be discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken, but I'm duty bound by the rules of the House, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps I could ask the minister to clarify what arrangements have been made under

[ Page 4491 ]

the title of research and development to meet the language of subsection 1, namely that the person will be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act. Perhaps I could be even more direct and ask the minister if he could tell us what rank, in terms of the Public Service Act as defined in subsection I of this section, does he envisage giving to the inspector, or has that been decided?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the minister a question: if, on July 20,1977, he answered a question which I posed to him, in which I had asked him if there was any money in this year's Educational estimates for independent schools....

MR. CHAIRMAN'Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: And he said, "no."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, I trust that the members understand that matters of revenue or matters of payment are not relevant to this section. This is the third warning. I hate to use that word in the House; I wish that the members would abide by their own standing orders.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you are attempting to do, but I hope that you can understand that we in the opposition here are placed in a dilemma, because we are trying to find an answer to how this man or this woman - this inspector - is going to be paid. Now if we can't ask that question and find out under this section, could you give us your guidance as to where we could find it? We are quite willing to abide by that, if you will point out to us where.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not the responsibility of the Chair to determine under what section debate will take place. It's only for the Chairman to rule on relevancy to each section as it comes.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take more time of the committee on this. I just want to ask the minister one very quick question, and I want an answer. If there's no legal means of paying the inspector, will he resign?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the member is wrong, he will resign.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is not my bill. It's the minister who was.... (Laughter.) It's the minister who was to have done the research on this bill, but I will make him another kind of a challenge....

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you picked up the gauntlet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: I will make him another kind of a challenge. Let he and me attend tomorrow morning at, let us say, 9:30, at the office of the comptroller-general to obtain a ruling on this subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I'm enjoying the bantering very much, but it's got nothing to do with section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Slide rules at 20 paces.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, in this bill there is no section that allows for funding for anything. But for the inspector, there is no money allowed for. So on section 2, what it says is that an inspector may be appointed, but may not be paid. In effect, that's what it says.

What I'm asking from the Chair is a ruling on section 2, as to whether or not section 2 or any other section of the bill will allow for payment to the inspector or to anybody. I've asked for a ruling from the Chair as to whether there is an allowance anywhere in this bill for payment to the inspector or anybody else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's hardly for the Chair to anticipate source of funds. It is only for the Chair to determine relevancy to section 2, and I'm trying hard to do that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not speaking on section 2, 1 beg your pardon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the section we're on.

MR. LEA: I'm on a point of order, and I'm asking you: how can we discuss section 2 if there's no provision for funding. I'm asking the Chair to make a ruling as to whether or not there's any provision for funding in this bill - in this Act - because if there isn't, then there's no point in going on with any section of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is for all hon. members to analyse the bill and to determine under what section they would wish to debate certain issues. It's not for the Chair to decide.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no section in the bill that allows for discussion of funding, in my opinion. Now what I'm asking from the Chair is the Chair's opinion as to whether I'm correct or incorrect.

[ Page 4492 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're always wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is the conclusion of the member - that there is no section to debate - then I'm afraid the member has answered his own question.

MR. COCKE: What the Chairman has told the House tonight is that nobody but nobody can vote for section 2 of this bill. That's absolutely for sure.

I have a couple of things that I would like to say. One of the things that I'd like to talk about just for a second is my colleague, the Whip for the government side, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , who stood up earlier this evening. I was very interested in some of his comments about the inspector. His comments seemed to depart just a little bit from the inspector when he started to indicate that this was a very necessary section of the bill, and every section was a necessary section of the bill. It just took me back a few years when that member for Dewdney and I sat in this same House. I watched him applaud the then Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, when he said: "No way. A matter of high principle, " and all the rest of it. I watched that member for Dewdney slamming his desk. What has given him that change of heart?

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I feel now that section 2 is not worthy of debate.

MR. KAHL: Then sit down!

MR. COCKE: That loud-mouth member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , hasn't had the courage to stand up and -say on a microphone for Hansard some of the things that he says when he is sitting in his chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is the second or third time I've had to call the member for New Westminster to order. Please don't be derailed quite so easily.

MR. COCKE: Don't be so bad-tempered and all the rest of it. I guess it must be something to do with the summer heat. I think there's a meteor shower tonight. Maybe that's what is bothering us all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the inspector, that person who will not be paid, still, according to the bill, has powers that we cannot abide. He is a centralized situation. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that there's no way we can possibly vote for this section.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, near the end of the afternoon sitting, the minister started to profess to answer some of my questions by saying: let the records clearly show. I just want to make sure the record in this case is clearly showing a couple of things.

I don't want to be unfair to the minister; that's why I want to give him one more opportunity to comment on this question of the Public Service Act, and the application of it. There are two ways to go, either by competition or by straight political appointment by the cabinet. Now by not dealing with that question, either he's missed it in the several times it's been asked, or he is admitting - and the records will show by his admission - that it is his intention that the inspector and all of his staff will be straight political appointments made by cabinet, with no reference to the competition procedures followed by the Public Service Commission. That's point number one.

The second point is, he did agree with me that it was quite conceivable that the inspector, during the course of his work in connection with sections 5 and 6 of the Act, might even call upon the services of people in the local school districts, including the local superintendent of education. He agreed that could happen, although he was not drawing any hard lines. But then he went on to say, in response to another question, that I could not take from that that he would co-operate in the event the inspector asked the superintendent for some assistance. He said I couldn't assume that he would offer that co-operation, that he would allow the superintendent of education to co-operate.

The minister again declined to comment on that, and if he again declines to comment then I think the records will show that as well, Mr. Chairman.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 4493 ]

On section 3.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, again keeping very close to the material before us in section 3, "The minister may, for the purposes of subsection (2) " -I'm dealing now first with subsection (1) -"constitute one or more independent schools teacher certification committees.

I wasn't thinking particularly of the fact that there isn't any money anywhere to pay these people, but I wonder who are eligible to be members of these committees. Does the minister intend to use staff already in the Ministry of Education, or just what sort of people?

Is it intended that these people will be serving continuously? Will they be full-time employees in this capacity or will they be doing other work in the ministry and doing this part-time? Or will they be people who are on a per them basis doing this kind of... ? I'd like to know just how it is intended that this school teacher certification committee will operate in practice.

Secondly, with respect to subsection (2) , it's a bit inconsistent with the definition section. I don't think it matters all that much, but I would like to draw to the attention of the minister that there is an inconsistency here. It does read in section 3, subsection (2): "Subject to the regulations, the inspector may grant certification to a teacher on the recommendation of an independent schools teacher certification committee, " whereas, you will recall, there was some discussion of this in section 1, Mr. Chairman, when it was agreed by the minister that that recommendation by an independent schools teacher certification committee would mean automatic certification of that teacher.

Now here it says that the inspector "may." But I think if we're reading the bill together, we have to look at the definition section and as I read it, take it from this that the inspector indeed would. It wouldn't be "may"; he would have to certify that teacher on the recommendation of this committee. So I think it's particularly important that we know a little more about this particular committee - who, how and what will be made up, and who will be paying it and when they will be paying it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we do have one full-time member of the minister who looks after the certification of the 27,000 teachers who are certified in the public school system. Therefore we do have some people in the ministry who could conceivably contribute to an independent schools teacher certification committee, but obviously such a committee would not be restricted to people who were members of the ministry. One obviously wishes, in a matter of this kind, to involve those who are experienced in matters of teacher hiring and teacher qualification in the independent school system. I think the independent schools would certainly be consulted in this matter through the opportunity to participate in teacher certification committees, so that would be an obvious source of such members. There are many advisory committees to the ministry, and not all advisers are paid, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the thing that concerns me here is the fact that the minister may for purposes of subsection (2) constitute one or more independent school certification committees. I would like to underline (b) of that section: "Name the persons to be members of the committee" So again, what the minister is doing here is centralizing authority, centralizing everything, into either the office of the minister or the office of the inspector. The only two persons of any authority here are the minister and the inspector. The inspector may grant certification and the minister names the committees - names everybody on them. Nobody is named from FISA or any other group that would have some interest. No, he knows best. Power vested in the minister is safe power. That's the way he feels about it.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is another area in which a question should be asked. Why should the minister name all the people to that teacher certification committee? I suggest that this, like other aspects.... I don't want to give the impression in any way, shape or form, that I'm the great, huge defender for the funding of the independent school system. I'm not, but I would like to say that I hate to see the kind of thing that is happening here which seems to be happening as well in the public school system -centralization. Here again the minister is naming all the members of the teacher certification committee, and I think that it's wrong.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned in his response a moment ago that the ministry has various advisory committees. I've already referred earlier in this session to the so-called Leskiw report, which was an advisory committee set up to deal with the whole question of certification of teachers and associated matters. I just want to ask the minister if in regard to this system there is any advisory committee at the present time constituted within his ministry which is studying that same area - namely, teacher certification in regard to this section of this bill - as it was functioning under the public schools system under the chairmanship of Mr. Leskiw?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, for certification in the public school system we do have by legislation the joint board of teacher education which is charged with that responsibility, not Dr.

[ Page 4494 ]

Leskiw. But the specific answer to the question with regard to section 3 of this Act is no.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect again to this certification committee, the minister, I think, was making rather light of it when he said it's not that big a job. We do have one person in the ministry who is looking after certification for all of the teachers in the public school system. Well, it seems to me, unless I'm completely misreading this legislation, that we're talking about an entirely different job in this case.

Certification of teachers in the public school system is almost automatic. If they do have'the proper teacher's certificate, the training, the experience, they qualify; they're in the BCTF. It's almost automatic. Now there is provision under some circumstances for school boards to make application to the minister to appoint someone who doesn't quite fit. There is that provision. And I would think under those circumstances it's quite conceivable that one person could easily look after all of that.

But in this case, we're dealing with people who don't. Maybe some of them do have teachers' certificates. But we're going back to the definition that a person could be certified with 10 years' experience in the private school system. We're dealing with people who may not even have that in back of them. People who are recommended by this committee are a separate group.

Now it's all very well to say that one person can look after all the teachers for the whole public school system, but it's a much different job when they have to be individually examined. I don't mean put through some kind of written test or anything like that, but they have to be individually appraised to see whether or not they are qualified, whether or not they can teach, whether or not grants will be paid to schools that hire these people. So it's quite a different selection procedure.

To say that there's one person in the ministry now who may not be all that busy and he could help with this.... If the system were as good as it is, why are we bothering with it at all? But to go to the people who have been hiring these people in the past and say: "Well, they'll make up the committee, " with the minister having the overriding authority to approve or disapprove of everything they're doing.... To whom is the minister going to go for this kind of advice? He's going to get a recommendation from a hand-picked committee, that's true. But the committee is made up, I gather from his remarks, almost entirely of representatives from the very schools - it's not a system; it's a hodge-podge - that these teachers are going to teach in. The people working in those schools are going to form the committee that is going to recommend to the minister that a certain person be qualified to be certified. To whom is the minister going to go for advice as to whether or not that recommendation should be accepted? Certainly he can't get involved in the process of investigating each one of these teachers.

Now I think it is important to tell us a little bit more about the selection committee than the minister has so far. It's not enough to say that one person in his ministry is doing the job now and it's not enough to say that he's going to the independent schools and ask for volunteers to select the selection committee, the people who are going to all these teachers. Surely he has some better idea than that as to what kind of qualifications he's looking for - not among the teachers themselves. But what kind of qualifications is he looking for among the members of the teachers' certification committee?

I've got some real concern about this, Mr. Chairman. I know that when this minister was first appointed, one of his first steps on becoming Minister of Education was to go through the various community colleges in the province of British Columbia and look for examples of government appointees on those community college councils who were not paid-up, active members of the Social Credit Party and to get rid of every one of them and to put Social Crediters in their place. Now I know that happened.

Now is that what he has in mind here? If he has, why doesn't he have the decency to stand up and tell us what he's going to be looking for in that selection committee - that his only requisite is that they be good Social Crediters, coming first from the Liberal Party and into Social Credit? Surely he's got something better than that to tell us about this certification committee.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, dealing initially with the last part of the member's speech, I will say that it was extremely distressing to me as minister to find, in my first few weeks of office, that I was besieged with requests from the administrations of virtually every college and university in British Columbia with regard to the standard of the NDP appointees to those boards. It got to the point, Mr. Chairman, where I actually consulted three former Ministers of Education, saying: "Is this part of the job? Did you have this experience before?" They all assured me that never in their time had they been faced with anything of that kind. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that competency is the watchword of the Ministry of Education. Knowledge of education and fiscal responsibility goes with the appointment to the board.

As far as teacher certification is concerned, I think the member should be aware, if he's not aware, that first of all, something more than half of all the teachers in the independent school system are....

[ Page 4495 ]

MR. COCKE: You are an elitist jerk!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't need to pass comment on that remark. I'll choose to ignore it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I think that we'll ask the hon. member for New Westminster to please withdraw the remark.

MR. COCKE: I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm merely relating, Mr. Chairman, the facts of life as I experienced them, and as many members experienced having to take over after the years of chaos under the NDP.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: After the fiscal irresponsibility, the legislative irresponsibility, the irresponsibility in writing Acts and in interpreting Acts, it's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, we come in here and these people haven't the slightest idea about appointments under the Public Schools Act or interpretation of the estimates that have been before them and have been passed. It's like teaching children to have the comments coming forward from these members.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): It took me two weeks to train my dog.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when a member is speaking he is not to be interrupted except to raise a point of order. The Minister of Education has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: Before I was diverted, and I apologize, I was explaining to the member that something more than half the teachers in the independent school system are already certified under the public school system of British Columbia. A great many more have teacher certification of one kind or another from jurisdictions other than British Columbia and would, therefore, qualify as having equivalent to British Columbia certification. A large number more have advanced degrees of one kind or another and have excellent academic qualifications, although they have not gone through teacher education courses. All of these will, of course, be taken into consideration by a teacher certification committee.

Obviously, we're going to seek the highest qualifications that we can find in people who would take on this important responsibility, and I'm certain that the members will be well satisfied with the competency of the committee that's selected. We do have to take into consideration the somewhat different makeup of teachers in the independent school system - their different background -though, of course, I think the teacher certification will assure that the competency is there.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister made some general remarks about college council appointees who were so appointed by the NDP administration. I'd like to challenge him to produce just one letter from any college council complaining about the appointees of the NDP administration.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman. I had a motion of censure from BCIT.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think this is important, because I know what happened with respect to Malaspina College. I know that there was one appointee of the NDP administration made whom this minister fired. He was a labour union recommendation, he was appointed by the NDP administration and there was a letter forwarded from Malaspina College council to that minister, with a copy to myself, asking that he be kept on that college council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. STUPICH: I know that a second member who had been there since the college council was formed was fired by that minister, Mr. Chairman. .

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are on section 3 and we are talking about teacher certification committees, and matters relating to college councils are not relevant to section 3.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, they are relevant because what we are talking about was the manner in which these appointments are going to be made and the kind of process the certification committee is going to go through and who is going to be that certification committee.

[ Page 4496 ]

1 expressed my concern that this minister might act as he did with college councils, like when he replaced the two people I'm talking about with the president of the Social Credit Party in Nanaimo, and with the comptroller for the vice-president of the Social Credit Party. Those were the people who replaced one person who had been there from the beginning and another appointed by the NDP. Now, is that the kind of process that he intends to go through? I asked him to give us some idea of where he's going to get the recommendations. He gave us nothing other than the usual political answer that he is giving in all of this legislation.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we just don't trust the kind of recommendations of this minister on the basis of what we've seen so far. The only concerns that he has expressed in the discussions we've had tonight is - and I think this is a quotation - that the Catholic schools are going to be better off; the independent schools are going to be better off; there will be accountability. There is not one word of concern over what it's going to do for education in the province of British Columbia, and he's the Minister of Education.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw your attention to the clock.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): That's Nelson-Creston's (Mr. Nicolson's) job. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Oh! You've been saving that one up all day, eh, Bill?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of the Whole House, my attention was drawn to the clock. I wish to further report that a division occurred while in committee, and would ask leave to have that division recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.