[ Page 4497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Megavitamin pilot project. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4497

An Act to Protect the Hominoidea at Harrison Hot Springs (Bill M 216) Mr.

Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 4500

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mr. Cocke –– 4500

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4501

Mrs. Dailly –– 4501

Mr. Stupich –– 4502

Ms. Brown –– 4504

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4505

Mr. Barrett –– 4505

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4506

Mr. Cocke –– 4509

Ms. Brown –– 4511

Mrs. Dailly –– 4511

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4512

Mr. King –– 4512

Ms. Brown –– 4514

Mr. Stupich –– 4514

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling on repetitious debate –– 4517

Mr. Cocke –– 4518

On section 4.

Mr. Cocke –– 4518

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4519

Mr. Wallace –– 4519

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4519

Mr. Macdonald –– 4520

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4521

Ms. Brown –– 4521

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4522

Mr. Cocke –– 4523

Mr. Levi –– 4523

Mr. Gibson –– 4524

On section 5.

Mrs. Dailly –– 4525

Ms. Brown –– 4525

Mr. Gibson –– 4526

Mr. Levi –– 4526

Mr. Cocke –– 4527

Mr. Barrett –– 4528

MT. Nicolson –– 4530

Mr. Levi –– 4531

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4531

Mr. Barrett –– 4532

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is infrequent that the Speaker becomes involved in introductions, but today I would like to extend a warm welcome on behalf of this assembly to two very distinguished guests. One is Jacques Lessard, the assistant secretary of the Quebec National Assembly, who recently attended the Clerks' conference in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. The other is Alexander Small, the second Clerk-Assistant to the House of Commons in Ottawa, who also attended the same conference. They are with us this afternoon watching our House in action.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): It is my great pleasure, and I would hope that of the whole House, to have in the gallery with us this afternoon Mr. Gordon Steele and his son, Brent, of Vanderhoof. Mr. Steele is the son of the late Cecil Steele, who served this province as the MLA for Omineca from 1949 to 1952. 1 would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Not so many years ago, I was a student at Burnside Elementary School in this city, a happy school in district 6 1. It was a good system. I made friends at that time with a fellow who has since moved on to Toronto to make a career as a writer and a cartoonist. He is in the House today visiting us from Toronto, Ontario. His name is Tom McLaughlin and I ask -my friends to make him welcome.

MR. G.W. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Today I rise with a great deal of pride to introduce a man I've known all of my life and a man who is singularly responsible for my presence here in the House today. I would like you to meet my father, Mr. Del Strongman, from Mississauga, Ontario.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver South should not say that his father is singularly responsible, because that would he a phenomenon of some (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I would like to introduce some distinguished members and supporters of the New Democratic Party in the greatest constituency of Vancouver Centre. Natalie Andersall, Valerie Barrett - no relation - and Sandra McGehay are all from Vancouver Centre. Would the House make them welcome?

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, it takes all kinds of people to make things work in British Columbia. It takes labour and it takes the entrepreneur. This afternoon I'd like to introduce two famous industrialists from Burnaby, Mr. Keith Beedie and Mr. Bill Mosier. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): From the great constituency of Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker, we have a great NDP supporter, Doris Mutch.

Oral questions.

MEGAVITAMIN PILOT PROJECT

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources with regard to the megavitamin pilot project announced yesterday. Has the minister received any recommendations from the prescription drug advisory committee headed by Dr. Ford on the matter of megavitamins prescribed by doctors in good standing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to provide some further information with respect to questions asked yesterday as well.

'Firstly, contact was made, or attempted to be made, with a Dr. Kemble, who is unfortunately away on holidays. However, apparently the person mentioned yesterday, Judy Milligan, is still a patient of Dr. Kemble's. We have no record at Pharmacare of having received any information from Dr. Hoffer, although there again we're attempting to make contact with Dr. Hoffer to see what further information he has available.

In any case, we have reviewed the questions of megavitamins, as I stated yesterday, and I've now received this further information which I would like to provide for the record and for those members that asked the questions yesterday.

Prior to specifics, however, we wish to clarify the roles and the responsibilities of the various bodies responsible for the delivery of health as it applies to drugs. The responsibility for deciding on the efficacy and the safety of therapeutic agents is with the federal government through the Food and Drug Act. It has been the sole responsibility of that authority to authorize the sale of therapeutic agents, the claims of efficacy, and assurance of safety for these agents. Without the approval of the food and drug directorate, no individual or group may make claims of therapeutic efficacy for any substance. The food

[ Page 4498 ]

and drug directorate have, in recent years, extended their responsibility to include devices and appliances which are offered for sale with a therapeutic claim.

Responsibility for ensuring proper storage and distribution of the therapeutic agents as approved by the food and drug directorate lies with the province. In British Columbia, the B.C. College of Pharmacists, through the B.C. Pharmacy Act, are the agency responsible for the distribution of the drugs. Qualified practitioners, physicians, dentists and podiatrists may order through a prescription the therapy selected by them for treatment of a diagnosed ailment.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question was specifically about the prescription drug advisory committee and what recommendations or advice the minister has received from them. He's been speaking for five minutes and I have yet to hear him refer to anything that might remotely relate to the question. The minister is quite in order following question period, or in lieu, to make the statement he's making, but it certainly had absolutely nothing to do with the question which I asked him, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the minister is in order to make a statement on questions asked during question period, or following question period if it's to be a lengthy answer. As I recall, the whole question period revolved around this one specific issue yesterday. Now I think that the minister should, in fairness to the hon. member who has asked the question, try to reply to that. If he has further remarks concerning the matter of questions asked yesterday, proceed in that manner, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I obtained this information because, as you stated, the whole of question period yesterday was with respect to this particular topic. I think it's sufficiently important that we shouldn't just cut off the answer now for the sake of a few minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The individual receiving a therapeutic agent prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacist is responsible for payment of that agent. In British Columbia, the Ministry of Human Resources offers total or partial financial assistance in prescription purchases to all eligible residents of the province. This financial assistance is provided by the ministry through the Pharmacare programme. The ministry, in determining which prescription drugs are eligible for purchase assistance, depends primarily on the decisions of the food and drug directorate regarding efficacy, therapeutic claims, safety, and proper manufacturing. As an initial criterion, drug benefits of Pharmacare must have received approval from the food and drug directorate on d e above areas.

A further consideration of the ministry in determining eligibility for financial assistance for drugs is a dependence on rulings of the B.C. Pharmacy Act, relative to public access or display of the agents in question. Certain vitamin preparations qualify as benefits of Pharmacare on the above criteria. For example, high levels of some fat....

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the efforts that the minister is making to resolve some of the questions raised yesterday. But this was a question asked today. It is about the prescription drug advisory committee. For the third time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear some reference.... I am using all the imagination at my disposal to somehow relate what he has had to say for the last 5 or 10 minutes to the question. I cannot do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister, in rising, obviously replied to questions from yesterday. I suggest to the hon. minister that he deal with the question that has been raised today, and if he wishes to continue on the basis of- answering questions that were raised yesterday, I think that is certainly in order.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He's abusing the House the way he abuses poor people in this province. That's what he's doing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again, I was given no notice yesterday of any questions with respect to megavitamins or vitamins. I had the opportunity of obtaining this information in the meantime. I think everyone should be as interested today as they were yesterday in obtaining the answers.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are to have any orderly procedure in the House, it is the Speaker's ruling that must be followed. As I understand it, you have instructed or requested the minister to deal with today's question. If he wishes to add to yesterday's question, he can certainly ask for permission and I doubt if anybody would stop him from doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: May I clarify to this extent....

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you think it's funny!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[ Page 4499 ]

A number of questions were posed to the minister yesterday. I suggest that in answering the questions of yesterday and in dealing with the question that has been raised today regarding the prescription drug advisory committee, certainly the hon. minister should incorporate within his answer that particular request from the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I intend to incorporate that information, but I think the answer is as important as the publicity which was so important yesterday ...

MR. BARRETT: Come on! No editorial comments or you're going to enter a wide open debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... and I think it should be fully provided. Certain vitamin preparations qualify as benefits of Pharmacare on the above criteria. For example, high levels....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister says he is endeavouring to answer a question that was asked yesterday. Would he tell us what question it was? I don't recall any question that was asked yesterday that would call for this answer, not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order.

MR. LEA: The minister is trying to take up the time of question period ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Deliberately.

MR. LEA: ... deliberately. I would like the minister to tell us which question specifically he is answering today with this so-called answer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, in order to resolve an impasse which seems to be occurring, could I suggest to the hon. minister that he reply now to the hon. member for Rossland-Trail and ask leave following the question period to give his answers to questions that were raised yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll abide with your wishes. I'll give a quick response to the specific question, and the other answers will be tabled at the end of the question period.

The committee referred to, the drug advisory committee, which was incidentally also referred to yesterday by the second member for Burrard, was allowed to elapse January 1,1974, since their duties were not considered essential with the introduction of a limited Pharmacare programme, and the discontinuation of the formulary system for welfare clients.

So the committee which was referred to yesterday by the hon. member, and which was referred to today by the hon. member for Rossland-Trail, was allowed to lapse on January 1,1974.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that this committee has lapsed. No one else has this information. No one else has this information, including the committee.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a supplemental question, hon. member?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the -minister: has he contacted the committee, or any new committee which he may see fit to establish made up of competent medical advisers, to refer this question to them to seek their advice and recommendations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the following people were contacted with respect to megavitamins and the pilot project proposed for the testing of megavitamins. The B.C. Medical Association in the person of Dr. Norman Rigby met with myself and also with the director of Pharmacare on, several occasions. Mr. Leroy Savag, registrar, College of Pharmacists, was contacted regarding this; Mr. Gibb Henderson, the chairman of the College of Pharmacists drug advisory committee; Mr. Frank Archer, executive co-ordinator for the B.C. Pharmacist Society; Dr. Abraham Hoffer, psychiatrist; and also a request is in to the faculty of medicine and the faculty of pharmacy of UBC.

Besides these groups, other provincial governments were contacted with respect to what other information they might have available. Furthermore, we are awaiting a court decision in Ontario with respect to vitamins - as to whether they're a food or a drug - and that too will be of importance in deciding the membership of the committee.

MR. D’ARCY: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has alleged in this House that this particular committee we are referring to was allowed - to use his words - to lapse in January of 1974, it is of course incumbent upon that minister to table the ministerial directive that saw that committee lapse if he's going to substantiate his allegations.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that was not a supplemental question.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking

[ Page 4500 ]

him to table the document that substantiates his allegation.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, it is not necessary. The hon. minister replied to the question. He didn't refer to a document; he replied specifically to your request.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said he would undertake to examine the specific case that was raised yesterday. Would he inform the House as to the name of the person on his staff who he's ordered to investigate the case, and when he anticipates a response to that request?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Kemble, Judy Milligan's physician, is away for the present, and we don't know when her physician will return. But since we cannot obtain confidential information or patient information from a doctor, our director made contact with the B.C. College of Physicians, who in turn attempted to make contact with Dr. Kemble. And they will continue to try and obtain this contact. With respect to tabling the information regarding the discontinuance of that committee which existed prior to 1974, 1 will try to obtain this information for the hon. member for Rossland-Trail. But I must warn him that it is very difficult to obtain some of these documents, since upon taking office there wasn't anything available in my office; the files were gone.

I ask leave to table information with respect to questions asked in the House yesterday.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO PROTECT THE HOMINOIDEA

AT HARRISON HOT SPRINGS

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M 216, An Act to Protect the Hominoidea at Harrison Hot Springs, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 33.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

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

On section 3 - continued.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Well, Mr. Chairman, we had started discussing section 3 last night. The minister decided to give us some vague and hazy answers with respect to this section as he has in the preceding sections. On 1, 2 and 3, we now have been served with exactly the same kind of concern on the part of the minister.

We suggested that we were concerned about this section. The minister then got up and he managed, Mr. Chairman - I can't remember whether you were in the chair or not - to make such sweeping statements that didn't really refer to this section. As a matter of fact, he went so far afield as to make insulting and arrogant remarks about the appointments to the college boards by the former Minister of Education.

I would just like to ask the minister if he could refrain from that kind of temper tantrum today and proceed to give us some kind of answers to the questions that we ask.

Mr. Chairman, in section 3 we find there is one way of certifying a teacher. We certify a teacher three ways altogether, because in the definition section we found there were two areas where teachers were automatically certified - those who had been teaching for 10 years or more, and those who qualified under the Public Schools Act.

Therefore, this is the third end of that particular qualification, and that is subsection (3) , under teacher certification in the definition section. This is certified by the inspector. What we are finding now is that the minister may.... That's interesting - it's another "may" in this Act. Someday I would like to see an area where the minister "shall" do something. Other areas in the Act that pertain to other groups, they "shall, " but the minister "may." He has a little bit of flexibility where others don't. The minister may set up this committee: " (a) constitute one or more independent schools teacher certification committees, and (b) name the persons to be members of a committee." I suggested last night that there should be some flexibility, some avenue for others to be appointed to that teacher certification committee besides the minister's appointments. The minister so far hasn't answered that criticism.

Then it goes on to say: "Subject to the regulations, the inspector may grant certification to a teacher. . . ." Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that's far too open. That's far too open a criterion. Let's look, for instance, at the Public Schools Act. Here

[ Page 4501 ]

there's a whole section dealing with certification and it winds up dealing specifically with the teacher -that is, the criterion that the teacher must meet, or the proposed teacher must meet. That is: "No certification of qualification for teaching shall be issued to any person who does not furnish to the minister, or his duly authorized representative, satisfactory proof that he is of good moral character and a fit and proper person to be granted a certificate."

You'll notice the tightness of the Public Schools Act. You'll notice the size of the Public Schools Act. You'll notice the total inadequacy, on the other hand, of the sections of this bill dealing with each and every area. Here again, we've got a very loose situation. We're going to have to depend totally on the cabinet setting the criteria - a situation, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think is appropriate. I think there should be some part of this legislated where there's a baseline drawn.

My enthusiastic colleague behind me is really waxing eloquent today. Mr. Chairman, I believe there should be this baseline. We see the baseline. I know the minister can get up and indicate that section 150 of the Public Schools Act is, in fact, not that tight.

We know that there have to be regulations, and naturally this Public Schools Act has to be served by regulations. But I'm suggesting that to compare the two is far, far too loose, and gives the opportunity, with all the respect that I can muster, for people to be appointed who really don't qualify at all in anyone's terms of reference, except, possibly, on the basis of friendship, or except on the basis of will or whim. That's exactly the thing I can see happening here. There has to be a tightening-up in this situation, which could do the job.

Now in saying that, Mr. Chairman, I can't say that in any way I support this or any other aspect of this bill. But if we're going to have a bill before us, then my suggestion is that we should have one that's at least half drafted.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, I would like the minister to give us his philosophical outlook on this question and explain why it is that he has produced a section like section 3, which again lends to the lack of credibility of this whole exercise. I would wonder why it is that the minister has decided not to answer that question, and why he has decided not to draw his own comparison between the Public Schools Act, sections 149 and 150, and section 3 of this particular piece of proposed legislation full of holes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Without purporting to defend the minister in question, I think perhaps some of these questions were asked during the interpretation and definitions section under the word "certified." Perhaps the matter was covered sufficiently at that time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I must agree that some questions were asked, We were particularly interested in the three categories. As a matter of fact, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) showed very clearly that the minister didn't quite understand that section, but we're dealing entirely with a different concept now. We're zeroing in on a specific area, and that's the area where the minister's committee actually recommends certification through the inspector. I would just like the minister to give us his feeling, his impression, of what we're saying in our criticism of this particular Act.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, the principle of the bill was discussed in second reading. The details with regard to certification were canvassed for some hours yesterday - I believe close to five hours. I think it would not serve the purposes of the Legislature to reiterate all those arguments today.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): We realize that we had extensive discussion on certification, but the point is there are still some questions that we haven't had answered, and we hope today we might.

I'd just like to reiterate a couple of them to the minister. I know you mentioned there would be a committee set up by you with people in the department assisting, but I think we need more than that. Can you not give us in more detail how you are going to select this committee? Surely when you drafted the bill, there must have been some idea in your department on how you were going to select such an important committee.

The other question I have, which I believe is a new question to the minister, is: if the government and your ministry are planning to become involved, as we gather now, in the certification of teachers in independent schools, how much further do you intend to become involved? For example, I would like to know specifically if, as we were pointing out yesterday, it appears that there is going to be one criterion for teachers in the independent schools and one for teachers in the public schools. The minister made that very clear yesterday. He apparently believes that different criteria should obtain. We in the opposition think this is going to be very bad for the students of this province. However, the minister seems to believe that the independent schools should be allowed to have different criteria for certification.

So my next question to the minister is: if you believe in that, do you also believe that they should have the opportunity for different criteria in the matters of hirings and firings? In other words, will the independent schools of this province be given complete freedom with a teacher who is not

[ Page 4502 ]

satisfactory? Will it be their own decision whether that teacher remains or not? Will the minister's committees which he appoints have anything to say about this? Because we're all well aware - and I know the minister is - that the public school teachers of this province have to abide by very strict regulations when they are not performing satisfactorily. This may have been canvassed to some degree, but with no specific answer from the principle. So I am particularly concerned about the latter part, because there have been cases in independent schools where teachers have been released from duty because of doing something which is not according to the particular philosophy of that school.

Now I think we should have it made very clear that the minister either believes that the government has a responsibility to impose some regulations, not only on certification, but in the rights of the teachers in the independent schools who are now.... Let's face it. Once this bill passes, they are no longer in the independent category they were in before - once they receive funds.

Is the minister also going to enter with his certification committee into that aspect of dealing with whether a teacher is to be kept on in an independent school or not? Are you going to enter into that area? I'm seriously concerned about cases where teachers have been released on grounds which I'm sure would not be acceptable in the public school system.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, in line with your earlier remarks, it is true that we did discuss certification under section 1. We discussed the three ways in which a teacher might qualify for certification - for automatic certification, I will remind you. In this particular section, section 3, we are dealing specifically with certification.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, when the minister and 1, in complete agreement yesterday, arrived at the conclusion that the inspector was obliged to certify someone who had been recommended by the independent schools teacher certification committee. The minister agreed with me. I read the Act and I read that he was obligated to, and the minister agreed that it was automatic certification once a person was recommended by this independent schools teacher certification committee.

As members of the opposition, we have some concern for the taxpayers who are going to be putting money into the independent school system. We have some concern that there be some standards of education offered by these schools that we are going to be helping finance. We don't know the extent yet - we will get into that later in the Act. At this point, we know that there's going to be some input of public funds into these schools, so we have some obligation to have some concern for the quality of education that will be offered in these schools.

With that in mind, we have to have something better than what the minister has told us so far with respect to the kind of people who are going to be recommended by this independent schools teacher certification committee. The only way we can really have any assurance as to the recommendations coming from that committee is to be told something better than the minister has told us so far about the way he intends to pick this committee.

He told us yesterday that this bill has been approximately a year in the making and that a lot of work has gone into it. Certainly we know that he personally has been very interested in this kind of legislation, I believe, during the whole of his legislative career. That goes back quite a number of years - too many years. Certainly during all that time he must have given some thought to this; certainly during the past year he must have given some thought to it. How does he intend that this independent schools teacher certification committee shall be made up?

He suggested yesterday that there is someone in his ministry who is involved in the certification of school teachers for the public school system and that person might be able to take on some extra duties. He suggested that he would draw on some recommendations from the independent schools themselves. I would like to know more about these recommendations from the independent schools.

Is it intended that the independent schools shall get together and elect representatives who will be on this independent schools teacher certification committee, and that the minister will accept those elected persons? We are getting some democracy into it - the first element of democracy - if that is done. Does he intend to go out and select from those schools? Does he intend to look to any one of those schools and ask that school in particular to put forward names that he will accept? Those schools certainly have a very vested interest in having people on that committee who are going to nominate, to recommend, knowing full well that their recommendation is going to be followed by automatic certification.

Those schools are going to have a very vested interest in putting the kind of people on that committee who will recommend the kind of people they find particularly useful in their own individual schools. You will recall yesterday in the definition section that we were talking not about groups of schools, but schools individually are going to be recognized as authorities under this legislation.

So we should certainly have something by now after a year in the jell. The legislation was introduced some months ago. By now the minister must have some idea. Perhaps he has some reason for not telling

[ Page 4503 ]

the House. If he wants to stand up and tell us, sure, he knows what he is going to do but he is not going to tell us, then at least we can get beyond this point. But as long as he's silent, we have to assume that he knows something and he hasn't yet decided whether he's going to tell us. We would like to give him as much time as is required for him to make up his mind.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it isn't that I don't plan to tell the member; it's that I -already have. All of these questions that have been asked today were asked yesterday and answered yesterday.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you know it never ceases to amaze me how the minister can respond. He responds at the beginning of questioning on a particular section with a no response; then, after a while, he begins to reflect on what he said earlier, and that is to suggest that he has answered a question when he hasn't answered the question. Mr. Chairman, I asked him questions today that he was not asked yesterday; neither did he respond yesterday nor has he responded today. His answers to the member for Nanaimo yesterday were vague and, as a matter of fact, confusing to the extent that he answered them in two or three different ways at different points.

We would just like, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to answer one question. I'll make it very easy for him on this particular situation. I reiterate, and I'm sure my colleagues can reiterate their own questions, but the question that I asked concerns this third way of certification. We discussed the first two. The third way of certification is certification by the inspector, and that certification takes place based on recommendations from this committee.

I'm asking the minister: why is the committee closed to only minister's nominees? That's a very simple question. He never answered it yesterday; he's not answering it today. Why is it a closed committee? That's very simple and I'll sit and listen to the answer to that.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's government policy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister says "government policy." We've been accusing the minister of centralizing everything in his office ever since he has taken office, because that is one of the very first moves that he made. Now he is making that same kind of move in this particular area. I would suggest, as I suggested yesterday, to those who are interested in independent schools, that again another piece of their independence is lost. With the first three sections of this bill we have decided that the bill is misnamed. It cannot any longer be called Independent Schools Support Act, because they have lost their independence completely. Centralization in Victoria, centralization under an inspector, centralization under a minister - and that's government policy, Mr. Chairman.

I guess that's an answer to my question and it's a very sorry answer, if I may say so.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the minister is getting a bit confused in the time that has lapsed since we started discussing this bill. He did say that he answered my questions yesterday. I do have a copy of the Blues before me. With respect to the questions I've just been asking about this committee, page 353-2, when I asked him the same questions about the representation on this committee, the minister did say: "We have one full-time member of the ministry who looks after the certification of the 27,000 teachers who are certified in the public school system. We do have some people in the ministry who could conceivably contribute to an independent school certification committee."

"Could conceivably" - Mr. Chairman, he's certainly answering the question as to whether or not anybody could be on the committee. But apparently at this point in time - and this was yesterday evening - he had not decided whether or not anyone from his ministry would have any participation in this committee at all. The words are, from the Blues, "could conceivably." We then go on, Mr. Chairman: "Obviously such a committee would not be restricted to people who are members of the ministry." There might not be any there, but they wouldn't be restricted to that except that: "One obviously wishes" - at this point it's a wish only - "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."

But again, Mr. Chairman, he's not even saying there, although he's expressing a wish.... Apparently he has not yet made up his mind or is not yet ready to tell us whether there will be anyone from the ministry involved or whether there will be anyone who has had experience in the independent school system involved. In one case he is saying "could conceivably" and in the other case he is saying "one wishes." He goes on to say: "I think - hardly a definitive statement from the minister responsible for.... I almost said pushing this legislation through the House, Mr. Chairman, but let's say working it through the House. "I think the independent schools would certainly be consulted in this matter."

Mr. Chairman, has the minister not made up his mind as to whether or not someone from his ministry will be involved? Has he not made up his mind whether or not someone who has had experience in the independent school system in hiring and firing -and we haven't started to talk yet about firing these teachers - these teachers, has he not yet made up his

[ Page 4504 ]

mind as to whether or not the independent schools would even be consulted when it comes to naming the members of the independent school teachers certification committee?

Mr. Chairman, he said he answered my questions. I have repeated to him the answers he gave and I suggest there is some clarity lacking in those answers. I wonder whether or not he would like to expand on what he calls "answers" that he gave yesterday.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister's only answer to my question was: "It's government policy." What is government policy on the matter of the hiring and firing of teachers in independent schools? I think the independent school people would be very interested to know.

As I have pointed out before, their whole reason for existence is their independence in these areas. I think the minister should inform us if, as we know under the Public Schools Act, teachers can be decertified for various reasons. If you are going to set up a certification committee, is that committee going to have the right to adjudicate over hirings and firings in the independent school? I can't put the question more simply, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is a vital question. We must have an answer from the minister on this. I think the independent schools want to know - the taxpayer who is going to finance these schools has the right to know - if this government is going to have any say whatsoever in the hiring and firing, as they do in the final area of arbitration, over matters of personnel in the independent schools. Could the minister tell us if the certification committee will also be dealing with and setting regulations on hiring and firing in independent schools?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, independent schools have always selected their own staff and arranged their own contracts. That process will continue.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my concern really is almost exclusively with the quality of education that is going to come about as a result of this piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MS. BROWN: I'm dealing specifically with this section, if you would permit me to continue my trend of thought.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are in committee on the bill and debate on the principle....

MS. BROWN: I'm not discussing the principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Debate on the principle of the bill is not permitted in Committee of the Whole House. We are on section 3.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my only interest in discussing section 3 of the bill is the quality of education in this province which is going to result from the implementation of this piece of legislation. And this is the reason why....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 3.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The quality of education would appropriately be discussed under section 6, which specially explains the criteria that need to be met for a Group 2 classification of schools. The quality of education in the instructional sense is not an issue in section 5 and it certainly is not an issue in section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that section 6 and there probably are a couple of other sections is where that question can be discussed. But it certainly can be discussed, Mr. Chairman, with respect, under section 3, which is a section where teachers are certified. Now if teachers are not a very important aspect of the quality of education, then I suspect that my whole education went down the tube, just at this juncture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. The debate will be, according to the standing orders, strictly relevant to section 3, and it has to do with teacher certification committees.

MS. BROWN: I'm certainly glad to see the Minister of Education recognizes that the sections deal with the quality of education and that he's able to see the link between the implementation of the various sections and the quality of education.

I'm restricting myself to talking about certification and the committee that's going to deal with it, because it's very important, in terms of the quality of education, what the criteria are for certifying these teachers and just what kinds of rules and regulations this committee is going to live by. That is precisely why I am raising this under this particular section. Because I want to know from the minister if in fact this committee is going to be using as its criteria any rules or any qualifications which are presently not going to be required of teachers already certified or of teachers already teaching in the private school system. Will the minister let me know whether the committee is going to have any instructions from him in terms of the qualifications and the criteria which they're going to be basing their decisions on, in terms of certifying these teachers? The reason I'm interested in that....

[ Page 4505 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: A point of order. This was covered yesterday, Mr. Chairman, under section 1, and covered very exhaustively. It's detailed in section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, much of this debate was covered in section 1. However, the Chair has to listen quite intently to what is being said to determine how much of it was covered. Would the first member for Vancouver-Burrard please continue on?

MS. BROWN: The point which I'm raising I don't think was covered yesterday under section 1. Because in section 1, as you know, I stayed in order, almost exclusively with certification of teachers, and I did not raise any matter that could have been covered in section 3. This is the reason I'm raising it now, because under this section, the minister has the exclusive right to name persons to this committee. So the minister must have, at the same time, some kind of idea in his mind as to the instruction he's going to give these people who are going to form the certification committee. He's been asked by a number of other members of the opposition exactly from where he is drawing these people and we haven't been able to get any kind of response from him on that.

So I'm raising a different point, and that is: what kind of instructions will he be giving to the people named to his committee in terms of the qualifications that will be demanded of the teachers who are going to be certified under this committee? The reason I'm asking this question is because I want to be sure that everyone who teaches, Mr. Chairman, whether it's in the private school system or in the other school system, meets the highest qualifications that exist. So if the private school certification committee - or the independent schools, as they're euphemistically referred to here - is going to have qualifications and criteria that are above the ones presently in existence for the public school teachers, I want the minister to apprise us of that fact.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed that a member who's been in this House for almost two terms now would not be aware of the meaning of the section as it's written and the operation of the ministry under any legislation that's passed by the House.

It quite clearly states in section 3 (2) that the inspector grants certification subject to the regulations. The member, if she doesn't know, should know that regulations are written by order-in-council and not the minister. Therefore the minister is unable to say what regulations would be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Chairman, the member should further know that regulations are not a subject of debate in the House. The Legislature deals with the broad principles of legislation, and those broad principles are subject of debate. Regulations are a detail which are not the subject of debate in this Legislature, nor are they the province of any single minister to determine. The member- should know that question can't be answered.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I really am surprised that the minister is not aware that in committee we do not debate the principle of the bill, not even the very broadest principle. I don't know whether he will accept my gentle reprimand, but maybe you could bring that to his attention, because certainly I have no intention of debating the principles of the bill in committee stage. I'm going to deal exclusively with section 3, which gives the minister the right to appoint the certification committee.

I've made it absolutely clear to the minister what I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to find our whether on his instructions the certification committee is going to be better equipped, more efficient and superior in terms of certifying teachers to what is presently in existence, because I am concerned that we do not have two levels and two classes of education in this province. Now can the minister answer this question? It's right here under section 3. I'm not asking him to deal with the broad principle of the bill. That would be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With great respect, the question was asked yesterday and again today. We cannot insist upon an answer.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether or not the minister intends to answer that specific question by the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll answer the question a second time today. The committees will obviously work under the regulations written under subsection (2) .

MR. BARRETT: That's not an answer. It's just as vague as everything else in this bill. What we're having difficulty with, Mr. Chairman.... I know you appreciate this is outside of the principle of the bill. We get into specifics as we're obliged to by the rules of this House, and we find the minister does not have specific information. These words fit well together but the meaning doesn't go along with the words. The minister does not have information at his hands to answer the questions

In response to an earlier series of questions from one of the other sections, he said he wanted more data. Then why is he bringing the bill in if he wants more data? He can't even table regulations as an appendix to this bill. Now I know that most other

[ Page 4506 ]

legislative endeavours in this House have an appendix with an idea of what the regulations are. We don't have that either. I'd like to ask another specific question. Any bland noncommittal answer that he wishes to pull out of his file will do, I suppose, but I want to know: is this a permanent board, this committee? Is the certification committee a permanent committee? Does he have any idea who in the community he will ask to sit on it? Will it be an all-professional committee? Will it represent segments of society? Will it be paid? Will it be voluntary? How many people is he contemplating? What term of office? What method of appeal is there to the certification committee? There are four simple questions. Could you answer those, please?

HON. MR. McGEER: Those were answered yesterday, Mr. Chairman. I'd refer the member to the Blues.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that wasn't answered yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if the questions have been answered yesterday, certainly we can't press for the same information again.

MR. BARRETT: No, they were not answered yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There seems to be a dispute in the House as to whether they were or whether they weren't. We are under section 3, and we cannot insist upon an answer in any case.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're under section 3 today. If he answered questions of this section, he was out of order. I wouldn't want to respond to him being out of order. I'm in order, and I'm asking him bluntly: (1) How many people will be on the certification committee? (2) What areas of the community will he draw them from? (3) Will they be paid? (4) Are they going to be appointed on a rotating basis? Could he answer those, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want arrogance. I'm appealing to the minister not to be arrogant. I'm appealing to you through the Chair not to be arrogant. I think we're entitled to have these specific answers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to answer questions from the members opposite, but they may not be satisfied with the answers that I give.

I can see no point in asking all the same questions that were asked yesterday. I gave yesterday ... and if the member was not present at the time, he will find in the Blues the general direction that the committee will go in, and he will also find in the Blues the point I made that I am not going to try and handcuff the work of the committee by making commitments on what they would do in advance of their appointment.

These will be very qualified people, as I explained to the House yesterday, and, Mr. Chairman, I really think that we are treading on ground that has been pretty exhaustively tramped on in some seven and a half hours of debate yesterday.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the editorial put-down. I asked the minister not to be arrogant and I'm asking now specific questions. The specific questions I'll go over again because he did not answer those yesterday. If he had, he would have been called to order by the excellent chairmanship we've had in the last two days. I doubt very much if the Chairman would have allowed him to do that.

How many people are going to go on this committee? Are they to be paid? How much are they to be paid? How long will they be appointed for? To say that they will be highly qualified is partly an answer. Highly qualified in what? Will they represent various segments of the community or will they only be a professional committee? Now those are very fair questions and I would like some fair answers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, where specific terms and conditions and so on for committees are felt to be desirable, then of course these are spelled out exactly in legislation. Where it is deemed not desirable, then of course it is not spelled out in legislation. In this particular case, it is not spelled out in legislation.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is an incredible non-answer. Now I'm not asking you, Mr. Chairman, how you define how legislation should be written. I'm asking you questions on legislation that is written and is in front of us - not how you arrived at how you wrote it. I ask you again; you're asking the taxpayers of this province to embark upon a whole new field of spending public money. There must be an accountability of how that money is to be spent, whether it is $1 million or $30 million. I'm asking you calmly, through the Chairman - hopefully you will abandon some arrogance and answer to this House and the people of this province - how many people will be drawn from in the community, what is the length of time they will serve, will there be a method of appeal by the professional person concerned to decisions by the committee and, if so, how will that appeal method work?

Mr. Chairman, if I am offending the sensitivities of the minister, I humbly beg his gracious pardon since an unworthy like me to such an esteemed educated person.... I hardly am qualified, with my lowly

[ Page 4507 ]

university degrees that don't match his high university degrees. I want to submit that I will accept any patronizing answer at all, but an answer nonetheless - please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass? The Leader of the Opposition, if he has some new material.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have no new material. I have the same stunned arrogant silence that I have had to deal with. Now I accept the arrogant silence because I know there are some people born into positions in life, and they enforce that position in life by the private elite attitude that they may have to education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this has nothing to do with section 3.

MR. BARRETT: I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's what we're debating. I must draw this to your attention.

MR. BARRETT: But I have to get some preface into this atmosphere that has been created by the minister. I'm asking the minister, who is obviously the author of this bill; the minister wrote this bill....

MS. BROWN: No, he didn't.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did. He wouldn't hide behind somebody else, would he?

MS. BROWN: Yes, he would.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. He is a minister of the Crown. He wrote this bill. Not one split infinitive; well, somebody cleaned it up for him. I ask the minister, who is responsible for spending taxpayers' dollars, hard-earned dollars, under this bill, to tell this House how many people on the committee, how much they will be paid, is there an appeal process to their decisions and will these people be drawn from all segments of the community? Don't you think the independent schools want to hear those answers too? Don't you think both the proponents and the opponents of this bill have a right to those questions, or does the minister feel that he is alone in this information and aloof from sharing it with the House?

Would the minister care to answer those?

Mr. Chairman, I enjoy the minister. The way he chews his cud and sits there is amusing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, may I ask, under standing order 642) , what you would say... ?

MR. BARRETT: Don't propose hypothetical questions, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, then I'll have to draw to your attention that you are irrelevant.

MR. BARRETT: Well, please cite the particular irrelevance. I may be repetitive but I am not irrelevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 61 (2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant. . . ."

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes. I'm relevant. I may be repetitive, so I suggest that if I am to be called to order I be called to order on repetitiveness rather than relevancy. I am certainly in order and I'm relevant, but I stand to be called to order, in my opinion, on the basis of repetitiveness, and I accept that. I have to be repetitive, because this is the only opportunity, Mr. Chairman, in a committee like this, when we can ask questions of a minister. If the minister does not wish to be civil, I can't do anything about that. I have a responsibility to ask these questions of the ministers on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. I will resume my seat after I repeat the questions, to avoid repetition.

Will the minister tell the people of this province how many people he intends to have on the committee; how much they will be paid; if their decisions are subject to appeal; and if the committee will have a broad cross-section representation of the community other than professional people? Does the minister have that information, first of all? If you don't have that information, then I won't ask you anymore.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, as I have stated many times to the member, if it were intended that such details be exactly and rigidly specified, then, of course, they would be written specifically under section 3. Since it is not specifically written under section 3, that means that there is no intention that these details be rigidly specified. That is why you have regulations, and that is why no rigid specifications can or should be given by the minister. The regulations will be approved by order-in-council. As a former Premier of the province, the member opposite should know better than anyone in the House that that is the way legislation works, even if the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , who never was in the cabinet, would perhaps be unaware.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I humbly appreciate the lecture from the professor on how the House works. If I may submit my own paper to the minister, I point out to him that in committee stage,

[ Page 4508 ]

as I understand it from my unlearned 17 years here, the details of public money are a responsibility of this House to discuss. I know that you think it is too mundane that the taxpayers' money be discussed at this time. That may be your opinion, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, but I want to tell you that the only place the taxpayer gets protected is in committee stage. I ask you bluntly: how many bucks are you going to spend to hire this committee? That is a question we have a right to get an answer to. Thank you. You now may have the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member opposite, the whole opposition and the public of British Columbia that there will be no $100 million clerical errors in this ministry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition on section 3, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister is being political.

MR. COCKE: No!

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Instead of dealing in committee with specific questions, the minister is being facetious, political, arrogant and elitist. But he is still a nice fellow.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he isn't!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he is, and I don't want anyone....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister again, in good humour: how much money will be spent under this section to put this committee in place by way of salaries or - what was the word used? - "stipend, " wasn't it? There was a $3,600-a-month stipend to the man on ICBC. Is Ray Torresan going to be hired to give you the PR to put this bill in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling me to order. I ask the minister....

HON. MR. McGEER: Manny Dunsky! He needs some work!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you called us both to order. I love the minister. It is an infinite capacity I have to understand all kinds of human behaviour and define it.

I ask the minister: how much money, if any, will the committee members be paid? That is not a detail; that is a matter of policy under this section. As a matter of policy under this section, will there be a right to appeal the decisions of the committee set up under this section? Will the committee be broad enough or narrow enough to include people from jurisdictions other than teaching or not?

Mr. Minister, let's make it easy for both of us. If you don't know what you are going to do under this bill, say so, but don't play games. Please answer those questions. If you don't know the answer, say, "I don't know yet, " and then I'll say: "By golly, he's being honest for once." Tell us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, all matters of appeal might best be debated under section 13. There are two subsections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this section, I'm sure, will be on the statute books for many, many years in British Columbia. There may be many policies that would be followed under this section by individual ministers, individual governments and individual cabinets. I can't specify for the member details of that kind. As I explained yesterday, in giving some general idea of the course of action, I wasn't going to attempt to handcuff people by making specifics under legislation for a specific section of the legislation where specifics weren't intended. And I can't add more to what was in the Blues yesterday except to explain how the legislation must work in practice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that the legislation may be on the books for many, many years. That may be. The minister has said that there may be many interpretations by other cabinets. That may be. But I'm not asking the minister to foretell the future. I'm asking you, the man who is responsible here today, what you're going to do with this section. To stand up and say that somebody else might do something with it- doesn't mean a fig to me. What I'm worried about is what is going to happen now, while you're breathing and I'm breathing.

Now you're responsible, as a minister of the Crown to author this legislation, pilot it through the House and tell the House why you're piloting it through the House and how you're going to interpret it, not to tell the House that somebody might interpret it a different way while you're still making up your mind.

Now I've heard a lot of specious arguments in my lifetime, but I expected something better from the

[ Page 4509 ]

minister. If you want to filibuster or dodge, don't start telling me that some future cabinets may not even approve of what you've said. I don't give a fig about that. I ask you bluntly, through you, Mr. Chairman: will the minister tell this House whether or not it is his intention to have these people paid? If so, how much? How many people will be on the committee? Where in the community will they be drawn from? Will there be a right to appeal their decision? Simple questions, and let the future Minister of Education, whoever she or he may be, answer the questions that are put to him or to her, but I'm asking you - not the ex-Liberal, now that you're a Socred - but the new, reformed Social Credit Minister of Education: what are you going to do with this section which you caused to be authored and you're asking this House to give you total responsibility for? Could you tell us? What are you going to do?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I've given the member all the answer that I can give and given it several times, and while the member can ask the same questions as often as he likes, the answers, as best I can give them, were given yesterday. All I can do, Mr. Chairman, is to draw your attention to standing order 43 and explain that the best answers that I can give were given yesterday.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just referring to 43 - oh, repetition of debate. I accuse the minister, under section 43, with being repetitious in his answers. They're all nothing, and I want to call the Chair's attention to the fact that the minister, under section 43, is abusing the rules of this House by saying nothing. Now they're through the little game.

You don't even know. You revealed that yesterday. Mr. Chairman, we have been subject to an arrogant minister who hasn't got one single idea of what he intends to do under this bill. He's playing politics, and thank goodness the public of this province will never find out, because he's above politics, Mr. Chairman. He's a man of principle and philosophy; that's why he dumped the Liberals. You're not fooling anybody, through you, Mr. Chairman, hiding behind the rule book. You don't even know what's going on under this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to section 3, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly I'll come back to section 3. How many people will be on the committee? Where will they be drawn from? Will they be paid? Is there a right to appeal? Could the minister tell us that? Will there be a right to an appeal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Matters of appeal will be under section 13.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister: under this section, will there be a right to appeal? I'll deal with section 13 in order, Mr. Chairman. I don't want anybody to put me out of order. This is the section, number 3. Under this section I ask the minister, yes or no, nod your head. Stop chewing for a minute. Turn your back. Any signal you want to give me that means yes or no. Will there be....

AN HON. MEMBER: Send a note!

MR. BARRETT: Send a note, that's right. Will there be a right to appeal, yes or no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can only recognize one member at a time, hon. member, and we can't obtain an answer as long as you retain the floor.

MR. BARRETT: He hasn't indicated that he wants to answer. I'm happy to yield and anxious to yield to the minister. Far be it from me to keep the minister in his seat; I'd like to see him defeated anytime. Will the minister tell me, yes or no, whether or not there'll be a right to appeal under this section?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer the question for the minister. Yes, there is a right to appeal and the appeal is to the minister, and his decision is final in section 13.

MR. BARRETT: While you're in the answering mood, Mr. Member, could you tell me also how many people will be on the committee, and whether or not they'll be paid? Will you answer that for me?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I'll answer that question. The members of the committee obviously will all be Socreds. They will all be political appointments - the minister is trying to hide that fact - and they will be paid as much as he can possibly pay them.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Member. Can you tell me whether or not in the appointment of members to this committee there'll be a cross-section from the community beyond teachers, or will there be other people from the community represented as well?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll answer that question. It's hardly likely that there'll be a cross-section. There'll be a group of people who will be subjected to the minister's authority. He is an authoritarian, after all, centralist to the nth degree. I hope that answers the member's question.

[ Page 4510 ]

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister's assistant very much, Mr. Chairman. In drafting this bill, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister's assistant whether or not it was considered possible that there should be a profession appeal route rather than through the minister's discretion himself, or would that interrupt with the politics of the bill itself?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that was considered and it was discarded because it would be politically unattractive.

MR. BARRETT: My questions on section 3 have now been completed. I want to thank the minister's assistant for his co-operation. I'm getting the impression then, without the minister's denial, that the bill is political. That'll be my last question. Is this section politically designed? Is that your opinion?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just interrupt? (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: We're getting the answers, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I read from May, 18th edition, if this is a serious House at all: "Obstruction of the business of the House otherwise than by disorderly conduct or persistence in irrelevance or tedious repetition." May says this:

"A member who abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House - that is to say, who without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House - or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. He is, however, guilty of contempt of the House and may be named."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for citing that section of May, because you will find, sir, that section of May also applies to dumb insolence by ministers who refuse to answer questions when they're being asked questions in the House. That particular reference in May, sir, is the most appropriate one that you've drawn to our attention because the interruption of the normal business of this House has taken place by that minister, who should be cited for contempt because he continues to refuse to answer questions in this House and committee.

However, Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire your patience in dealing with the minister; therefore I will give the minister one more chance, before I cite him under that section which you brought to our attention and accuse him of contempt under that section, by repeating these questions quietly.

Will the minister tell this House how much money will be spent setting up this committee? Will the committee be paid?

Will the committee represent a broad cross-section of the community?

Will there be a right of appeal?

I ask the minister very quietly so that he shall not be in contempt of the excellent passage from May read by the Chairman.

There's contempt, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please assist the Chair? The Chair does not have knowledge of any section of our standing orders which says that a minister or any other member must answer questions. If he could give me that citation, I'd be pleased.

MR. BARRETT: Sir, I refer you to the section in May which you read where you point out that although the member may not be transgressing any written rule that is the paragraph you read, as I recall it, sir if he uses the rules of the House as a method to obstruct the House, then he is in contempt.

I submit to you, sir, that that very excellent reference you made from May of a minister using the rules of the House to obstruct the House - i.e., by not answering questions - is in contempt of this House. I again thank the Chair for bringing that excellent reference to my attention which momentarily had slipped my mind in the 2,000 pages of May and Beauchesne.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister had indeed tried to answer the questions from time to time, but I would like to bring to his attention, through you, Mr. Chairman, yesterday's Blues. I went through with a fine-tooth comb, since the minister replied that he had replied to questions yesterday under this section. I went through every word that he said. Mr. Chairman, he did not answer the questions yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, I agree it does become very tedious. As a matter of fact, as one who doesn't particularly enjoy tedium, I would be very happy if we could go on with this bill and go on with the other sections, but since we haven't had any answers to the questions under section 3, it strikes me that the minister has to either indicate to us other than by his rather vague answer today saying that it would be government policy, government appointees, et cetera. I would think that he could be more definitive around the questions that have been asked. I can assure the

[ Page 4511 ]

minister that there is not a word in the Blues in answer to my questions yesterday, or those of the member for Nanaimo, the member from North Burnaby, or the Leader of the Opposition.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just have to bring that to your attention. The minister should, I would think, very well recall that he wants us to debate the bill. He was very, very furious, it seems to me, that rather than debate second reading to any great extent, we debated a hoist instead, and then he turns on us in the House and says: "Why weren't you around to debate?" We're around to debate now and the minister won't answer the questions. That's going a little bit too far. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, again, that this is a vague, hazy section and the minister could clarify that vague, hazy section by just answering the questions that we've asked.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to that one more question. In subsection (1) (a) he speaks about one or more certification committees. I wonder if the minister would be able to tell me what reason there would be to have more than one certification committee. As you know, every other professional group in this province that is certified has to meet criteria established by a provincial certification committee. Whether you are being certified to practise medicine, law, pharmacy, nursing or whatever, there is a provincial committee that you have to meet.

Now there is obviously a reason why the private school teachers would have to meet more than one committee. I don't know why. I'm wondering if the minister, who I see is consulting with his assistant, would explain to us why in this particular case it might be necessary to have more than one certification committee for the private school teachers - not for everyone else but just for the private school teachers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, traditionally different criteria are used for judging certification of primary and secondary teachers, so this was the reason why there could be more than one committee. Of course, while it is all done under regulations by the joint board of teacher education for the public school system, in effect you have different criteria for that purpose.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the minister explaining then that there is going to be one provincial committee for elementary schools and one for secondary schools. Is that correct?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the legislation makes that possible.

MS. BROWN: I wonder then if the minister would be able to tell me whether it would be possible for this committee to establish the qualifications and criteria for all teachers in the province, or if there is any reason why it would operate exclusively for people who would be teaching in the independent school system.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, because this committee would operate under Bill 33, whereas the Public Schools Act is a different Act of the Legislature.

MS. BROWN: I really was beginning to feel that we are making some progress for a change, and it seems we're right back where we started. Because that is precisely what I'm asking. Why are we going to have a different certification committee to certify teachers under Bill 33 than exists to certify them under the Public Schools Act? Would the minister respond, please?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I gave a lengthy explanation of that yesterday.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, when I raised that question yesterday, the response given to me by the minister was exactly the one given to me before this - namely, that one is under Bill 33 and the other is under the Public Schools Act. Now maybe it would be just as well for the minister to appreciate that I will be raising this question again under different sections, until he somehow comes to some kind of understanding of what I'm trying to find out from him and manages to form some kind of response that's relevant. His answer is totally irrelevant, but I accept it on the grounds that he doesn't understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any question that would be in order under this section would undoubtedly be out of order under another section.

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. I would redraft my question. I've learned how to do that.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for a very direct answer on a question this afternoon ' and I want to just follow up on it. I asked the minister, to remind him, on whether his ministry's terms of reference when they're setting up the certification committee would also deal with the selection and dismissals of teachers in independent schools. If I can recall correctly, the minister was very clear and specific when he stated no, the independent schools would be completely in charge of their own selection and dismissal of teachers.

Now I have a concern here, Mr. Chairman, which I feel I must express to the minister on this answer. There have been cases - not in this province, to my

[ Page 4512 ]

knowledge, but there have been cases in other provinces - where teachers in denominational schools have been released from their jobs because of the fact that they had married out of that particular denomination. My concern is that that is certainly the right of any independent school to handle their own selection and dismissals as long as they are not receiving public money.

This is a very, very basic principle, Mr. Chairman, which concerns me personally, and I think many other people. Now the minister apparently does not share this same concern. I think that any government which would condone this when the taxpayers' money is involved is not acting in a responsible manner. I think the only reason for dismissal of teachers in any school which is being funded by the taxpayers should be on the reasons which now exist under the Public Schools Act.

I want to reiterate that that should not be taken away from any school which does not receive funding. But the minister's answer has been given today, that he does not intend to see that what applies in the public school section will apply in the independent school. This is a very, very basic principle which I'm very concerned about. My question to the minister is: how can he possibly condone in this bill the usage of public money -taxpayers' money - which would actually permit dismissals of teachers on non-educational grounds?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, of course the member is free to draw any interpretation she wishes from the legislation, whether such an interpretation is possible for a reasonable person to draw or not. But I will say that the member, as so many of the official opposition have done, is discussing the principle of Bill 33. 1 think the courageous thing for that party to have done would have been to discuss the principle of the bill instead of running out of the Legislature, where they wouldn't have to take a stand, and now coming back attempting to filibuster the bill to recoup for their foolishness.

The public well knows that the NDP is philosophically against this bill. It does not wish independent schools to be supported, but it is trying to play both sides of the fence, on the one hand being bitterly against the bill, and on the other hand trying to lead the independent schools to believe that somehow they really support it. It went on all the years they they were in government; it's going on now by their actions in the Legislature. That's why they didn't have the courage to come and vote against this bill in second reading. They've managed to vote against section 1; they've managed to vote against section 2.

1 suppose to save face among your own supporters - the position that they've taken at their convention - you wish to come into this House and somehow try and obstruct the bill to gain some credibility with your own supporters. Why weren't you honest in the first place and vote against the bill? Why don't you vote against this section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, hon. minister. The question appeared to be in order under this section. I trust that we will use moderate language in the House so that we will not block the procedure of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you pointing out to the minister that I was in order. I don't intend to lower myself to the kind of debate which that minister has just indulged in. That's why I'd like to go back to my question: Do you - and I think you owe this to the public who are going to be putting out the money to support this bill - condone this kind of right of an independent school to release a teacher on grounds that are related to non-educational performance? Our public tax money is being used for this.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the independent schools have been operating in this province for 100 years, hiring their staff, taking full responsibility for their contracts and so on. The NDP stood up for hours on end yesterday saying that the independent schools should have independence. Now, by golly, they are standing up today complaining about that.

I just wish the NDP would be consistent in its obstruction. At least be consistent. No such interpretation is possible under this section because it has nothing to do with the certification, Mr. Chairman. This section merely sets up committees, if the minister chooses, which will give certification to teachers. It says nothing about what independent schools will do in engaging the teachers, their hours of work, their working conditions, their contracts, their length of tenure or anything else. It has nothing to do with section 3, Mr. Chairman, and it isn't the purpose of the government to include it in section 3.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things in response to the minister. Certainly I have no hesitation in saying publicly, both in this chamber as I have done, in my own riding and in many other locations throughout the province, that I oppose the principle of public funding to separate and private schools. There is no question about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not in this section.

MR. KING: We are dealing in the committee stage, as the Chairman has drawn to the minister's attention, and the minister should not be allowed to

[ Page 4513 ]

throw red herrings in this debate. We are dealing with section 3. 1 would expect him to account for that section, if he is competent to do so. His incompetence reminds me of an old rhyme related to some elitist schools-about the caning days when the boys didn't get the answer correct.

'The boy's a fool, ' the master cried,
'Hold out your hand!'
'Oh, no, ' said Patrick, saying:
'Not at your command.' I shan't go on. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 3, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister has an obligation to answer the question, and he can't confuse the question put to him by my colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) by saying: "The NDP is inconsistent." When these schools are private, separate and developing their own funding, there is no right for a public inquisition into their rules and regulations. The minister is the one who is changing that situation by the introduction of this bill. The minister is now introducing a public interest into the separate school issue by proposing to fund. That's inherent in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not debating the principle of the bill. Section 3 has to do with....

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you allowed the minister to give a response saying that the NDP was inconsistent because we were advocating control over the regulations that private schools....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I also allowed you to recite a poem. That doesn't make every poem in the world relevant to this debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you are being unduly restrictive, in my view. I am attempting to explain our position under this section to the minister. I appreciate our Chairman's concern, but I suggest that he be evenhanded in terms of asking the members of this House to abide by the rules. Now the minister has made allegations and I am trying to explain the situation to him. He's a slow learner.

Mr. Chairman, by essence of public funding, the public now has a right and an interest in all regulations pertaining to this particular statute. Therefore it now becomes the business of each and every taxpayer in this province to ensure that the hiring and the firing criteria for instructors and educators under this bill are acceptable to the public and that they meet an equivalent and effective standard, such as that in the public sector. That is the question. The minister has brought that on by introducing the bill. He has delivered the public interest in this matter. Therefore he shouldn't sidestep the question.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to section 3, which says nothing about hiring and firing teachers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MRS. DAILLY: On the same point of order as the Minister of Education, the minister well knows that teacher certification can, certainly when it comes before the ministry, also involve decertification. The reasons for decertification come to him and to the cabinet in final appeal. So as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, we have a perfect right under this section to discuss decertification, which can come about because of a school firing a teacher.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken except for this point. I would remind the hon. member for Burnaby-North that the committee took it upon itself to make this debate relevant under section 1. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we debated it under section 1 and it was deemed to be relevant at that time, then it is irrelevant to section 3. We cannot debate it twice.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly had no comments to make regarding teacher certification under section 1. I'm trying to make my remarks relevant to the section we're dealing with, and I don't know how else I can do that but by reading the section. This section does deal with teacher certification and the committee structure is provided which can either certify or, presumably, decertify teachers. The only basis upon which decertification would take place would be presumably for some alleged misdemeanour, according to criteria presumably set up by this certification committee.

What we are concerned about is what that criteria will be. Will the criteria be identical to the criteria in the public sector? Or will it give special recognition to some of the circumstances which do obtain in private or parochial schools?

My colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has pointed out that there could be a situation where, by essence of marriage out of the church, that became a question of moral right to teach in the institution. Therefore this becomes a consideration of the certification committee.

Now the minister just dodges around this issue. He refuses to answer. He simply attempts to avoid answering the question dealing with the heart of the issue raised, which is an important one. It's not only an important one in terms of this particular section, but - Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that you would realize,

[ Page 4514 ]

as every member of the House would - it's an obligation on legislators to ensure that statutes are debated in this House and that there is no conflict with other statutory rights which are fundamental to human rights in this province.

I certainly question whether or not a scenario such as that outlined by my colleague, which the minister refuses to react to, to comment on or to acknowledge ... I suggest that there is a real question whether, under those circumstances, there would not be a breach of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McGEER: Order, Mr. Chairman!

MR. KING: Now it's incumbent on intelligent legislators, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister calls order. Under what section?

HON. MR. McGEER: We're debating human rights. It's a different bill, Mr. Chairman. This section doesn't affect human rights; it appoints a committee.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not on his feet and I suggest that the Chair not recognize him.

Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation, both as responsible legislators and from a legal constitutional viewpoint, to make sure that law that is passed in this Legislature is not ultra vires regarding other statutes. Certainly that can happen. Therefore I think the point raised which the minister simply refuses to respond to, is a valid one. It's a serious one and the minister should get up and attempt to explain what his position is. Perhaps he hasn't thought about it. If not, he should so indicate. But just to attempt to dodge around the issue and to show contempt for members of this House who are asking questions in good faith I say is a very shoddy performance, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the minister to show more regard for the House than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister now has the question. It's been asked several times.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate to us any reason why there cannot be other than ministerial appointments? Just a simple question. Is there any reason why there cannot be other than ministerial appointments to this committee?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was just repeating the question from my colleague in case the minister didn't understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think you heard the Chairman say the question is in the hands of the minister.

MS. BROWN: Right. But what I'm trying to do is clarify it for the minister. Is that permitted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. BROWN: Because under section 3 (l) (b) , the minister has the authority to name persons to be members of the committee. Now the question raised was: is it possible for somebody to become a member of the committee without being named by the minister? I was just clarifying it for him.

We have reason, of course, to ask this question because the minister's record, surely, in dealing with other boards - for example, with the UBC board of governors - leads us to question whether the responsibility for naming the members of the committee should be the exclusive right of the minister.

In view of the fact that the private schools of this province operate for the benefit of a cross-section of the children of the province and no one particular or exclusive group, we are concerned whether the membership of the committee will reflect the membership of the schools. Because the minister's record has not been positive in that direction, we are concerned, and we wonder whether it is possible for other people to make recommendations or appointments to the board or whether the minister is going to keep this as his exclusive right.

I think that is a valid question.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it would appear as though the minister hasn't really thought out some of the questions that we are raising, and hopefully he is giving some thought to them now.

For example, the concern expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) to the effect that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is suggesting that the minister can't think. But I wouldn't say that, Mr. Chairman.

I was simply saying that there was a concern expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby North to the effect that teachers have been fired by independent schools for reasons other than educational competence. Mr. Chairman, the concern, on the part of some of the members of the opposition at least - and the hon. Minister of Economic Development obviously has no concern about anything - is that there is a difference. The minister said that they had been doing this for 100 years; why get excited about it now? Well, there is a difference, Mr. Chairman, because now we are going to be pumping considerable numbers of taxpayers' dollars into this programme. Does the minister say that he

[ Page 4515 ]

would condone this kind of happening, that the teacher certification committee would stand by and remove the certification from a teacher who had lost his or her position at an independent school for reasons other than educational competence? Is he saying that he would condone this committee withdrawing. . . ?

HON. MR. McGEER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, we extensively covered certification and decertification of teachers, and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) insisted upon this yesterday. I thought you were very indulgent in permitting that particular area to be' canvassed under section 1. But really, it is being canvassed all over again today under section 3. 1 think you pointed that out, sir, and I would just remind the member that we've really dealt with this question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, material that has been formerly covered, under standing order 43.... Our standing orders provide that we cannot repeat again our own arguments or the arguments of others. It becomes repetitious and eventually tedious, and the Chair would have to call the members to order.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate your advice. I don't exactly appreciate the advice from the Minister of Education who said this material was canvassed yesterday. We did indeed talk about certification yesterday. We did agree yesterday that one way in which a person becomes certified is to be recommended b y this teacher certification committee. That was agreed to yesterday and that was as far as we went with respect to subsection (3) of the definition of certification.

But the question we are asking now is the event that the teacher certification committee withdraws a recommendation on behalf of a particular individual, and that wasn't even mentioned yesterday.

HON. MR. McGEER: A point of order. Repeatedly yesterday, when the subject of certification came up, I drew your attention to the fact that section 3 of the bill existed. The members at that particular time did not wish to pass section I and ultimately voted against it. But during the course of that, with your indulgence, they extensively canvassed the question of certification and decertification. I think if we are going to permit the members to get ahead of themselves on sections of the bill, as took place for some 71/2 hours yesterday, we can hardly repeat the arguments under subsequent sections.

All we're doing, Mr. Chairman, is to retread the ground of certification and decertification, which was really covered as a broad principle yesterday during the debate. I think that a debate of that kind, detailed and extensive as it was, is perhaps something which is necessary under the Act; but to do it several days in a row under different sections, it seems to me, is an abuse of the rules, sir.

MR. LEA: If the Minister of Education on a point of order wants to chastise the Chair, then he should do it by motion and not do by the back door what he can't do by the front door.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

MR. LEA: He was chastising the Chair and he should be doing it by a motion. That is a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members of the House, from time to time, assist the Chair. Because various people sit in the chair, the Chair cannot always remember all of the debate that has taken place and we do not have copies of the Blues here; therefore this assistance is appreciated and your point of order is not well taken.

MR. STUPICH: Might I also offer some assistance in this particular instance? We did, as I have agreed before, cover this matter of certification and decertification yesterday. The minister and I agreed that in the event the teacher certification committee recommended for decertification, then that person, under subsection (3) , would automatically be decertified.

But we did not in any way at all yesterday - and I was here, I think, for the whole of the afternoon when we were discussing certification - deal at all with the question as to the reasons why a person might be certified or decertified by this certification committee. What I am discussing right now is the possibility that the certification committee might withdraw certification....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, once more may I draw your attention to the fact that extensive opportunity was given to that member yesterday to transgress section I and cover the ground in section 3? It was you, sir, who pointed out to him at the time that by doing that he was covering the matter of certification and decertification. If the member, in the meantime, has happened to bring to mind detailed questions that he couldn't bring to mind yesterday, it nevertheless is covering the ground that was adequately canvassed before the members voted against that section.

MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I speak to the point of

[ Page 4516 ]

order and then I'll recognize the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

The Chair cautioned the committee yesterday. We have a beautiful example of what happens when we mutually agree to do something which is against the advice of the Chair. The Chair cautioned the committee yesterday that under the interpretation and definition section we did not open for full debate other sections of the bill, or indeed the principle of the bill. But the committee, by general consent, accepted a debate under the word "certified" in the definition section, and indeed, for an extended length of time, debated certification. Just because some argument that could have been brought up at that time did not come to mind at that time is no reason to believe that it could be brought up and open up again the entire debate under another section.

I must so rule that the debate on certification received ample coverage. Indeed, many of the questions regarding certification and decertification were amply covered under that debate and, as a result, the Chair can no longer permit the same questions to be asked again.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have two points to bring up. I wish the Chair would explain to the House what might be discussed under section 3. The reference contained in the explanatory notes says: "Independent schools teacher certification committees." I would appreciate counsel from the Chair in terms of what might be discussed now.

Secondly, I would take issue with the observation by the Chair that the same questions are being asked now that were asked yesterday. That is not the case with respect to the specific question which my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member for Prince Rupert on the same point of order?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, if I may explain a little further, section 3, as I read it, deals only with certification ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, certification committees.

MR. LEA: ... and committees to certify or decertify. If we can't discuss that, then what can be discussed, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan says, under section 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Exactly. This is the dilemma that the Chair drew to the House's attention yesterday. By debating certification extensively under the definition section, I foresaw the difficulty we would have today. Therefore, since we had an extended debate on certification yesterday, I would rule that the matter....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention a very important aspect. Right now we're dealing with only one aspect of certification. This is not total certification. We had to debate yesterday at least sections 1 and 2 under certification because that was the only place where you could debate the holding of a valid teacher's certificate and/or having taught in the independent or provincial school system for 10 years. You see, one level of certification is No. 1. One level of certification is No. 2. No. 3 coincides, to some extent, with section 3. Right now we're only dealing with one small aspect of certification. This is the one that most concerns us today. We were worried yesterday about its ramifications on the other two areas. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) kept asking the question whether or not decertification could take place in the first two categories. We had to put them together. Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with a mixed-up bill and a mixed-up minister - it's just a terrible mix~up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I can understand your quandary. I really do.

MR. STUPICH: Specifically on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do recall you cautioning one of the members on this side of the House yesterday....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was all members, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't recall you ever drawing me to order, except in one instance when I was replying to some of the minister's high-flying remarks about the conduct of the NDP administration some years ago. I don't recall ever being called to order by you. I thought I was paying particular attention to being in order when I was discussing section 1 and, in particular, certification. I stand to be corrected on that, but I doubt very much that the Blues will show that I was drawn to order on that.

I do recall asking you in an aside that may have escaped you, although I thought you heard it at the time.... You were cautioning one of the members on this side that if he was going to speak that generally about it, then you hoped we would not get into that general discussion again when we came to that section. In an aside to you I said that I hoped that because one member was transgressing the specific discussion that should have taken place in section 1, you would not say that all members had,

[ Page 4517 ]

by implication, dealt with all sections of the bill and you would treat all alike simply because one member, or even several members, had transgressed. I do insist, Mr. Chairman, that I was not called to order on a discussion of certification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whenever attention is drawn to the disorderliness of any member, it is a general observation that is made to the entire House. However, on the member's observation, there is no way that the Chair can apply one rule for one member and not the same rule for all members. Therefore we cannot say to one member, "Okay, we will provide that you will be in order to debate your questions under one section, " and have the rest of the members retain their right to discuss the same questions under a different section. The rules of the House do not provide for that. Therefore we have to, by common consent, debate these matters either under one section or the other, and not some members under one and some members under the other. If we did, then the dilemma would develop into chaos in this House. I would have to rule that since....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is it on the same point?

MR. KING: Yes. On a point of order before you make your ruling, I would ask that you very seriously consider the points made by the member for New Westminster. There is a difference in the certification discussion that took place yesterday and that taking place today. The other point I want to make - and I think it's a valid one - is that members should not forfeit their opportunity to discuss a provision under any particular section of a bill because liberty was taken with the rules on some previous occasion. I would say that under those circumstances, the rules should have been adhered to in the first instance. Any failure in that respect should not work to the detriment of members who may have not even been present on that occasion.

This is not a criticism of the Chair; it's a criticism of the House, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's a valid one. But the dilemma is that the question of certification is a very, very complex one in this case. I think that latitude should be allowed under section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This further underscores the decision which was made by the Chair early yesterday that perhaps the interpretation section and definition section is not the place for general debate, particularly when another section has provided for that kind of debate.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I just want to make one point, and that is that there was no room for discussion of the other two aspects of certification in any other part of this bill other than the definition section regardless, Mr. Chairman, of how you rule. No matter how you rule, Mr. Chairman, that is a fact. My colleagues and I had no alternative but to debate the first two aspects of certification under the definition section, otherwise we would have been forever darned on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Having heard all the points of order, the Chair now has to make a ruling. The ruling is this: the committee now has had an opportunity to discuss matters of certification and decertification at some length. The debate is now definitely becoming repetitious. Therefore the ruling is that matters regarding certification and decertification have now been deemed to have been covered in section I and section 3. What's left to be covered under section 3 are only matters pertaining to the committee.

MR. KING: With regret, I must challenge your ruling on this.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of the Whole House, a matter of clarification came up regarding certain matters having been discussed under one section of a bill and determined to be discussed again under a subsequent section. The Chairman made the ruling that the matters had been extensively covered and were becoming repetitious, and so ruled. The ruling was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: The question now is one without debate. Shall the Chairman's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 15

[ Page 4518 ]

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

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

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

On section 3 - continued.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we are allowed now to discuss the structure of the committee. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that the committee is of grave concern to many, many people, and certainly I think it would be of grave concern to the minister.

I asked him a couple of questions some time ago. One of those questions is: will the minister consider broadening the committee to take other than his own appointments? I would also ask the minister whether or not the committee is going to be broadly based -that is, geographically, from a religious standpoint, and from a racial standpoint.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member will find in the Blues yesterday that the committee will be broadly based and there will be wide consultation.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 14

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 4.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, for those people who do support the concept, surely after reading this very bad bill we have now come across section 4, which is the Doomsday section of the bill.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

Section 4 spells the end to any independence for independent schools. Section 4 is the section where the inspector, who we described yesterday as a czar, constitutes his external evaluation committees. I was going to call them "eternal" evaluation committees, and I might be right. He constitutes that committee; that's his first job. What does he do second? He names the persons to the committee. In other words, he names all the members, and then thirdly he prescribes their duties. That's what the inspector does.

Now this is the external evaluation committee of the independent school. There can be no further independence under those circumstances. The inspector rules the roost, totally and completely. This is the section that I consider to be the turn-on-the-tap, turn-off-the-tap section. This is the kind of section that precludes any possibility of this bill being named the Independent Schools Support Act. Why was it named that? Because it's a total misnomer under the circumstances of section 4.

When a person with the power that is vested in the inspector constitutes a committee, names all the members of the committee and prescribes all their duties, then what he has done in effect is to give himself all the power over the evaluation of schools. Yesterday the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was asking just how the inspector was going to go about inspecting, evaluating and so on.

The minister was asked whether or not there were going to be local inspectors involved in this evaluation process. The minister couldn't answer. He said: "Maybe yes and maybe no." But we know this: no matter who the inspector uses for this evaluation committee, he calls the entire shot. If the committee were named by the minister, named by order-in-council, named by government, or named by some other body, there might be a possibility that there could be less power vested in the inspector. But when the inspector calls the shots on all aspects, it strikes me that that inspector is really the czar we called him, and that there is no further independence for independent schools.

Now I'd asked the minister on the basis of this particular section why it was that he vested all this power in one person. Even the minister isn't involved

[ Page 4519 ]

in this particular situation. This is after all a very important aspect - external evaluation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Once more, we went over the types of people who would be assisting with the inspection of the schools, which, of course, is what section 4 does. So again, there's repetition here, but the general purpose is to assist the inspector in evaluating the independent schools and deciding whether they're Group 1 or Group 2. Of course, the inspector really only needs to make that broad decision, because once that decision is made to approve or disapprove an application, then the amount of funding derives automatically according to how many students are enrolled in the school.

So it's hardly appropriate to suggest all this control that would exist as a result of assistance the minister may choose to receive by the committees he appoints under section 4. But certainly, in the initial phases of examining the physical facilities of schools and checking on their programme by such external review committees ... I think it was the member for Nanaimo who asked: would there be local inspectors, because they wanted to be able to compare with the local schools? The answer is, undoubtedly, yes, and the purpose of the committees under section 4 are self-evident.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to be repetitive but I do feel that it is important in committee debate that I register my concern over the apparent total authority given to the inspector in this section to constitute the committees, to name the persons who shall be members of the committee and to prescribe the duties of the committee. Now yesterday, and again today, the minister has tried to soften the impact of the section by saying that, of course, while one person is named, namely the inspector, he will be subject to a great deal of advice and assistance from others. I just wonder if, under this section and at this point in the debate, the minister could tell the committee what kind of procedure he envisages in relation to the work of the inspector in carrying out his responsibilities under the section. In other words, at what level within the ministry and how many individuals or how many subgroups or subcommittees does the minister visualize as being involved in advising the inspector?

The reason the opposition has concerns and the reason that I have some concerns about this section is it's the old story we so often are given by government in debate, that While, of course, it reads as though one man has all that power, of course in practice there will be a dissemination of that power and when the inspector acts it will be as a result of a great deal of input from a variety of people.

Now that's the sense I've derived from the minister's various statements relating to this fundamental criticism on this bill, namely the fact that there is an excess of power granted to one person. The minister has repeatedly said that, of course, it's not quite the way it appears. The inspector who would make the final decision will do so on the basis of involvement and advice and suggestion from many other people in his ministry. I wonder if this wouldn't be the appropriate time to at least give the House some general outline of who else would be involved and the whole question of any appeal by a school if the members of that independent school feel they have been judged unfairly by the external evaluation committee.

Could he also give the House some general idea - I understand that the minister can't be completely specific - from what particular body of persons will the members of the committee likely be chosen? Surely, although the minister can't give us all the specifics, he can give us some idea of the general policy direction which will be used to determine from what body of persons the members of this committee will be derived.

Thirdly, could I ask the minister if, in fact, it'is implied or not implied within the section - I would have to suggest that it is not anywhere evident - that a school found to be inadequate in the eyes of the evaluation committee would have no avenue of appeal? Again, as I asked yesterday in relation to teacher certification, I think there always has to be some avenue of appeal where a statutory body, such as this committee would be under the statute, has the capacity to make some far-reaching decisions which could be damaging to a school or to teachers in that school.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the appeals are contained in section 13, and we can discuss ... they apply both to teachers and to schools. Two important processes have to take place.

First of all, the independent schools who wish to receive support have to apply. They have to make their own decision as to whether or not they want Group I or Group 2. That process having taken place, then the inspector must judge whether or not the application is acceptable. How many inspection teams he's going to require obviously depends on how many applications are received. Naturally professional people who are familiar with the standards in the public school system are going to be the ones who will be assisting the inspector in judging the independent schools. You're going to have to judge whether or not the independent school, if it's applying for Group 2, is reaching the curriculum standards which are specified under section 6.

If they are only going for the kind of physical support that is implied in section S, then you're really doing a routine inspection of physical facilities and again judging those for their adequacy according to

[ Page 4520 ]

standards that are commonly accepted in British Columbia as being adequate. I don't really envision very much difficulty, from the inspector's point of view, in arriving at these judgments. The number of people whom he will choose to assist him will obviously depend on the number of applications he receives.

MR. WALLACE: Who will they be?

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, we'll probably use local superintendents, senior people, district supervisors of instruction and so on, plus some people from the independent school system. At the present time, as the member may know, there are many evaluation teams which exist now in the public school system. We're sending evaluation teams around the province continually to look at individual schools, and programmes in individual schools. There is certainly nothing new about this process of evaluation teams in the public school system. If the superintendent, or the team that does the evaluation, is questioned by those being evaluated, they appeal to the minister now. I'm talking now about teachers or schools in the public school system. What you do is you establish appeal teams, look at it, and make recommendations as to whether they concur or disagree.

What takes place here under section 4, while it applies to independent schools, is certainly not a process that's an unfamiliar one in the ministry. It's the kind of thing that's going on all the time, and the appeal procedure which is specified here is not a new appeal procedure. The appeal to the minister is a standard sort of thing and there are commonly established administrative procedures for dealing with the appeals. They will be the same kinds of standards that really have been applied for so long in the public school system.

MR. WALLACE: I have just one follow-up question to the minister. Actually I didn't specifically ask this question, but I should. I wanted to make this point: will representatives from the independent schools themselves be given any role in the external evaluation procedure? It is very obvious from all the publicity and the public dialogue which has followed the introduction of this bill that generally both teachers and trustees in the public school system are very apprehensive about the competition for public dollars which may well result from this bill.

It would seem to me that the representatives of the independent schools movement - if I can call it that - would be very apprehensive if all the evaluation is to be done by persons whose sympathies lie with the public school system. It may have been an oversight on the minister's part, but I would like to know if the minister's policy in evaluating independent schools will or will not involve some authorities - respected authorities - from within the independent school system.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Member, of course they will. I think while the school trustees have taken an official position against support, and the Teachers Federation have taken an official position against support, it's straight belief that there will be competition for dollars, ~ and no amount of reassurance from the government will dispel that insistent fear. Despite that, there is tremendously good rapport at the professional level between the independent schools and the public schools. There's mutual respect and exchange of professional information, and I really think that the professionals who are working at the district superintendent and supervisor of instruction level are not worried about the kinds of jealousies that result in these official positions being taken. I have every confidence in the objectivity and competency of those in the public school system. In addition, I have similar respect for those in the independent school system. I'm quite confident that the thing will work well and fairly.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister has told us very quietly that there is nothing particularly new about this system in section 4, that you have evaluation committees in the public school system. Surely it is totally different here. Would they stand for this for one moment in the public school system? The committee could go into a public secondary or elementary school, evaluate all of these things spelled out in section 6, including assessing programmes -not just physical facilities, as the minister said, but the curriculum, the programmes, their teacher certification, the whole thing - and then say to them: "On the basis of what we found, you don't get any funds, but you've got an appeal. You can appeal to the minister, who is an elected, political minister of the government." To allow that to encroach on the public school system would not be tolerated for a minute. They would say: "That's political tyranny." We have developed a system of elected school boards. Of course, you can have an evaluation committee that makes a report to the school board and the Ministry of Education, but the schools are under~ the elected school boards. That is their charter of independence.

The independence of the independent schools is being totally taken away here with a committee called the external evaluation committee, which can go in and widely assess them on their whole spectrum of operations and curriculum and teachers and the whole thing. Then they can say: "You're fully independent, but the matter of funding is the only reason we've come in to see you. We have the power, if you don't go along with our suggestions, to withdraw your public funding." That is a power of life and death over the separate schools.

[ Page 4521 ]

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is perfectly correct when he says this bill ends the independence of the independent schools. You've offered them a noose. If they accept financial support from the government and the Minister of Education, then as a condition of continuing to receive that financial support, upon which they will become totally dependent, they will have to do the minister's bidding through the evaluation committee, through the inspector and with an appeal to the minister. That's all. I say they would be accepting the political tyranny of the Minister of Education in the independent school system. It is so wrong.

This minister has gotten up and talked about the NDP. We said there should be help for the child.

HON. MR. McGEER: Your member said he was against it. Which side of the fence are you on?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll tell you what side we're on. We support help for the child. There are children throughout the whole educational system, whatever its nature, who are retarded. There are children with writing and learning problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We're discussing section 4.

MR. MACDONALD: There is a question of access to resource centres. There is a question of transportation. There is a question of health services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: If you had gone that route you wouldn't....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat, hon. member, please.

Section 4, thank you.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. ]

MR. MACDONALD: I'll get back to section 4. So don't misrepresent it, Mr. Minister. What you are doing here, under section 4, is creating two school systems in the province of British Columbia, with the inherent divisiveness you're going to build into our society over a period of time. You're not going to be relieving the burden on the parents who send their children to separate schools because this second system is going to grow ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MR.MACDONALD: ... and their obligations will get even heavier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I am discussing the principle of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rises. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN I know you're on the principle of the bill, and we are not discussing the principle of the bill.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member suggested in his brief foray past section 4 of this Act that it would take away the independence of the independent schools. Of course, Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. Section 4 allows the inspector to create external evaluation committees for the purpose of evaluating the applications that the independent schools will make. Of course, if independent schools have the kinds of fears that the member suggests, obviously they won't make application. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the independent schools, were there an NDP government, would have no choice. They wouldn't be able to make any applications because, despite the fact that the NDP refuses to make its position on the principle of the bill known, by their voting against sections such as section 4, they gradually reveal their position, which is opposition to the bill, though they haven't the courage to come into the House and declare their vote when the moment to stand up and be counted comes. It's this standing up and nitpicking against the individual sections of the bill, not having the courage to take an overall argument against the bill itself....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it didn't take very much for you to get up and call the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to order. Yet you let the minister get away with running all over the ballpark. I just don't like the uneven way this House is being run.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat, hon. member. I was about to call the minister to order. Your point is well taken.

MS. BROWN: You allow the minister to stand up and perseverate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On section 4?

MS. BROWN: "Preservation" is what happens when you're going senile. That was the word I used. I should know - I'm getting old. I make no bones

[ Page 4522 ]

about that; I am getting old. I'm almost old enough that that member will be ready for me any day now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will be a new order of business, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: But not quite yet. I may have one foot in but the other foot is still out.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're waiting for you!

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm sure!

In any event, Mr. Chairman, would you please call them to order?

In fact, under this section, the only independent schools that will be able to survive - the only ones that will exist after this external evaluation committee has been in existence for a while - are the very wealthy private schools.

Yesterday when I was speaking, I spoke about some of the independent schools that existed because the students who attended them spoke another language. I referred to the Japanese schools, some of the Chinese schools, some of the less affluent schools. What this section does is.... If these schools fail to meet the criteria established by this committee which the inspector is going to appoint, they go under.

In fact, section 4 has a beautiful way of destroying the independent schools and wiping them out. Because the way it works is that first you allow them to become dependent on public funding. Then when they are dependent on public funding, your evaluation committee decertifies them, or whatever the word is that one is looking for. Then they can't exist because they have ceased to be independent. They have now become dependent on public funding. In fact, the only people who survive are your wealthy private schools who can afford to meet any imaginary or real criteria set up by this particular external evaluation committee.

I think this is a very, very clever way in which the minister, and certainly his government, have sought to ensure that the only schools that exist in this province as private schools are the wealthy private schools - Shawnigan Lake, St. George's, Crofton House, York. They're going to survive under this. But the little schools that exist to teach their students in Japanese or in Chinese, as the case may be, and the schools that exist for one religious reason or another, once they become totally dependent on public funding and find that they have been decertified as a result of this committee, they will go under.

It's, one thing to say that you do not believe in public funds going to private schools, and I certainly have not made any secret about that. I'm not discussing the principle of the bill. This is a fact. I have not made any secret about that. So the minister is not referring to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard when he says he doesn't know where the NDP stands on that issue.

In fact, in section 4 he is succeeding in not just leaving the independent schools independent, which I am prepared to allow them to be, but in fact he is succeeding in destroying 'them. He's going to wipe them out. This is a very insidious section. It's a very destructive section. It really brings out the class bias of the minister and it is one of the reasons why we can't possibly support it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, section 4 does quite the opposite to what the member says. What section 4 does is permit the inspector to appoint evaluation committees that will result in money going to these poor schools. Of course, it's because of the discrimination of the NDP that these schools were not surviving, and it's the discrimination of the NDP against the poor for religious reasons that has acted to prevent them from surviving. Quite opposite to what the member says, her party discriminated by not offering aid; her party was against these religious schools....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to have the minister withdraw the suggestion that our position is because of religious reasons. "Discrimination against these schools for religious reasons" - this is what the minister said. Yesterday he used the word that we were "prejudiced" in our opposition. Now I would hope that this debate would be on a matter of principle, but as a matter of parliamentary law, I say that is imputing a motive. I think the debate should not proceed on that kind of a basis at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you were imputing any improper motive, hon. minister, will you withdraw it, please?

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I was merely repeating the arguments that the NDP have used. You are very strong on the separation of church and state, and while this has got nothing to do with church, it was you that said what we're doing by supporting independent schools is supporting the church. We're supporting schools, just as this Act said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister ... on the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I can only reiterate that the purpose of section 4 is to assist the independent schools - to keep these poor schools

[ Page 4523 ]

from going under, as they surely would have done had this government not come to power.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that minister continues to use this platform to make charges that are not supportable. This province has for 104 years gone the other way and that minister managed to deke the Social Credit Party into the position they have now taken.

But that's neither here nor there. Let's get back to the section. The section, Mr' Chairman, is with respect to what the inspector does when he steps up these evaluation committees. The evaluation committees are, as far as I'm concerned, the most important aspect of the whole procedure, because they decide whether or not the grants are given to independent schools. With that kind of authority in the hands of the inspector, Mr. Chairman, I said at the outset that the independent schools lose their independence. It's just as clear and as simple as that. The member for Vancouver East said that. They do lose their independence.

The arguments that the minister makes ... he says for instance, and this is his strongest argument: "Well, they can make up their minds; they don't have to apply." Isn't that a marvellous argument? So in other words, what he's really saying, in effect, is going exactly along my line of thinking. If they don't want to lose their independence, they don't need to apply. But if they do want to lose their independence, they can apply. And that's really what he's saying. That's the only argument he's given us in defence of this structure in section 4.

If they don't want to apply, they don't have to apply. If they don't apply, they don't lose their independence; if they do apply, the inference is they lose their independence. Now is there anything baffling about that? I think I can understand it very clearly. So if you don't want to apply, you don't lose your independence. If you do, you do.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister also to give us some idea what he means when he says that he will be using some of the departmental people in this process? I'm to understand now that the minister, while he wouldn't answer last night, has answered today. He will be using local inspectors and local superintendents on these committees from the public school system. And I'm just wondering how the independent school system is going to feel about this - again - threat to their independence. Not that I'm a great defender, but I certainly want to bring to the attention of the people in this committee the questions that arise in every section of this bill. So will the minister give us a couple of answers to those questions?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): What we have here are three lines of information regarding the external evaluation committee, and what we really have to have a concern about is what are the regulations going to look like when they come down so that these inspectors have some kind of guidelines?

The minister probably knows that when he was at the FISA three-day conference, Dr. Erickson, who is probably one of the foremost educational people in terms of the separate school issue, was one of the people that the NDP government hired to look at this question in terms of the kind of assistance that we might be able to give people. He warned at that time that we have to be very careful about the apparent innocuous regulations that could affect their independence. And what we have here was a somewhat innocuous appearing section.

"Constitute one or more external evaluation committees." Well, it's like telling us how to build a house. "Name the persons to be members of the committee and prescribe the duties of the committee." But that doesn't really tell us a hell of a lot. What we need to know, and the minister should be very frank with is, is about what kind of regulations they are drawing up. Because more and more it's becoming noticeable, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of the kind of legislation that this government brings down, the real impact of the legislation is really in the regulation.

So we have to ask in terms of this section, what has he really got in mind? What kind of criteria is he going to put to these inspectors when they go out and evaluate? My colleagues have already raised the problem that's going to be in the inspector's mind if he's going to use the school board inspectors. After all, they work for the school board. They're paid by the government, but nevertheless they know where the school boards stand on this. That's got to be a very difficult -quandary for these people - to go in and evaluate a separate school situation. Now he's got to be very frank with us. What kind of criteria are they going to be looking for?

Oh, the member from back east goes "aye."

HON. MR. McGEER: Point of order. Section 4 merely permits the inspector to constitute evaluation committees. What the committees are concerned with is contained in sections 5 and 6. And I think the member's remarks might be better directed towards those sections. I'd be transgressing the rules of the House were l, to attempt answering them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, with the possible exception, hon. minister, that it does refer to section 6 (c) .

MR. LEVI: Yes, it does refer to 6. And I appreciate the minister, the gentle afternoon manner that he has, very gentle considering the hot weather outside and that fantastic Hawaiian suntan that he

[ Page 4524 ]

has. Gentle....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 4.

MR. LEVI: Oh, we hear from the Minister of Finance. In the previous government, he didn't vote for this when they were in the previous government with the Socreds. For 20 years they had an opportunity to bring this in, and he had nothing to say then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're transgressing.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'd just thought I'd roam just a little bit, almost as far as the minister roamed with his prejudiced statements. We don't hear anything from the cabinet minister who was in the former government about that, the Minister of Mines sitting over there in the corner....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to section 4, please. You're transgressing.

MR. LEVI: Not transgressing, Mr. Chairman - just going towards the edge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

MR. LEVI: That minister indicates to the House that we have something to look forward to when we discuss section 6. But the basic issue really relates to what they really have in mind in which they will be able to perpetuate their independence. The inspectors are going to go in there and they are going to require from them a great degree of standards. But we'll deal with the standards in the next section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do, thank you.

MR. LEVI: So let the minister be frank with us about this and not roam all over the place and talk in such anti-socialist phrases like "yesterday prejudice, today discrimination." What does he want to do? We could have a real good go at this, if he wants, but as he's nice and quiet, we're prepared to be nice and quiet. But if he just opens up once more, Mr. Chairman, we'll really have a go at it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're transgressing.

MS. BROWN: I just have a couple of very short questions. The first question has to do with the evaluation. Could the minister tell how often a school would be evaluated, or would it be just one evaluation? Then, having been granted the funding, is that it for the duration of the school's life?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, of course the inspector will have to evaluate a school that applies, and the inspector will have to evaluate a school that re-applies. The inspector of schools in between applications would be on a regular basis, just as they are in the public school system.

MS. BROWN: In the event that a school which has been evaluated and accepted for the funding for some reason or another fails the next time that it is evaluated, does that school then lose its funding?

HON. MR. McGEER: If the status is withdrawn, Mr. Chairman, then the school would lose the funding that went with that status.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what I was trying to say when I said earlier that this particular section 4 could create dependency in a number of these schools. Then, having created the dependency and public funding, they would then lose their funding and the school then would be forced to close. That is what makes this section so insidious. In fact, the only schools that would benefit from this section are the schools that are wealthy enough - the wealthier private schools that could continually keep up the kinds of qualities and criteria laid down by this evaluation committee. Now the minister said that that's not possible. Now that I've had an opportunity to go through step by step with him very slowly, as in the core curriculum, and he's come to understand what I'm saying, maybe he too will see how insidious this section 4 is.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I was out of the committee for about 15 minutes at the beginning of the discussion of section 4, and therefore may be repeating some questions. If s ' o, i give the committee my apologies, but I'd like to ask the minister if he could tell us something about the number of persons that would be on these evaluation committees, and how they would be chosen. In particular, would independent schools have any voice in choosing one or more of the persons on any given evaluation committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question was asked, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Fine. I'll look that one up in the Blues unless the minister chooses to recap it briefly.

A question I would particularly like to ask relates to the report of the evaluation committee when it finally comes down for any given year, particularly if it's adverse. My question is this: will the independent school in question have an opportunity to see the final report as it goes to the inspector or the minister for actions to be taken and have a chance to

[ Page 4525 ]

comment and -appeal?

HON. MR. McGEER: The appeal is section 13.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this section is the most interesting section in this bill, as it certainly sets out the most limited criteria in the group 1 classification. This is where we start getting into the point I was making yesterday in the debate: that there is no other bill in Canada which allows government funds to go to separate or private independent schools, whichever name one wishes to use. We happen on this side of the House to believe "independent" certainly is not the name.

There's no other bill in Canada which allows such minimal regulations to apply before a school can get public funds. I think the minister has some explaining to do as to why in British Columbia, where for over 105 years we have managed to maintain this separation of church and state - separation of any public funding for independent schools - when he finally brings in this bill he has gone far afield from any other similar situation in Canada.

Here you can apply for funding from the government even though in Group I you are not following the core curriculum. You don't have to go by any academic regulations set down by the government or any standards. All you have to be able to prove is that you aren't fostering racial or ethnic superiority, religious intolerance or persecution, or social change through violent actions, and that you have adequate school facilities. There is no other Act in Canada that is laid out in this manner.

Now my concern on this particular section is: how can he possibly condone this when it is going to leave it wide open for any school that sets itself up as a society and an authority, no matter what it's teaching? We do have an example of some schools in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, who are basing their programmes, I understand, on programmed material from the state of Texas.

If the parents in this province wish to send their children to such a school with this entirely American material being taught, that's their privilege and right in a free society. But again I come to the basic question, Mr. Chairman: should our taxpayers' funds be going for this kind of schooling? I protest it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are getting back to the principle of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I will try to keep right on this section. Inherent in this section it is very difficult not to talk about the principle, because there is a principle in this section that is stating that almost any school....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand your difficulty, hon. member, but we must adhere to the rules of the House and discuss only the items contained in the section.

MRS. DAILLY: All right, Mr. Chairman. I will attempt to be more specific. I want to just start off by asking the minister a specific question: can he give any reason at all to this House which would explain to us why he believes taxpayers' money should go for the support of schools with such minimal qualifications?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, you're back to the principle of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: That is my question to the minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under section 5, following on what my colleague just said, the Arthur Murray School of Dancing would qualify for a group qualification; so would Madame Benoit's School of Cooking. Neither of these are fostering racial or ethnic superiority, religious intolerance or persecution; neither are fighting for social change through violent actions.

MR. GIBSON: How about the rumba?

MS. BROWN: It may look violent, but it is really a friendly pastime.

There is absolutely nothing in this section that says this school has to teach anything or says what it should teach. It also goes on to say that the facilities should be adequate. Well, Arthur Murray doesn't need anything to have adequate facilities. He needs a record player and some records, and that's about it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the member is engaging in frivolous and irrelevant debate, which she would not engage in if she were familiar with the Public Schools Act and section 121.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken.

MS. BROWN: His point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. It was done deliberately, because I have read through this section over and over again. It says that to qualify for a Group I classification, you have to prove that you don't do any of these things. It does not say that you have to operate a school as outlined in the Public Schools Act.

[ Page 4526 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the requirement that would exclude the member's arguments in debate are contained in the Public Schools Act. I really suggest that she read the Act before she engage in this line of debate because it is quite contrary to other statutes in the Legislature.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have the Public Schools Act and I have read it. That is precisely why I am so concerned about this piece of legislation, because nowhere in section 5 of Bill 33.... Will the minister read it through again and show me where in section 5 it refers to section 121 of the Public Schools Act?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, for the school to exist it would have to achieve the standards which are established in section 1 (21) of the Public Schools Act, and I think the member should realize that when you write a bill you don't write into it every other section of every other Act. The member simply is not familiar with the legislation.

MS. BROWN: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that nothing has been written into this bill. That's the problem - it's one of the worst drafted bills, surely, that anyone has ever had to deal with. It's incredible. When it's not in the bill and you try to find out from the minister, he doesn't know. He keeps talking about rough bills that have to go away and come back smoothed all over, or else he doesn't have an answer. Now in fact, section 5 of this bill -the way it's drafted - makes it possible for Arthur Murray's school of dancing, or a school of cookery, or yoga, or anything else, to be eligible for a Group I classification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. You are engaging in frivolous debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: This is a ridiculous section!

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the first member from Vancouver-Burrard was on her feet. The Chairman is making very subjective decisions regarding whether debate is frivolous or not. I don't think the Chairman has the right to be that arbitrary in making that kind of adjudication in wresting the floor away from a member who is speaking. Now if it's important enough for that member to raise in this House, debate should not be stifled by a Chairman constantly interrupting. I'm getting tired of it, Mr. Chairman. Be independent and even-handed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, again I would like to draw to the minister's attention that section 5, as it is drafted, is frivolous and irresponsible. If he wants serious debate about section 5, then it has to be redrafted or written in a way that it says something about what a Group I classification school is supposed to teach. The only thing it deals with is that in order to get a Group 1 classification, you cannot indulge in a programme which fosters, "racial or ethnic superiority, or religious intolerance or persecution, or social change through violent action." Then it goes on to the other ridiculous part, which I'm going to discuss in more detail, which is where it says that the facilities of the school should be adequate, which doesn't say anything at all about it. Would the minister respond in terms of section 5?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have just a technical question of wording at this time. I draw the attention of the minister to section 5 (c) . It prescribes that the authority which would be eligible under Group I must have either, "operated the school for at least five consecutive school-years prior to September 15,1977, or has filed with the inspector a statement in prescribed form during each of at least five consecutive school-years prior to application. . . ."

Here's the hypothetical case I want to put to the minister. I want to put to him the case of a school which has been in operation for four years prior to September 15,1977, so it can't fall under 5 (c) (i) . The question is: will it fall under 5 (c) (ii) ? In that case, must it wait another five years before attaining certification - in other words, for a total of nine years? There are two ways in which this section could be interpreted and I'd be grateful if the minister could clarify that for us. Could a school that had been operating for four years before September 15,1977, file with the minister the record of those previous four years? Must the five years' consecutive records start from now, or may they be historic records? That's the essential question.

HON. MR. McGEER: We would be prepared to accept historic records, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEVI: Just in the interests of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to the ninth line from the top, which reads: " . . . the facilities of the school are adequate." It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this really is the section that separates the "haves" from the "have-nots." The drafter of the bill - as I understand it, Mr. Carter - had a statement attributed to him in a meeting. He said that separate schools do not have, generally speaking, the same kinds of adequate facilities as the public schools, and that they would have to upgrade these facilities to a level they will set before they can actually qualify to enter into this programme. As I understand it, this is what Mr. Carter said when he was at the FISA -

[ Page 4527 ]

Federated Independent Schools Association -convention.

If what he says, Mr. Chairman, is that these schools must be adequate, perhaps the minister would tell us, when he talks about being adequate, whether he is referring to the standards that are required in the public school system. Now if he is, then I see some very serious problems for many of the separate schools - those that have a fair amount of income and those that have virtually no income. The minister has already indicated to us that one of the reasons he has brought in this bill is that he wants to assist many of these schools that are going to go broke.

Now the question is: if he characterizes facilities of the school as inadequate, where are these people going to be able to got the money from to upgrade them to a level which will make them eligible for these grants? I can very well see that....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, if you have something to say on this bill, why don't you get up and say it? Woodpecker from Houston.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, let's return to the moderate use of language.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: A woodpecker is an Audubon species!

MR. LEVI: But seriously, Mr. Chairman, the minister has really got to tell us what he defines as adequate facilities and where this is going to be equitable in terms of people making an application to enter the programme. Some people will simply not have the money to upgrade facilities to get in. Again, to remind the minister, Mr. Chairman, he said that part of the reason for bringing in the whole bill was to assist many schools that were going to go broke.

In this definition, I can see many advantages to the schools that are fairly wealthy, have a good income and are well established with good facilities that they continue to upgrade. Mr. Chairman, one can go through long lists of these schools that are made available by the independent school people. I begin to wonder, for instance, about a school like the John Calvin School at Yarrow - and I just use this as an example - which is one of the non-independent schools and has 132 students. It is affiliated with FISA, but it wasn't when I got this information. I don't know if it has large or small facilities, but the point is that you have other schools such as the Canadian Reform School at Smithers with 99 students. These are small schools with a small number of students. The people probably are not very affluent and the income of the schools is not very high.

What is going to happen? Are we going to get from the ministry a level of acceptability of adequate facilities? Are they going to have three or four classifications, with the better-off schools in one category and those that are not quite so well off in another and those that are struggling and practically going broke in the third? Really, Mr. Chairman, if we don't have some very clear understanding of what the minister has in mind when he talks about adequate facilities, many of the 150-odd schools that are in the independent school movement may never qualify for this, because they won't be able to meet the adequate standards.

Perhaps the minister would enlarge on this for us. What does he mean by "adequate standards"? Is it going to be a very serious disability to many of the schools because they have to upgrade before they can get into the programme?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I gather the minister is gathering his thoughts. While he is gathering his thoughts, I'll ask him another couple of questions. The minister stood in the House a few minutes ago and talked about historical rights and one thing and another. I want to suggest to the minister.... As a matter of fact, I'm not going to suggest. I'm going to say absolutely, for certain, according to the way this bill is written, that a school that has been in operation for four years and 11 months, Mr. Chairman, will not qualify under the five-year situation and will have to wait an additional five years. That is nine years and I I months, the way the bill is written. If that is not what the minister intended, why didn't he write the bill properly in the first place?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I charge, Mr. Chairman, that this, again, is another terrible mistake in this bill. If you read over section (c) very thoroughly, as we have done, we find that it is a real mess. Whether the minister wanted it that way or not is one thing. But the fact of the matter is, how is he going to circumvent it when he comes to qualifying the schools for assistance?

The Group I category also has some different aspects that I'd like to explore. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing in this section that says that Group I couldn't get more than enough money for their operating expenses. What if they give them 1,000 per cent, based on the very lean amount that they are allowed? Based on that, you can multiply it by any factor you want, because there is no restriction there; no restriction whatsoever. Now I know that that's not likely, but again it's loosey , goosey. It really is.

[ Page 4528 ]

Mr. Chairman, another thing worries me about section 5. 1 tend to agree with the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , who indicated that there is really nothing here other than the expressed intention that would stop the financing of all sorts of very odd kinds of schools.

But let me get down to one other thing that bothers me just a little bit. Section 5 (2) (i) says that , , no programme is in existence or is proposed at the school that would, in theory or in practice, promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority." Then it says: " (ii) religious intolerance or persecution." Why doesn't it say "religious superiority" in the first line? Religious superiority is another aspect that I would think should be considered under this situation. Don't suggest religious intolerance, because that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking in terms of the other aspect. Why doesn't it say "racial, ethnic or religious superiority"? Because this is one of the fears that people have in this particular section and in this particular area of concern over this Act. So there are three or four areas that we think need to be plugged.

Certainly the minister has to give a better argument than the one that he gave to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on subsection (c) , because I contend that a school that has been in business for four years and I I months needs another five in order to qualify. The minister, I think, should give us an answer to that and an answer to the other aspects that I have brought to his attention.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Did the minister wish to answer questions?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been recognized.

MR. BARRETT: I recognize you too. How are you doing? Does the minister wish to answer any questions?

HON. MR. McGEER: I've already dealt with the one question. As far as religious prejudice is concerned, I have been caught up already this afternoon by protestations. I'm sorry that the opposition has raised the question again.

MR. BARRETT: I have been treated to such a display of contempt. It's all a big bore for this minister. He knows best.

The member for Burnaby North asked this minister whether or not the group known as the Accelerated Christian Education Movement - a commercial enterprise from Texas that prepares and sells programmed instructional materials to private schools, seven of them now operating in B.C., with all-American educational material - will receive British Columbia taxpayers' money to provide an American-based education in British Columbia. We'd like to know that. What's wrong with that question? Is it too difficult for the Minister of Education, the author of the core curriculum, who knows how to read and write and hear? We get everything except answers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the member, if he can read, will see that section 6 deals with the conditions under which instructional support is offered. What would have to happen for any school is that it would have to apply and then it would be inspected.

MR. BARRETT: MR. Chairman, I am only responding to what the minister wrote. If I'm out of order then the minister's out of order, through you, Mr. Chairman. I want to read this section and ask the minister to tell me exactly where it's not applicable to what I've raised.

"The inspector may grant Group I classification for a school year to an authority in respect of an independent school funded and operated by the authority where the inspector is satisfied that

"a) no programme is in existence or is proposed at the school that would, in theory or in practice, promote or foster doctrines of

"i) racial ethnic superiority, or

"ii) religious intolerance or persecution, or

"iii) social change through violent action

"b) the facilities of the school are adequate, and c) the authority

"i) has operated the school for at least five consecutive school years prior to September 15,1977, or

"ii) has filed with the inspector a statement in prescribed form during each of the last five consecutive school years prior to application for classification under this section showing that the authority has operated the school as an independent school for the school year covered in the filing."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I passed the core curriculum. Do I get funding? Would you fund me?

HON. MR. McGEER: No.

MR. BARRETT: No. There it is - there's

[ Page 4529 ]

discrimination right there.

HON. MR. McGEER: He gets his funding from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Funding Holding Society, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, sit down there and take....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 5, please.

MR. BARRETT: Exactly. That's what I read -section 5. 1 asked the minister under section 5 (c) (i) .... I refer you to a release from the B.C. Teachers Federation of April 13,1977, where Mr. Broadley says that a report submitted on the Accelerated Christian Education Movement, a commercial enterprise - not a private school, but a commercial enterprise from Texas that prepares and sells programmed instructional material to private schools....

Seven of these schools are now in B.C.; all American educational material; a commercial enterprise - does that come under category 1, section 5 (c) (i) ? It's all in order. Now having put the question in order, I would ask the minister to answer.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that question can be answered.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! Mr. Chairman, the minister says that he can't answer this question. He's expecting the bill to pass this House....

AN HON. MEMBER: Incredible arrogance!

MR. BARRETT: We asked a simple question, Mr. Chairman, under section 5 (c) (i) . An American commercial enterprise is selling programmed instruction of American education. We asked whether or not that will get British Columbia taxpayers' money. He's the Minister of Education. He's going to spend taxpayers' money, and his answer was he doesn't know whether or not it applies. Who are you spending money on?

HON. MR. McGEER: We know from past experience that the material the Leader of the Opposition brings in the House is frequently wrong and can never be taken as fact.

Quite apart from that, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not here to deal with the merits of any particular schools. Obviously, one could canvass 1,000 hypothetical situations under section 5, were debate to be permitted. What this does is allow the inspector under certain conditions to grant Group I classification if an application is made. We can speculate here all afternoon about any one of 150 schools that do exist and 500 that don't exist but that might start up in the next five or 10 years. I can't think of a more feckless exercise than to attempt something of that nature.

Obviously this legislation here permits an inspector, who is appointed under a section that we've already passed in this Act, to inspect a school which applies. Then under these conditions, he may grant a Group 1 status. But it doesn't deal with 500 different suggestions that the Leader of the Opposition might make. I think that even granting the authenticity of any iffy situation he might raise, one has to consider his record of veracity in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Mr. Minister, I think that the atmosphere of a good debate in this House is not served well perhaps by that kind of an accusation. I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw.

I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw any imputation or question of another....

MR. BARRETT: I don't ask for a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is asking.

HON. MR. McGEER: No imputation at all intended, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: I don't ask for withdrawal. Any man who can say three months ago that there will be no money provided and then say yesterday there is money provided and fib to this House; any man who brings in documents that are not correct and found, and the Attorney-General hasn't got the guts to check them out, why should I ask for a withdrawal?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've asked the hon. minister to withdraw an ugly imputation and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do the same.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't ask him to withdraw. Any member ...

MR. BARRETT: In respect to the Chair, I hereby withdraw my statements regarding the minister's actions. The minister has to account for his own actions.

[ Page 4530 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If we are going to conduct orderly business in this House, then all members of the House must subscribe to the standing orders.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, I know what the word feckless means, because I've been up looking in the library dictionary to find more words to describe the minister and that's one of the first I ran across.

Mr. Chairman, does that minister sincerely believe deep down in his heart of hearts that he could convince the members of this House that we are not to ask questions under this section dealing with possibilities as to how the section would apply? Do you know what the minister said to us that means? He said that we bring in a bill and we write a section, but under no circumstances are you to ask any questions that speculate on how the section may apply, because that way, I have to answer a question.

What kind of gesture was that?

Interjection.~

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask, like my good friend and colleague from the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, whether Arthur Murray would come under this category - the rumba, or the bump, or the foxtrot, or the politicians' waltz, just recently demonstrated by the minister. I don't ask if the Arthur Murray school would come under this, but it might. Can't you see it now - the taxpayers of this province paying for Arthur Murray's dance schools? Group 1 classification for Arthur Murray's school. Do the bump, do the grind, do the foxtrot and the waltz with the minister.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask that. I asked another question. If the minister is accusing Mr. Broadley and the British Columbia Teachers Federation of putting out false information, let him do that to people who can't defend themselves here. I read a quote from the press release of the British Columbia Teachers Federation and I raised this with the minister. Mr. Chairman, much to the stress on my patience I even had to read the whole section to the minister because he obviously hadn't read it. I asked him this question. The Accelerated Christian Education Movement, a commercial enterprise from Texas, prepares and sells programmed instructional materials to private schools. Seven of these schools now operate in B.C., teaching all American material. I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: This argument has been presented by another member.

MR. BARRETT: No, by me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) presented this.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, and she left the room and gave me the document to carry on because she was anticipating a question from the minister. Is that not right, Madame Member?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. She asked me to carry on, Mr. Chairman.

I asked the minister on behalf of the member for Burnaby North, and the taxpayers of this province, the following question: are you saying that all-American education available in a private school is okay as long as the school facilities are adequate? Do you want the British Columbia taxpayer to be in a position whereby an all-American programme may be authorized as okay and paid for by the British Columbia taxpayer? If you say you don't know and it's up to the czar you appoint, you are saying that you will give the freedom to a civil servant to decide whether or not American instruction will be paid for by the British Columbia taxpayer. If you say you don't know, and it's up to the czar you appoint, you are saying that you will give the freedom to a civil servant to decide whether or not American instruction will be paid for by the British Columbian taxpayer.

What is your policy under this section and what does your government stand for under this section? Those are fair questions and I expect the courtesy of a fair reply, not a lecture.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, the minister sits there mute and contemptuous. The SS members of this House come here to pass laws which grant rights....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're on section 5.

MR. NICOLSON: I want to relate this to section 5. What the minister is attempting to do in section 5 is not to spell out for the members of this House what actually is going to transpire; what he wants to do is take the right that is invested within the 55 members of this House and grant it to one person, to one inspector, one czar who is going to make a decision that could very well mean the introduction of programmed curriculum from the United States being funded here in this province. On this side of the

[ Page 4531 ]

House we say that that is the kind of decision that should be spelled out here in black and white.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there was much sound and fury there signifying the usual thing.

Under section 5 there is no funding provided for the payment of teachers and the curriculum itself, so that discussion is out of order under this section, but it would be in order, possibly, under section 6 or section 10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not easily determined from the section and that's why the Chair could not determine.

MR. NICOLSON: The inspector may grant Group I classification. When he grants Group 1 classification it therefore means that funding can be granted in later sections.

What is Group I classification for - just to have a classification so that people can go around and say "We're Group 1 classification."? If there's no money in it, what's the point of it, Mr. Minister of Education? Are you going to tell us?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to section 5 (b) because the minister's very studiously ignored it. I'd like him to tell the House if the issue of adequate school facilities ... to take a couple of examples: Cliffside Preparatory at Shawnigan Lake has a school with adequate facilities. Does York House and Norfolk House? Now what happens to a school that does not have these adequate facilities and it's got to go out and get the money to build them up to a level which we're going to require before they qualify? Surely if that is what is going to happen, the advantage has to be to the established, wealthy schools.

Now will. you simply tell us - I asked before; the minister didn't reply - are you going to have different categories? Are you going to put all of the Strathcona Lodge and Shawnigan Lake School and St. George's and York House in one category, and say that that group has adequate facilities? And then you're going to have a second group, which includes in my riding St. Augustine's or Cypress House, that's not quite as good as the others but in a second group. What happens to the people who are obviously not going to qualify because the facilities are inadequate. We simply have to know from the minister, because if he sits there silently, then all we can say is, this is a rank subsidy for the wealthy schools.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there is nowhere in the bill several groups of schools according to the quality of their facilities. There's nowhere in the Act anything of that kind and the member must be hallucinating ...

MR. LEVI: No, I'm not hallucinating.

HON. MR. McGEER: ... because we're simply debating things which aren't in the bill. Even the member for Vancouver East read that whole section into the record, to prove that he could read it, and yet the member for Vancouver-Burrard stands up to discuss things that are not in the section and in fact are nowhere in the bill anywhere, Mr. Chairman. So I can't see the purpose of our debating sections in a bill that don't exist and can't be found anywhere. No reference was made anyplace to more than one kind of facility.

MR. LEVI: It's right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: There are two classifications, according to whether the school applies for instructional support or just support of the physical facilities of their school to keep it open. But, MR. Chairman, I can tell you this: it is not the policy of the government, and that would be obvious from the bill itself, to supply capital facilities to the school, but only operating facilities, according to the two groups covered under sections 5 and 6.

1 must observe, finally, in view of the passionate, vigorous and prolonged opposition on the part of the official opposition to section 5, that they are against the bill in principle, even though they didn't vote for it. They're against every section of the bill, including this. If the independent schools had had to depend on the NDP they all would have been out of business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I refer the minister to his own section. I had to read it all. Now I have to read out (b): "the facilities of the school are adequate." No one has said that anybody is providing capital costs. However, in this section operating costs are contingent on whether or not the facilities are adequate. The wealthy have the capital to provide adequate facilities and the poor do not. That is exactly the point m y colleague for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is making: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The wealthy will be protected.

Mr. Chairman, because of that, I think the minister needs some time to think his answers over. He's getting excited. Therefore I draw your attention to the clock.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, supper time again!

MR. BARRETT: Yes. You need help, Pat.

[ Page 4532 ]

MR. KING: The minister wears the mantle of an idiot, and he wears it extremely well.

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. The committee reports that a division occurred while in committee. I ask leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing with the division which took place in committee, shall leave be granted to have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

Leave granted.

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, was the report that the committee reports progress or re solution?

MR. SPEAKER: Progress, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I just happened to notice that in the gallery there are two rather hungry Gardom daughters, namely Kim and Karen, accompanied by Karen's good friend, Miss Susan Craven. I wish the hon. members would bid them welcome. I would like to inform them that shortly they will have their dinner.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.