[ Page 4533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills sixth report. Mr.

Mussallem –– 4533

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Committee stage.

On section 5.

Mr. Levi –– 4533

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4533

Mr. Wallace –– 4533

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4534

Mrs. Dailly –– 4537

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4537

Mr. King –– 4537

Mr. Barrett –– 4540

Division on motion to rise and report progress –– 4542

On section 5.

Mr. Barrett –– 4542

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4542

Mrs. Dailly –– 4544

Mr. Cocke –– 4545

Mr. Barrett –– 4546

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4547

Mr. Macdonald –– 4552

Mr. Barrett –– 4553

Division on a motion that Mr. Chairman do leave the chair –– 4554

On section 5.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4554

Division on section 5 as amended –– 4555

On section 6.

Mr. Cocke –– 4555

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4555

Mrs. Dailly –– 4556

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4557

Mr. Cocke –– 4557

Mrs. Dailly –– 4557

Appendix –– 4558

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Monsieur le President, nous avons trois membres de la Federation des Franco-colombiens qui visitent Victoria aujourd'hui; M. Nestor Therrien, M. Jean Riou et Mme. Warzecha.

J'aimerais les membres de I'assemblee de les souhaiter bienv~enu.'

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, as many members know this week is Aviation Week in British Columbia. The showpiece of aviation is undoubtedly the Abbotsford International Air Show which opens today.

This is British Columbia's No. 1 single greatest tourism attraction. I trust that the members of the House would not only be sure that they are out on the constituency boundary of my constituency and that of the member for Langley, but that they will also wish all of the participants well.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, as all members will know, this weekend is a particularly significant one here in Victoria as well as across the province in the celebration of Queen Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee. In my constituency of Victoria there will be a whole weekend of celebrations recognizing that historic event. I know all members of the House will want to recognize that occasion at this time.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Mussallem from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's sixth report, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

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

On section 5 - continued.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, last night before the adjournment I raised with the minister the issue of the facilities of the schools and their adequacy. He characterized my remarks as somehow getting involved in the issues of capital costs. What I'd like to do is just to repeat briefly what I'm asking the minister.

Would he tell us what is defined as adequate school facilities? I did say at the beginning of my remarks that Mr. Carter, who is apparently responsible for the bill, was quoted as saying that the facilities in independent schools are not as good in many cases as those in public schools, that they would have to be upgraded, and that before they could enter into this programme - and we're dealing in this section with operating - they would probably have to spend some money.

Now what I want to know from the minister is: What level of adequacy do they have to reach? What is going to happen to those schools who have less income and less pupil enrolment - with pupil enrolment presumably there is a relationship to the income - versus those other schools that are well off and have all the facilities. I have in mind schools like St. George's or Norfolk House versus the smaller schools with very little income and very small enrolment.

It would seem to me that if we're not clear on the definition, then I would suggest that this is going to be the make or break situation in respect to the schools. The schools with small enrolment and no income who need to upgrade their facilities are not going to be in the position to do that. Therefore they won't be able to participate in the programme.

Now I'm not suggesting in any way that the government is going to provide capital costs. But if there's just going to be one definition of what adequate facilities are, then many of the people who think that they may qualify to get into this programme if they reach a certain level of adequacy of facilities never reach that level because they won't be able to afford it.

Now will the minister tell us if he is going to categorize these schools as those that are well off and well established, those that are not quite so well off and those that are really operating in a couple of rooms? Where do they stand? Perhaps you might relate just specifically to the adequacy of the facility.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to call your attention yet to standing order 43, but this question was asked yesterday in precisely the same fashion. I answered it yesterday by saying there will not be several categories of schools for physical facilities and I can't see the point of questions being repeatedly asked to get the same answer.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would just like some clarification on section 5 on a

[ Page 4534 ]

point I raised during second reading. The section is very specific in saying that schools will not be granted classification by the inspector until he is satisfied, in theory or in practice - which I find a very all-encompassing phrase -, that religious intolerance does not exist in the school.

Now my specific questions relates to how the minister will make this section function where, in the case of a religious order operating a school, a student applies who happens to be of a different faith and that student's application is not accepted. The analogy seems to me to be a little bit like the problems we have under the human rights branch at times, where someone is refused employment and the reason that is given, of course, is quite different from the real reason, which is often a form of discrimination based on colour or sex or some other such unjustified reason.

I'm just wondering if the minister could tell us, in brief outline, the practical way in which he envisages making section 5 work, because I would have to think that undoubtedly there will be situations where an individual student or the parents of a student wish to enroll their child or son or daughter at a school where the basic reason for the existence of that school is, perhaps, a particular religious faith.

I know from experience in England that many non-believers send their children to religious schools because of certain advantages which they consider the school has, and the style in which it operates, quite divorced from whatever might be the underlying religious belief. I just wonder if the same situation will be able to pertain under the provisions of section 5.

My second question would be: to what degree is there any access by the parents of a student who is refused admission to such a school as I have cited as a possible example? In other words, I see in section 5 the biggest problem of all being the whole question of admission criteria to certain independent schools. It would seem to me that the inspector would have to have the wisdom of Solomon to determine the facts of some of these situations. Since none of us has that wisdom, I wonder what mechanism under section 5 will be employed to try and determine cases where a student's application has been refused and where it appears quite likely that the refusal is based, in fact, on religious intolerance.

I happen to have chosen that one, but it could equally include racial or ethnic superiority policies and, less likely, social change through violent action, but I suppose that could also happen if a young student appears to be a radical by statements that he or she has made publicly, or connections they have with the Communist Party, or whatever might be considered a radical organization. Here again, how will section 5 be implemented in terms of trying to determine why the student's application has not been accepted?

Of course, this works both ways, Mr. Chairman, because presumably there may be cases where the school is refused classification because it appears that they have practised some form of intolerance under subsections (a) (i) , (ii) and (iii) . %at then is the plight of the school which may, on the basis of one particular application which has been rejected for a student to enroll in the school... ? How can the school have some assurance that this kind of incident will be investigated and adjudicated in a neutral and objective way?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member has answered his own question in the sense that it is a presumption on his part. It is certainly not the intention of the legislation that the admissions policy should be regarded as a reflection of the teaching in section 5 (a) . It has nothing to do with that at all. All of these independent schools are provincial institutions that will be free, as they have been in the past, to select their own students. Otherwise, it would be impossible for one school to theoretically be in a position of accepting 550,000 school-age pupils in British Columbia. Because they are provincial institutions, they must be free to establish their own admission requirements and policies.

I suppose if somebody were to take strong exception to admissions policy at a given institution, there is always the redress of the human rights legislation. I would think each individual school would have to pay due attention to that. But that, Mr. Chairman, is a different matter altogether than the promotion or fostering of doctrines that would teach religious intolerance or persecution, or racial or ethnic superiority. There are fringe groups in our society who do that kind of thing. Really, it's to eliminate the possibility of these fringe groups from further promoting their radical and anti-social doctrines by the use of the school system in this particular Act. That is the purpose of this particular section being in there. That would not ' be a problem,

Mr. Chairman, for any of the well-established religious faiths of British Columbia.

To suggest that section 5 would somehow prevent a religious school from carrying on in its traditional way would be a misinterpretation of the intent of that particular section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get this clear, because, with respect, I don't think the minister understood my question. One of the reasons that this whole bill is so publicly contentious is that in the honest opinion of many people it divides our society or provides a vehicle or a form of legislation which can further divide society on religious grounds.

I would like to repeat my question, based on the

[ Page 4535 ]

minister's answer. It is true then, that if an established religious school refuses the admission of a pupil who happens to be either of another faith or a non-believer of any kind and has no religion, the minister is saying that because the school started in the first place on the basis of a particular religious belief, it is not discriminating against that pupil by refusing access to that school which is now to be financed by public funds.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not finished, Mr. Minister.

I just think that this is very much the area of this bill which gave me most concern in the first place and why I had enormous difficulty deciding whether to support this bill on second reading or reject it. And I'm not the least bit comforted by the minister's answer, because he puts in very simple black-and-white terms something which I think is anything but that clear cut. For the minister to suggest that if there is a problem regarding admission of a pupil it can all be nicely tidied away by the human rights legislation I would have to think is really stretching one's imagination to a point that I can't accept.

I just feel that if any public service, by virtue of the definition of "public" - in other words, supported by public funds - is to be truly public, then surely the kind of example that I've postulated as developing under this section and under the provisions of the bill in effect just contradicts the basic philosophy behind any public service, whether it's education, transportation, postal service or anything else. This is, to me, very much the nub of this bill, which I regret to find the minister is passing over very lightly or giving a very simplistic answer to, on what I think is the most difficult, central question in this whole bill. And I just cannot accept or understand the interpretation that if a school chooses to turn down an application by a pupil on the basis of that pupil's religion or lack of religion, let us say ... that might be a more typical example, where the applicant either professes no belief or may even be an atheist.

Nevertheless, the school to which the child is applying is being subsidized to some degree by public funds, and the minister says that if the applicant is turned down on that basis, that is not religious intolerance. Well, I happen to think it is. Religious intolerance, or any form of intolerance, is surely by definition the unwillingness of the individual to concede that the other person is entitled to a different belief, a different understanding. That's my whole concept of intolerance. That's why the world is in such a bell of a mess - because there's so much intolerance of all kinds. If we have here a government - provincial or federal - introducing legislation which espouses opposition to intolerance but in practice, according to the minister, is going to allow it to happen, then, of course, the government has placed itself in a completely paradoxical situation.

It's saying in this bill that there will be no recognition for schools which practise religious intolerance, and yet when we get down to the very practical question, nothing could be more practical than getting into schools. If you can't get into the school, you can't avail yourself of whatever particular service or educational advantages that school has. Admission to schools surely has to be the No. 1 issue which has to be unmistakably clear in this bill. I wonder if the minister doesn't see that I have a legitimate concern and that the point of view I am expressing could readily be interpreted by many people as in fact contradicting the very spirit of this section, which is designed to prevent the inspector approving of schools where there is some form of religious intolerance.

I would say again, and for the last time, that surely the most crucial way in which intolerance can be shown is by refusing to accept the application of one or more students based on the philosophy of the school or the ethnic of the school as it relates in this case to religion. I think the minister must surely realize that the point I am making is a point that has been raised numerous times in the media and in public dialogue since this bill was first introduced, and I'm not suggesting there's an easy way around it. I can see the minister's dilemma, but it doesn't solve the dilemma to just say: "Well, of course, independent schools will retain their independence to reject applicants."

I agree with the minister in the general sense of rejection, but where the specific rejection might well be based on religion when in fact this section tries to outlaw that particular kind of behaviour, then I see the minister being in a very difficult situation. I wonder if he would reconsider his answer in the light of my further attempt to point out to him a lot of the public concern that does exist, namely public funding for those schools when in point of fact the criteria by which a person might be rejected would completely contradict the provisions of section 5.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I can't do much more than reiterate the points that were made at the time the bill was introduced, during second reading and several times during the debate on this section. The inspection of these schools and the awarding of public funds to support their educational activities are based entirely upon what they teach to their students, that being under section 6, if they are to receive instructional grants - and of course I can't go into that now - a lesser level of support under section 5, providing they meet the criteria of section 121 of the Public Schools Act, which says that they

[ Page 4536 ]

have to give equivalent education to what's received in the public schools system, and the definitions which we have already covered in section 1 .... That means they have got a school and they are teaching adequately.

The matter of admissions is not something which is to be controlled at the provincial level. Nothing could more rapidly erode what the member insisted must be provided to independent schools, namely their independence, in his debates in earlier sections. So the provincial government has no intention of attempting to control admissions to the independent schools. We said so at the beginning, we said so repeatedly through this debate, and we say so again, and that is firm government policy. We are not going to interfere with admissions to these schools, period. If the member supported this bill on the presumption that the provincial government would interfere with admissions, then he has misunderstood a position I thought had been made abundantly clear.

Now the member may interpret the admission of any given student as an act of intolerance, but that would be his definition of intolerance, and certainly not mine, Mr. Chairman, because I think if a school is to be independent and if there are 550,000 people who are theoretically eligible, then the school and the people who have put up the capital and will continue to put up most of the cost of operating that school must be free to select their own admissions for that school in order for it to retain its independence and justify the investment of the people who have supported it.

The proposition by which the provincial government lends support to the people who send their children by choice to these schools is merely that they are relieving the other provincial taxpayers in British Columbia of the total obligation of the education of these students, whereas all this bill will do is look after partial costs of that particular job being done and therefore these people are being taxed double.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order the member for Burnaby North.

I MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): The minister is straying right into the principle of this bill, which we have been asked to carefully avoid ourselves. I would ask him to get back to the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please remember that in Committee of the Whole the debate is strictly relevant to the section.

I HON. MR. McGEER: I couldn't be more pleased to keep the debate focused and not to retread ground of second reading, but the member did ask me to elaborate on what was intolerance in 5 (a) . I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I've made the position once and for all abundantly clear to the Chair, and I don't see how it can be elaborated upon successfully.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the debate not only on this section but on all sections has become exceedingly lengthy. As a result it is difficult for the Chair to always determine which points have already been adequately canvassed. I would appreciate the assistance of the House in this regard. Further, I would like to observe that the language in our House has always tended to be temperate. On several occasions in recent days I have heard injected into our vocabulary words that we have frowned upon in days gone by, words that might be known as slang. I would caution all members to keep the language in the House so that all members, even those in the gallery, would be pleased.

The member for Oak Bay continues.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and remember the importance of keeping our language temperate. I just briefly want to say my last word on this section. I have not misunderstood the bill by suggesting that the government should centrally control admissions to independent schools; obviously it would be completely ridiculous even to attempt it.

What I am saying is that I am concerned about specific instances where, in my view, the failure of a student to be accepted to a certain school might well be based in particular instances on intolerance -religious, ethnic or otherwise. All I was trying to ask of the minister was how justice will be done in such situations.

I'm not asking the minister if section 5 allows some czar in his ministry to control every admission to every independent school. I don't think I've even hinted at that. What I have tried to determine is how the system will function if and when, in one out of 1,000 cases, a coloured person or a Jew of someone who is definitively of one kind of race, colour, culture, religion or otherwise finds that while there aren't 550,000 trying to get into a school, there are 50 trying to get in, there are 49 places and the one person who doesn't get in happens to be the person I'm postulating. This may well happen. All I'm trying to determine, Mr. Chairman, albeit unsuccessfully, I'm afraid, is to what degree the minister feels that section 5 will provide protection both for that individual and for the school in being judged fairly to be living within the provisions of section 5.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the first line of section I says: "The inspector may grant Group 1 classification for a school year." I can't conceive of the hypothetical circumstance the member for Oak Bay is raising. If something that I can't envision were

[ Page 4537 ]

to occur and it were that flagrant, the inspector would obviously be able to spot that and the remedy is right in the first line.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking to section 5 and this is indeed, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, the section that is causing some of the greatest concern to the many thousands of people who are rising in protest against this bill.

I think the member for Oak Bay, Mr. Chairman, has been far too kind to this minister. He has stated the minister has created a dilemma. This minister hasn't created a dilemma; this minister believes in discrimination. He should never have placed this bill before this House when inherent in this clause is basic educational discrimination in the schools of this province.

It's all right for the minister to stand up and say: "I'm not going to interfere with the selection of students or the admission requirements." Certainly, until this bill is passed, he has no right to interfere with what happens in an independent school But, Mr. Chairman, once this bill is passed and the taxpayer is supporting these schools to whatever degree, we have a right to see that no discrimination exists in any school in this province. Every one of these backbenchers sitting there and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) thumping his desk.... Let the public know that every Social Credit member who supports this bill supports discrimination in our schools in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to section 5 of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: On this section of the bill, we are talking about Group I classification and the very minimal requirements to set up those schools. We've been through that so I won't repeat it. The point that is being made here is that those schools, under Group 1 and under Group 2, which we come to later, Mr. Chairman, can admittedly - this has been admitted by the minister - set their own admission requirements. All they have to do is ensure that they don't foster racial or ethnic superiority, et cetera. All right, but in not accepting students of a particular religion or a particular sex or a particular economic background, Mr. Chairman, they are discriminating against the students of this province. In other words, if you don't have enough money to send your child to one of these schools with fees averaging $5,000 a year, you won't get your child in. If you don't happen to endorse a certain philosophy or religion, your child will not have first choice. If your child happens to be a girl, she's not going to get into an exclusive boys' school and vice versa. Yet the taxpayers are going to pay for this discrimination! Shame on you! I say "shame" to every member of the Social Credit Party; shame on this government that would bring in a bill in this province of British Columbia that is going to use our public tax money to further discrimination. I can assure you that the public of B.C. is not going to stand for it. We have a lot more to say on this section.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, may I say shame on the NDP for not having the courage to stand up and vote against this legislation in second reading when they had the chance. Mr. Chairman, we're going over and over and over again second reading of this bill during debate in committee, and I say that this party should be brought to order. They had their chance to vote against it; they didn't have the courage to do it. Now they are coming in and debating it again and again and again in second reading. They're doing it, Mr. Chairman, because they found out their own supporters were disgusted with them. The labour movement was disgusted with them, the Teachers Federation was disgusted with them and the public is disgusted with them, because they're an irresponsible opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: What nonsense!

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you for the responsible answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, despite considered and often interjection by the Chair and cautioning all members to please, during Committee of the Whole House, not enter again into the debate on second reading, both sides of the House are continuing to do so and are insisting on the intervention of the Chair on behalf of the other side.

The matter now has come to the place where the Chair is soon going to have to say the debate on this particular subject has been well canvassed. I recognize now the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, who is on his feet.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and certainly I'm not looking for the assistance of the Chair in my remarks on this section.

The points raised both by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and my colleague, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , are valid. They're crucial points in terms of passing a section which would provide a degree of public support for a system that obviously - at least statutorily - allows discrimination. And how the minister can suggest that this relates to the overall principle of the bill is beyond me. We are dealing with a section here which specifically allows institutions - private institutions, be they of the parochial nature or of the elitist private kind - to set up admission policies which can offend any yardstick of fair and reasonable admission

[ Page 4538 ]

policies free from discrimination.

HON. MR. McGEER: Point of order. Section 5 of the bill does not deal in any way with admissions policies. Therefore, debate on admissions is not relevant to this section.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps it would be wise to draw the minister's attention to what section 5 says:

"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 or 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

(h) has filed with the inspector a statement in prescribed form during each of at least f 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."

Now, this sets out the conditions clearly and unequivocally, in language which, I would think, any literate person could understand, under which public funding may be granted to private institutions. To that extent, it certainly sets a policy for admission.

Now, there are serious matters that are left undealt with here, Mr. Chairman, and that's what is causing the grave concern on the opposition side of the House. We do not....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The Legislature cannot deal with any given section with material that is not in that section. I would suggest that the hon. member is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Religious discrimination is an admissions policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I refer all hon. members to section 61 (2) , that "speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant . . . " "Strictly relevant" does not, in my opinion, allow for debate which might be considered to be an extension of some concept which may be contained in a section. "Strictly relevant" has to be relevance to items actually under the section.

MR. KING: I appreciate that and I hope I understand the Chairman's ruling is not to infer that the ability to amend in committees is not a right of any member in this House, the ability to amend with provisions that one feels that should be added to a statute. Certainly that right exemplifies very clearly that the absence of language that should be contained is a matter this is in order to discuss.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must caution that any amendment to the bill, any item which any member in this House may feel should be included in a section, can be debated as an amendment, but I have no amendments before me.

MR. KING: That's true, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore relevance has to be strict, and strictly held to the items in the section.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we are not going to become so unduly restrictive that debate is stifled. Now the minister, through his reluctance to answer questions, or his inability to answer questions, constantly rises on points of order, saying, "look, this is not the appropriate section; deal with this in another section, " or, "it was dealt with in second reading." He is not prepared to answer for the sections of the bill under discussion. Mr. Chairman, while I recognize and respect the Chairman's function in this House, to make judgments as to the relevancy of arguments is a pretty tenuous task.

Now I consider that it's very, very relevant indeed, and a right - indeed, an obligation - of the opposition to examine the conditions under which public funds will be provided for private purposes when regulations leave the door wide open to discriminatory conduct. Indeed, they place taxpayers of this province in the position where they will be required, through their tax money, to finance an institution which their children do not have a right to attend.

HON. MR. McGEER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: . Now that is discrimination of the highest order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 4539 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that is dealing with the principle of the bill. It is not dealing with section S. That should have been covered under second reading. The members, had adequate opportunity during second reading to canvass these points. They ran away from the House and did not debate in second reading. Mr. Chairman, to do so now in committee is an abuse of the Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Don't lecture this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

I want to remind all members of the House that there is a practice in this House which does injury to the rules of this House and upon which many members are insistent. When the Chairman calls the committee to order, all members, even the member who has control of the floor, takes his seat until the Chairman's point of order is completed and he's recognized again. If that were not held, then every member of the House could stand and call "point of order, " and we would have chaos in this House' I suggest that we observe the standing orders as we have them.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with the bill I would like to speak on a point of order in response to the minister. That point of order is that the minister constantly rises and indulges in debate concerning his opinion of what should have occurred in second reading. That has absolutely no relevance to the debate which is before the committee at the moment. Mr. Chairman, the reason I rose on a point of order at that time was to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that the minister was calling a fraudulent point of order and should not have been allowed to proceed, in my view. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The questions that I've asked on this section of the bill are valid and I want an answer from the minister - a clear and unequivocal answer. I do not accept from him diversionary tactics which are apparently shallow attempts to avoid his responsibility for answering and explaining the sections of the bill as we go through it in committee.

Now certainly when I go back to my constituency, Mr. Chairman, I have an obligation to explain to my constituents under what circumstances their tax dollars are being channelled into a new area - that of private institutions. I an going to have to be able to answer publicly when questions are asked regarding entry to these private institutions. What are the groundrules for admission? I don't think I'm going to be able to stand in front of my constituents, publicly, and avoid giving those answers by saying: "Well, this should have been discussed somewhere else."

Here it is, clearly, in this section. What are the minister's intentions? You know, it's not good enough to say we've got some grey bureaucrat who is going to solve all problems under this section. The statute should clearly outline what the parameters are. If there are restrictions, the language of the statute should so indicate.

You know, it's amazing, Mr. Chairman, that that government used to be very uptight and very critical of the former government for what they....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not relevant to the section.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with an inability to talk about anything, and yet the minister won't answer, gets up and makes political attacks, and is allowed to proceed. Now I'm talking, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: ... about the language of this statute, which is certainly in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Omineca.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I rise on standing order 43. We have for three days heard over and over and over and over again the same words uttered by that opposition. The people of this province have for 105 years been denied the basic human rights of sending their children to the school of their choice. I think we should get on with the passing of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Your point of order ended at the sentence before you ended your speech.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, may I draw your attention to standing order 43? The question posed by the member has been asked by several members already this morning. I've exhaustively answered that question and no purpose can be served except tediousness and repetition to have it asked again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

[ Page 4540 ]

MR. BARRETT: What we're dealing with is this section of this bill under the House rules dealing with legislation in committee. Our forefathers in their wisdom suggested three readings of a bill. This particular reading is the most exhaustive of specific items of a bill. That's why the House goes in committee. It's at that time that it's the duty and responsibility of members to ask specific questions related to specific sections as to the expenditure of the taxpayer's dollar granted to the Crown by Her Majesty.

Her Majesty also imposes upon the opposition, which is loyal to Her Majesty's wishes, the responsibility to scrutinize every suggestion in every bill, especially in committee, when Her Majesty suggests that the House rules be altered so that there be specific debate in committee.

In committee now on section 5, Mr. Chairman, because I want the debate to be strictly relevant, I would suggest that the minister address himself to legislation that he's responsible for in this section. I read as follows: "The inspector may grant. . . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is this still on your point of order? You rose on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: No, I just rose. I wasn't recognized on a point of order. I didn't ask....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognized you on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't call for a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why I recognized you. On a point of order, the minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to standing order 43? The Leader of the Opposition has already read this section into the record thus proving that he can read, and he's attempting to do so again. We can take that for granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition - on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm on my feet on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan had the floor before he was interrupted on points of order.

MR. BARRETT: He yielded the floor to me. I didn't yield on a point of order. We'll check the Blues. Do you want a recess?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, section 5 (a): "No programme is in existence or is proposed at the school that would, in theory or in practice, promote of foster doctrines. . . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: The Leader of the Opposition has already read the section into the record. He's attempted to read it in a second time, and now a third time. May I draw your attention to standing order 43 - tediousness and repetition? Nothing could be more tedious and repetitious than repeatedly reading a statute into the Hansard record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The debate under section 5 should revolve around the classification of Group 1. It has not to do with admissions; it has not to do with funding; it has to do with classification. The Chair will have to hold all debates strictly relevant to that single principle of this section.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, I wish to take issue, if I may, with your interpretation of section 5 because if we must follow your interpretation then it's quite obvious that debate is cut off on admissions. Right? Now the point I want to make is that I believe that we have a right to discuss admission policies under this section, and I'll explain why I believe we should. That is because Group. 1, as laid out here.... We read before as what they must do to receive funding. Is that not correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It's what they must do to receive Group I classification.

MRS. DAILLY: All right, but it says in respect of an independent school funded and operated, the inspector must be satisfied and these certain points much be adhered to. Therefore if we are going to discuss the basic points or criteria which Group I must adhere to to be classified and ultimately funded, surely involved in that discussion would be the matter of their selection and admission policies.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we've already canvassed that and it's been made very clear, both in the legislation and by stated government policy, that admissions are not included under section 5.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point, I cannot deal with anything other than the section, and the section clearly states: " . . . mi respect of an independent

[ Page 4541 ]

school funded and operated by the authority."

Now I cannot go by what the minister said outside of this House. He has still not told us in this House what that section means related to the questions asked. I find it frivolous and vexatious in the extreme to have the minister constantly interrupting on standing orders. If he would interrupt with answers, we might get somewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've already answered that question extensively for the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) ; I realize that the opposition pays no attention to answers that are given to the other members of the opposition, but nevertheless they have been given, and Hansard will so record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it occurs to the Chair that if the logic that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition were true, then the phrase "independent school funded and operated" also occurs in section 6 - "independent school funded and operated." If the Leader of the Opposition's argument were true, then the same debate which takes place under 5 is also relevant under 6.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But that does injury to the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: But for a different classification. I point out to you, sir, that it says "school funded and operated." That is the preamble to the subsection. Then we have the subsection dealing with the specific area the members are after. That's why we're on section 5.

It goes on to say under subsection of the general words "school funded and operated . . . no programme is in existence or is proposed at the school that would, in theory or in practice, promote or foster doctrines of. . . ." And then there are subsections. Now the point I'm making here is that these subsections define whether or not the school conforms by its admission policies to the general statement opening section 5. In other words, you cannot be funded and you cannot be operated under the authority unless you conform in your admission policies and there is no racial or ethnic superiority, no religious intolerance....

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I am on a point of order, sir.

... no racial or ethnic superiority, no religious intolerance or persecution or social change through violent action.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, under standing order 43, we have repetitious and tedious debate. I've heard this at least six times in the last three days. If these people want to debate second reading, they should have been here at that time,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.members, it appears that unless we have a ruling of the Chair, we will not be able to conduct any further business. So the ruling is this: since the funding of independent schools is the general principle, and it permeates every section, it will be ruled that debate on the funding per se should have taken place under second reading, and that under section 5 or 6 or any other section, the debate must be held strictly relevant. I would rule that any debate on funding under these sections in committee will be out of order. It's a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you are making that ruling, you are transgressing closely onto closure. I would ask you to consider again....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's an attack on the Chair. I'd ask the hon. member to please withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Closure is a legitimate move by a government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But not by a Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Well, sir, then I want to tell you that if you can show me anywhere in British parliamentary precedent that any subsection of any bill is excluded from a discussion of funding, I will show you a parliament or a House that is not operating on the basic traditions that are laid out in granting supply to Her Majesty through such legislation as this.

I am not discussing funding in general, sir, and you are absolutely correct if that's your definition. However, I am discussing the availability of funding under this section specifically within the rules as to whether or not there is racial or ethnic superiority, and that is indeed a fact. They cannot conform under this section if it is proven that there is racial or ethnic superiority. Now the questions of my colleagues are for the definition of racial and ethnic superiority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On what basis do you have the floor, hon. member? Are you debating the section or are you on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: I am arguing what appears to be

[ Page 4542 ]

a pending ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling has been made. Do you wish to challenge the ruling?

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, let's not rush into that ruling. That's closure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: That's closure, and you know it's closure. We won't tolerate closure, Mr. Chairman. I ask you to take a recess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member wishes to challenge the ruling, it is his prerogative.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 20

On section 5.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister under this section to explain to the House what he would consider to be racial or ethnic superiority as defined under section 5?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've asked the minister to explain to the House what he would consider to be the definition of racial or ethnic superiority as defined in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question I am asking. The whole question around separate or independent or private schools has to be defined in terms of this section as outlined by the minister. I'm asking the minister bluntly, openly and frankly to tell the House what he means by a definition of racial or ethnic superiority. I think we have a right to know that under this section. I'd appreciate it if the minister would give us the definition under the limits of this section.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that question was asked already today by the member for Oak Bay and I gave an answer to the member for Oak Bay at that time. If the Leader of the Opposition had been listening, he would be aware of that. I could see no purpose to answering that question again.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask the minister to give a petty lecture to the House. I asked him to answer a specific question, and the specific question is: in the bill that he's responsible for, section 5 has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, may I 'draw your attention to standing order 43?

MR. KING: He was never asked that question from the member for Oak Bay. That's not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the question, hon. Leader of the Opposition. To continuously ask it seems to do injury to section 43, which I read for all members' attention:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman ... after having called the attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your reading of section 43, with which I am familiar. I do not intend to be intimidated by the minister, who has given an incorrect statement to this House. That question was not asked by the member for Oak Bay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With great respect, I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition ask it three times.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, because I want an answer, but it is not sufficient to say that he's already

[ Page 4543 ]

answered a question that has never been asked before. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say very quietly: would the minister as a responsible member of the cabinet please tell this House what the definition is under section 5 (a) (i) of racial or ethnic superiority?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has that question.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know whether or not the minister intends to answer, and I think I have a right to do that to avoid section 43. 1 ask the minister: will he answer that question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman. I still have the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I want an indication from the minister if he is prepared to answer that question, because there is another section that deals with it. There is another section that deals with standing orders. Standing orders deal with the right of the minister to reply or not, but I have an obligation to ask. If the minister could give me an indication if he's going to answer under this section later on or in a few minutes, I'll be happy.

MR. KING: Arrogance!

MR. BARRETT: It's more than arrogance; it's more than contempt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as long as the Leader of the Opposition has the floor, the minister cannot answer.

MR. BARRETT: If he can give me an indication I'll give up the floor. It's committee. Could we have some polite indication, perhaps - a raising of the eyebrow, a lifting of the elbow, or some signal? Does that, mean you're going to answer now?

HON. MR. McGEER: I have answered it.

MR. BARRETT: You have not, because it has not been asked. It has not been asked. Mr. Chairman, that's coming close to fibbing!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it is. It's coming close to fibbing. He's saying that he answered a question that he hasn't been asked before. Now I'm not going to accuse him of fibbing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think the great difficulty that the opposition is experiencing with this bill, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, is that questions are repeatedly phrased to which answers are given but which either do not please the official opposition....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a point of order?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. Mr. Chairman, it's in answer indirectly to a question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has asked, and apparently he has persuaded you it has not been asked already this morning, because he keeps on asking it without your drawing attention to standing order 43.

1 covered this ground quite thoroughly with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . I can't serve any useful purpose by covering it again and again, except to be tedious and repetitious myself, Mr. Chairman. I must, with respect, draw the attention of yourself and the official opposition to this section. I realize,

Mr. Chairman, that the NDP made a dreadful tactical error in not debating this bill in second reading. But may I say, with respect to standing orders - and if I have to raise this on a point of order, I will - , What has happened is that the NDP is proving its irresponsibility by compensating for that by abuse of yourself and the rules of the House. They are proving they are unable to plan strategy, they are unable to debate bills properly ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ... and all they can do, Mr. Chairman, is abuse the traditions of the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! On the point of order, would all members please be seated?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, would the member please be seated?

Hon. Mr. Minister, the point of order which the minister raised was not a legitimate point of order and the speech was not relevant to this section.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the old adage, recently coined. "Not a dime without debate!"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this relevant to section 5?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it certainly is, Mr. Chairman. "Not a dime without debate!"

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nothing to do with estimates. You're all mixed up!

[ Page 4544 ]

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

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I rise on standing order 61 (2) - relevancy. I see no relevance in what the Leader of the Opposition has just said in regard to section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The Leader of the Opposition. On section 5?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I respect the Chair and its rulings and I'm going to continue with my responsibility under section 5. If there is any attempt at closure, then have the guts to go under section 46 of standing orders.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, under section 5 ....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it may be the view of the other side of the House that the Leader of the Opposition is not doing his job. It is our view that he is. There is no reason whatsoever for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to call him a "phony" and I would ask the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources to withdraw that remark. I ask the minister to withdraw unconditionally his reference to the Leader of the Opposition as a "phony."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Apparently offence has been taken at the phrase. Would the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources kindly withdraw?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver Centre will do almost anything to gain the floor. But If I have offended the Leader of the Opposition - he hasn't taken exception - I will withdraw.

MR. LAUK: Eat crow!

MR. BARRETT: The member has not offended me; it takes some skill to do that.

The point that I'm trying to make here, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. CHABOT: The voters of Coquitlam offended you!

MR. BARRETT: Read section 5 again. I ask the minister for an explanation to a question that has not been asked before or answered before by the minister. We have a right to know what the definition of racial or ethnic superiority is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been asked, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: That's right; I've asked it. Let it stand there and let it also be noted that we did not get an answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's straight obstruction!

MR. BARRETT: The next part is "religious intolerance and persecution."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question has been asked.

MR. BARRETT: No, it has not.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's trying to destroy parliament.

MR. BARRETT: It has not been asked. I do not expect the Chair to define that. Obviously, we know what No. 3 means: "Social change through violent action", such as irresponsible political meetings -around Bill 42, for example. Things like that. That is the definition of that kind of behaviour.

"The facilities of the school are adequate" has been canvassed very well in this section. "The authority" has also been canvassed.

I recognize those areas, but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister suggests we have had a definition of racial or ethnic superiority, we have not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is in the hands of the minister.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct. I'd like an answer so we can get on with the business, if the minister would just take a moment and enlighten the House.

MRS. DAILLY: On the matter of the question that has been raised - and I realize it was repeated by the Leader of the Opposition - and on which we have still not had an answer, I have another question relevant to that. This is a very specific question to the minister. The minister has already stated this morning that independent schools funded by this government will have the right to their own selection of students and teachers. My specific question is: if they are only

[ Page 4545 ]

to receive funding if they do not practice racial or ethnic superiority....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member, the member is transgressing.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry - I will not use the word "funding." As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, as you know, Mr. Minister, we intend to discuss funding. We feel we have a right to, as this progresses. We will make our case for that, I hope, if you so rule.

However, I would like to get back to this point: if the independent schools can select their own students and their own teachers, is it not conceivable that we ~could have a separate school in this province, funded by the taxpayer, which is teaching racial or ethnic superiority without anyone being aware of it?

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, I draw your attention to standing order 43.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby North will please keep her comments relevant to section 5.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, it is a new question. I'm simply asking the minister again: if he is going to allow admission entirely in the hands of the independent schools, how can we have a guarantee that a separate school in this province will not be teaching racial or ethnic superiority when admissions are not open? Now I think we have a right to that answer. I think the public of B.C. would be shocked, Mr. Chairman, to actually believe that their public taxpayers' money could conceivably go to a school which is going to teach racial or ethnic superiority. I challenge the minister to tell us that there is not a distinct possibility that this could happen as long as he sits back and has nothing to do with admission policies to these schools.

If this minister refuses to answer, Mr. Chairman, this House and the public are aware this minister and his government are condemned in the eyes of the public as condoning discrimination and possibly racial and ethnic superiority.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us a lecture from time to time on our position on this bill. I'm not satisfied with the Leader of the Opposition's position that subsection (c) has been properly canvassed.

Let me give you an example of the way the minister answers a question, just so we all understand.

MR. KEMPF: Order!

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Chairman, I wonder where that person came from sometimes.

Mr. Chairman, the question was asked by the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , last night around the concern that he had about an authority qualifying. Does it have to have five full consecutive years? he asked. The leader of the Liberal Party suggested that a school with four years at September 15,1977, could very well have to have nine years in order to qualify. The question that I was going to ask the minister and didn't get around to, my colleagues being on other aspects of this section, is that four years and I I months, in my view, would mean that that school would have to be organized and reporting for nine years and 11 months in order to qualify, according to the section.

Listen to the way the minister answered. I don't know why that member for North Vancouver-Capilano was accepting this. He said: "We would be prepared to accept historic records, Mr. Chairman, " That means nothing. That means specifically nothing, when his own legislation says the opposite. You cannot read into that anything other than the fact if a school has not operated for at least five consecutive years prior to September 15, 19.77, or has filed with the inspector a statement in prescribed form during at least five consecutive school years prior to the application for classification under this section, showing the authority has operated this school as an independent school for the school year covered in the filing, it just doesn't qualify. It can't qualify unless the minister is prepared to waive this section of the Act. How can he? He breaks his own law if he does. So why would he put something in a statute that certainly must outweigh his statement in Hansard?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because the bill didn't go to legislative counsel.

MR. COCKE: I don't know where this bill went. I know that the minister continually answers questions by getting up and insulting the opposition. That's the only way he answers the questions.

Mr. Chairman, can the minister now stand up and explain this aspect of section 5 and how he can make a statement yesterday indicating that a school that has been in operation for four years will somehow or other be able to qualify because of some historic rights? We would like to hear that answered.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I stated government policy on that matter to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) yesterday.

MR. BARRETT: It's not in Hansard.

MR. COCKE: This is the most frustrating minister

[ Page 4546 ]

and he wonders why he can't get this bill through committee. We've watched those ministers who are co-operative.

MR. BARRETT: I guess Hansard is lying.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as you are a new Chairman in this chair, I brought to the attention of the former Chairman standing order 61 (2) and I would like to bring that standing order to your attention as well.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm rather concerned. On two occasions the minister has stated that he has given answers which don't appear in Hansard. I wonder if you could advise the Speaker that Hansard may have inadvertently left out these answers and conduct an investigation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Hansard is a fibber.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Omineca, with his lack of experience, feels that he's contributing to this debate. So far it leaves me a little bit bewildered. I'm not quite sure where that contribution has been but, in any event, let him continue to contribute in his present way. Mr. Chairman, can I get back to this section?

MR. KEMPF: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask that member to withdraw. That is totally irrelevant in regard to section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you have said anything to offend the hon. member for Omineca, will you kindly withdraw it?

MR. BARRETT: We couldn't say a thing that could offend him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly withdraw?

MR. COCKE: Withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have said anything to offend the hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I accused him neither of lying nor of anything else. I said I didn't think he was contributing much to the debate, and I'm sure the Chairman agrees with me. If he finds that offensive, I'll withdraw it. I would love to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you kindly.

MR. COCKE: I want to get back to this section. You know, Mr. Chairman, I got up on a rather serious point. That serious point was to try to indicate to the minister that he is not co-operating on answering questions on this section.

The question that I asked was specific. I said that there's no, possible way, in my view, that this legislation supports what he said yesterday. He said yesterday that they would accept historic records. Mr. Chairman, that answer, and the fact that he's suggesting government policy outweighs legislation, does not satisfy me.

Can I just ask the minister for a simple answer? What about a school four years and 11 months in operation as of September 15,1977? What does that school have to do in order to qualify? Does it have to wait another five years? My interpretation of this legislation is that that's precisely what they have to do. In other words, they have to be nine years and 11 months in operation in order to qualify.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to standing order 43.

MR. BARRETT: You just raised that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member., I believe the member is in order. Please continue.

MR. BARRETT: Point out to him that those interruptions are not in order.

HON. MR. McGEER: I already indicated yesterday, Mr. Chairman, to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who I thought put the point much better, that that was not government policy.

MR. COCKE: That settles it that that was not government policy, and yet a moment ago he said it was government policy. He only said eight words to the Chairman yesterday in answer to that question -only eight words - and none of those eight words includes government policy, either pro or con, or accepting or not accepting.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, when we interpret this section, as we are called upon to do by our constituents, we still have not had words from the minister to inform people how they go about applying under this Act in terms of racial or ethnic superiority definition. We still do not have that definition. We have canvassed Hansard, and it appears that Hansard has made a gross error and left out significant statements by the minister.

[ Page 4547 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is being checked with the Speaker at the present time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, if that's being checked, then I think perhaps we should wait until we get an answer, because otherwise I'm going to keep on asking the Minister for a definition of racial and ethnic superiority. 4

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You said you already canvassed it.

MR. BARRETT: I think there's a noise back there, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure what it is, but it's some kind of noise.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: There it is again! It's a strange noise....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, in the committee. Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please continue?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to save a lot of time and trouble and please give this House his definition of what he means in this bill under 5 (a) (i) by "racial or ethnic superiority." Would he tell me that, please?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I've already dealt with this question.

MR. BARRETT: No, you haven't.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) made the point in fat better fashion than the Leader of the Opposition, but I suppose that's par for the course in the Legislature. As the Leader of the Opposition should know, regardless of the intent of this section, his definition or my definition of any words in a piece of legislation are of no relevance. The question has been dealt with when it was placed in a much superior fashion by the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , but specific definitions by any member of the Legislature are of no consequence to the legislation itself. We don't define the meaning of words in here for the purposes of those who must interpret them. The Leader of the Opposition, with all his years of experience in the House, should appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

So no purpose is to be served, as far as this section is concerned, by the definition of the minister or any member of the House. We don't define the meaning of words for the purposes of some court, or for the purposes of a regulation, or for the purposes of the administration. There are appropriate bodies for dealing with all those questions. And the particular opinions with regard to the meaning of the words, whether they come from the Leader of the Opposition, and I can tell you that on questions of this sort, he holds very strong opinions.... They're probably different from mine, and neither his nor mine are of consequence to section 5 and how it will be interpreted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman I can hardly believe the incredible statement just issued from the minister. If I quote him correctly, he said that no member's definition has relevance to this section. Mr. Chairman, if we're to follow the logic of that statement, it means that the minister is not responsible for anything in the legislation. But it's my understanding that a minister of the Crown, in requiring legislation to be drafted and then debated under his responsibility.... His definition means that it doesn't matter what the intention of the minister is, the words don't mean anything, and it's up to some administrator or some court to have an idea of what the Crown wants through its government. How absurd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are discussing the minister's responsibility....

MR. BARRETT: Please do not interrupt me. I am in order; I am responding to the minister's answer. He said, and you did not interrupt him: "The member's definition has no relevance." I'm saying to you that the minister's definition of legislation has relevance to section 5. I'm responding, and I'm in order.

I say to the minister that he is trying to buffalo this House with all kinds of words and stances and arrogance, avoiding the responsibility of defining what he, as the Minister of Education, means in section 5 that he has authored or has had authored for him. To say that once authoring it, it is over, is like abandoning a one-day child or even before birth or before labour. It is some abstract concept that "we will do this and we deign it, but we no longer have any responsibility for it to have it defined in practice."

Mr. Chairman, to say that an administrator has responsibility under this section is not so. To say that a judge has responsibility under this section is not so. It is not in front of court, it is not in front of the administrator, it is in front of this minister, who is responsible for this section. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has found that a detailed examination of this section has been embarrassing for him in exposing his abysmal ignorance in the very meaning of the words that are here in this section, his abysmal ignorance in knowing how this will apply,

[ Page 4548 ]

and his facetious response abdicating his duties as a sworn minister of the Crown to say that his opinion of a word has no relevance.

If we carried that to the extreme, Mr. Chairman, we would have every citizen free to say that although the line is painted down the middle of the road, I don't define that for me to stay on the right-hand side; I decide to drive on the other side. The rule of law and the rule of order as defined by that minister in this decision all go down the tube based on anarchy, i.e. what I think of it or what you think of it has no relevance at all. Nonsense!

Mr. Minister, you have a duty and a responsibility beyond insulting people you don't like or you feel unhappy with. You're ready to change your principles at any moment just because you don't feel nice about a group. You have a responsibility ... and I can exchange fair insult after all. He's pretty fair and I'm pretty fair; we give fair insults to each other. You get the impression that we don't like each other. That's wrong!

MR. CHAIRMAN: A personal attack on a member is never in order, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct; that's why he was out of order. But we're not personally attacking each other. We have a challenge of wits here. In my case, it's whole, and in his case, it's half.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pointing out to you that I see the minister abdicating his responsibility in defining this section, which he is responsible to author, by dispensing some little whit of solemn analysis that may be tested in court, that may be tested by an administrator. I asked him, through you, Mr. Chairman: what does his government mean, through his mouth and his brain? What is intended under section 5 when they use these words, in order, sir: 5 (a) (1) "racial or ethnic superiority"?

Please don't lecture me. I've done my core curriculum.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has risen to maximum heights and he's definitely on the way down now. But I can tell you that in his time, when he had responsibility - the little effort he made to accept responsibility - he certainly didn't seem to understand the way legislation is passed in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Because the person who makes the decision to grant or not to grant the licence or Group I classification is the inspector, and clearly what the Leader of the Opposition is asking for is some kind of political interference in that process - something which would be the worst possible approach of a government to follow. That's why the bill is defined the way it is. It's defined so that it will work and' so that the prejudices of a politician, be he the Leader of the Opposition or the Minister of Education, will not be brought to bear on such an important area as education of our students.

The Leader of the Opposition can stand and twist and twist, but he isn't going to alter one bit, Mr. Chairman, the historic way in which bills are written and in which legislatures consider legislation and in which civil servants and administrators apply that legislation, and in which, in rare circumstances, the courts interpret them.

Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to tell someone who's been more years in the House than I have and who's risen to higher heights of responsibility in British Columbia than I will, what he should be doing. But by now, Mr. Chairman, after all these years, he should understand the process and he should also understand how to stand up and make clear and logical debate instead of the twistings, round and round. I'm sure he has to. screw his socks on in the morning, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the trouble of defining whether my sock goes on a left foot or a right foot; at least I wear a pair.

The minister is very glib and I enjoy him. I really do. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I enjoy the minister very, very much. When you think of the vast sums of public funds we've spent in public education -welfare-supported programmes for university students - and he has been on that dole all these years, it is nice to hear a bit of wit on occasion. As I say, I enjoy the minister.

But what an indictment of his educational experience if that's the level of debate that he wants to encourage. Far be it from me.... I'm perhaps a caustic observer, but an observer, nonetheless. We must now examine the words of the minister again. He has said: "The administrator must administer this legislation." That is correct. Who writes the legislation? The politician. That is correct, There must be no political interference; tell that to Ray Torresan! Tell that to the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) and ICBC!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. That has no relevance in this debate. Back to section 5.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. It has not. It has been canvassed in other forms.

[ Page 4549 ]

MR. BARRETT: It has no relevance, but you allowed the minister to make these points.

Now when it comes to the administrator, Mr. Chairman, is the minister suggesting that the administrator makes absolute decisions out of his own definition of the legislation, without the purpose or'the intent of the legislation as defined by the duly elected government of the day being a guiding factor? If that's the case, let's abandon this whole process of having a free society; let's abandon the whole process of citizens even thinking that they could have an opinion equivalent to that of such, a high and esteemed person as a minister of the Crown who we are fortunate enough to have lecture us today - those of us who are just ordinary minions and citizens who are lucky to breathe a breath in the same room with such knowledgeable and widely scoped and experienced people who can give orders and deem things to happen for us through administrators.

I humbly submit, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, that although I have risen, as the minister has said, to some higher station in life, I know that my humble birth does not really permit me to go on further in questioning such an august person as the minister. But since I am here, sir, I am screwing up my nerve now to humbly submit to the holiness of all education in this province, through you, Mr. Chairman, if he would please tell us what he will tell the administrator, who gets in a genuflecting position in his office and crawls in on the rug and says, "Oh, sir, venerable one, oh minister, please tell me what you had in mind when you wrote 5 (a) (i) 'racial or ethical superiority." The peasants are restless, they are worried, they want a definition from you, o sire. Even if we may never have another election and you have deemed to serve us as minister, please give me some guidance. What do you mean under 5 (a) (i) by racial or ethic superiority'?"

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Leader of the Opposition must have been recalling some scenario that took place when he was the Premier of the province, because that's not how people are appointed under this government. They are appointed for their ability and their judgment and on a non-partisan basis.

MR. BARRETT: Like Ray Torresan.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman. It's very difficult to find the czar of advertising that was present under the Barrett administration, because when $2.6 million a year worth of advertising suddenly disappeared, he couldn't cut it on his own, could he? He had to disappear from British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is irrelevant. Back to section 5, hon. minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in the scenario that the Leader of the Opposition describes, I don't know if he was recalling scenes in his office during the time of the Egg Marketing Board or what, but I can tell you nothing like that has taken place under Social Credit, even if it did under the NDP.

I gave a description of the kind of person who would be an inspector under this government, and that's somebody with great judgment, high standards and unassailable experience in the field of education. Such a person would need no definition from me as to what religious or ethnic superiority or political superiority amounted to.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the minister's hope and desire and wish to find such a lord-like person whose definition would satisfy all. However, we have not had that. In fact, in recent history we have found some scandalous examinations. For instance, in southern legislatures, they even think the Ku Klux Klan doesn't practise racial superiority. Who am I to pass judgment on the southern states of the United States? Who am I to say that the minister has some connection with finding this perfected person? In Europe they over went two generations of some definition of racial superiority that was left to some bureaucrat. Put the Zyklon 2 in, gang, there's been a definition. Everybody abdicated responsibility. I'm asking this minister to take responsibility. However, I do continue to enjoy this debate, I must say, with the patience of the Chair - the leeway you have given the minister has been welcomed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct.

Lady Macbeth once talked about such words and statements about the kind of ambition that seeks this expression. You are familiar with that passage, Mr. Chairman, in a similar section, when she said: "Galmis, thou art and Cawdor shalt be what thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature - it is too full of the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way." That is exactly what we are seeing today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now could we return to the section, please?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I quote: "too full of the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way." We've seen a new sign of the minister being full of the milk of human kindness, using rhetoric rather than his usual heavy hand to block debate on this bill. I'm glad to see he is now comforted by his fellow intellectual, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

[ Page 4550 ]

Mr. Chairman, what I want to say is that if the minister is to give advice to the administrator, the administrator must have a job description and the job description must include in it, sir, that he must be a little bit less than god, able to define human behaviour, being of sufficient and supreme knowledge to know what is in the minister's mind without the minister having moved his lips, being able to genuflect to the minister and absorb through that exchange the knowledge of what the minister means by "racial or ethnic superiority." However, Mr. Chairman, I point out to you again, we lowly beings on this side of the House do not have those skills and talents of the unnamed administrator whom the minister is going to call in. I know it's not Ray Torresan, because it's not to be a political appointment.

I ask the minister to inform those of us who are limited in scope and whom he deigns to spend some moments with this morning, if he would be kind enough, sir, now that he has expressed at least two lines of Lady Macbeth's soliloquy.... Help me avoid repeating the whole particularly appropriate passage before the old man pumps off the king. There are people who are talking about that with the minister -his desire through this legislation to pump off the kind, as Lady Macbeth did.

Mr. Chairman, before I go through that whole soliloquy that is appropriate to the minister, I would ask him humbly, with both socks on, if he would please tell the House what he means by section 5 (a) (i) - "racial or ethnic superiority."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the question has been asked now, I think, on six different occasions.

MR. BARRETT: With eight different versions. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to point out to you that what we have in front of us is the minister not in order, not responding to questions in order under section 5. 1 don't want to call him to order because I don't want to restrict his debate, but standing order 43 may be appropriate for the minister and I want to avoid him getting into trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order is appropriate to all members in this House to assist in tedious and repetitious debate.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, but I'm in order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if the member is in order, as he suggested to you, it would be one of the few occasions in debate in this House when he has been in order. Mr. Chairman, I'll leave you to make the judgment as to where repetition of a question which has been dealt with repeatedly begins to offend standing order 43. 1 will give the Leader of the Opposition this commitment: if he wishes to provide me with his definition of racial or ethnic superiority, I would be pleased to pass that on to the superintendent or the inspector without prejudice. The Leader of the Opposition raises all these analogies with the United States. This isn't the United States; this is British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: I realize the member has had some education on that border between north and south. He seems to have picked up something because in the years that he has led his party in the House he has demonstrated his skill to organize with northern charm and southern efficiency.

Mr. , Chairman, we want to stick to British Columbia. We wish to keep the bill non-political. In that spirit, it would in inappropriate. for me to attempt to give any definitions of this kind to a superintendent. But if the Leader of the Opposition feels that politics has a place in this, then if he gives me his definition I will pass it on without prejudice to the inspector and hope that that inspector would still be able to retain his non-political judgment in this matter.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed this exchange. Now we're getting somewhere with the minister. He is saying to me that he wants to be non-political. However, since I'm being political, he would like my definition of "racial or ethnic superiority." Since he wants my description, outside of politics, I think it is necessary to remind him that it was his former party that in this province campaigned on the slogan: "Stop the yellow peril in British Columbia."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman, this must be reminded. It was a political decision against Japanese and Chinese fostered by that former administration....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please take your seat.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are completely out of order.

Interjection.

[ Page 4551 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: He asked for your definition to be sent to him so that he could pass it on to the inspector.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are out of order, sir, and I so rule.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am passing on 'his request. I do not believe prejudice should include racial or ethnic identification as practised by political parties in this province, not in the south. As recently in the early '50s in this province, native Indian people still did not have the right to vote because of practices by parties antecedent and precedent of his group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, this debate is totally irrelevant. I draw your attention to standing order 61 (2) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree with you, hon. member. Your point is well taken. I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to return to section 5, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I really admire the member for Omineca. I find that his brilliant interruptions are well defined. Would you pronounce the word "irrelevant" again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not here on the English language.

MR. BARRETT: No, we certainly aren't. That's obvious by that member's statements.

Mr. Chairman, back to section 5 - a definition of "racial or ethnic superiority." The minister has asked me to give him guidance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He asked for you to pass it on on a non-political basis so he could pass it on to the inspector.

MR. BARRETT: I will suggest that if the minister hasn't got his own definition of what racial and ethnic superiority is, he should resign. In this day and age, not to have a clearly spelled out moral, philosophical and political understanding of your responsibilities around the definition of racial or ethnic superiority.... Considering the antecedents of the Social Credit Party, to which you now belong, and the Liberal Party, to which you used to belong, the history of Solon Low and Major Douglas with the anti-Semitism, and the history of the Liberals with the racial theories they had in the 1930s, what do you mean?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The minister asks for my definition. I'm not the minister. He's the minister, and I want his definition.

MR. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Don't waste so much time, Dave. Get on with it.

MR. BARRETT: That's what they said before they did the executions: "Don't waste so much time. Get on with it. Big Daddy wants to rule. We don't need to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's. If the gas is going down the tube, we've got a definition." You may think it's funny. You may think it's irrelevant. I don't. I think that when we are discussing the taxpayers' money in this province and a government won't define what it means by racial or ethnic superiority, I can't think of anything more important in this whole bill or this whole session of the Legislature.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're costing taxpayers plenty of money.

MR. BARRETT: I'm costing taxpayers money. Do it efficiently. Line us all up and shoot us. Get it over with. What do you think I'm here for?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I wonder. I really wonder.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this government has authored legislation that says it wants an administrator to define racial or ethnic superiority. If the minister's losing a little bit of his lunch, go down and eat. Go ahead. Get out of here. But as long as I'm here, I'm involved, and I represent citizens of this province, I believe it is the responsibility of this minister to tell us what his government means and defines as racial and ethnic superiority.

There are people in our community who have been victims of prejudice, Mr. Chairman, who may want to avail themselves of this bill, who may be concerned that their neighbours or friends will be participants in this bill. Because of that, I am saying to you, Mr. Chairman, that through all the words and all the rhetoric of the minister - and I appreciate his very, very open advice to me to give my definition, but I am not the minister and I am not the administrator -what we want is what the minister believes. If he

[ Page 4552 ]

could give us some guidance and if he could tell us what he thinks, it would be of great comfort to those who, in the past in this province, have suffered at the hands of governments because of religious or racial intolerance.

I think it's only fair that the minister state clearly what the government policy is in defining this section. Don't leave it to some bureaucrat because in a free society we don't get to fire the bureaucrats; we only get to kick bad governments or good governments in the you-know-where.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: In the ballot box. That's right. The citizens, in dissent, decided they wanted you as government. Now that you're government, you tell the citizens of all races, all creeds, and all nationalities exactly what you mean, now that you have power, by racial and ethnic superiority. I'd like to hear that, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we've covered this ground, of course, repeatedly. It does become clear, as the Leader of the Opposition begins to unfold his racial feelings, why it is his government would never support legislation such as is implied in section 5. That's the difference between the NDP and Social Credit, Mr. Chairman, right there. The fact is that we are prepared to be fair to people. We are prepared to give them the kind of economic equality that they have been denied for all these years.

We're prepared to give people of modest income the low income grants, through the inspector, in section 5. These will come not as a result of any political moves on the part of the government, not as a result of any definition of racial or ethnic superiority that a minister of the Crown, or any member of the Social Credit Party, might come forward with. Now we have offered, Mr. Chairman, to give to the inspector definitions of racial or ethnic superiority that might be held by the people who are opposed to this bill but who never had the courage to vote against it, the people who are opposed to this bill but teased, for all those years, the independent schools into thinking they were really going to support them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the mask has been pulled off. It's all revealed - all of it - by the debate under section 5 and the other sections of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I tell you, it has been a shabby experience - a shabby experience because the party that didn't have the courage to say no to the independent schools, the party that didn't have the courage to say no during second reading, is attempting to compensate for all of this by tediousness and repetition in Committee of the Whole House.

They have no courage, Mr. Chairman, on principle but no restraint at all when it comes to abusing the general rules of the Legislature. They are not willing, Mr. Chairman, to abide by the rules, any more than 'they have the courage to take a political stand.

Now we have said that this is a completely non-political section and that the definitions that might be given by any politician, in our view, are improper. But to prove that we're tolerant, to prove that we're a fair government even to the point of bending over backwards, I will agree to pass on the definition of religious or ethnic or racial superiority to the superintendent on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the New Democratic Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment, please. Hon. members, we have canvassed this very well. The question has been asked several times, and there have been several answers given. Also, in the minister's answer he mentioned the subject of funding. That has been ruled out of order by the previous Chairman. I would like us to go on to new material in section 5, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we can discuss grants because he discussed grants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That has been ruled out of order. The Chair has already brought that to your attention.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I'm not going to talk in terms of the political argument from the Minister of Education. I want to say that I have never seen a section like this in any statute in any part of the British Commonwealth or Canada. I'd love to see the precedent for this kind of a section.

What you're saying in effect is that an inspector can decide who is guilty of these various things, racial or ethnic superiority, religious intolerance or persecution and social change through violent action. All of these are matters affecting the basic freedom of the people of British Columbia. I think to write this kind of a section where the inspector-general can make this kind of a freedom decision in relation to the people and the children of the province of B.C. in these vague, general terms without even a statement of philosophy from the minister is absolutely disgraceful.

What is the appeal from the inspector-general to the minister? That's all. None of this kind of thing has ever been written into any other statutes anywhere. No legislature would stand for it.

This is a badly drafted bill. It's a very dangerous bill the way it has been written. The approach of this government to the problem, and there are problems in the area in regard to the children that go to these schools and their parents.... Sure there are

[ Page 4553 ]

problems, but this solution and this bill and the kind of powers that are being given to a civil servant and an inspector is an absolutely disgraceful episode in the history of B.C., in my opinion. I don't abide for one minute the fact that this should not be discussed thoroughly in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where were you in second reading?

MR. MACDONALD: Where was I in second reading? Do you want me to answer that? If I can, I will. If the Chairman doesn't get....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not relevant to this debate. The hon. member is debating on section 5.

MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless, this is the indepth place where this kind of a matter should be discussed. This kind of a section written into our statutes, this kind of thing that an inspector shall decide where there is racial bigotry.... Who knows whether he has some racial bigotry in his bones? I don't know. I suppose we all do.

In a Human Rights Code where we deal with these kinds of things there's a proper open hearing, an appeal procedure, and the thing is out in the open. One school is going to be cut off because of the inspector's judgment or prejudice, and another is going to be allowed to go. One will get money and one won't on all of these things. This is a terrible thing to write into statutes. It's a pity that the government didn't go the way of helping children, all children, regardless, of race, colour or creed in this province.

They've gone this way and they're creating a bureaucratic structure here which entrenches on some of the basic freedoms of British Columbia. It's just badly drafted and a bad approach. The minister has not been answering the questions, because he can't. How can he? How can anybody justify these words? So his answer is to rely on standing order 43 and say the Legislature shouldn't discuss it anymore. It's a Big Brother government, and I think this section should not be passed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think I've had a fair go at this in expressing my opinion. There are just a couple of more words, and then I'll leave it rest with the conscience of the minister.

For those of us who either one way or another have either personally or second-hand witnessed or experienced through others bigotry, seeing words like this in legislation - although albeit with some sense of humour, hopefully, in attempting to get across to the minister our concern - those of us who feel strongly about this worry very much about governments defining who should or should not get help based on a definition by some bureaucrat of racial or ethnic superiority. It is dangerous ground, as my colleague, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) , has pointed out. It is extremely dangerous ground.

I want to point out through you, Mr. Chairman, that in writing a section like this and the minister then washing his hands of it, he's even going one step further. Rather than as a human being elected to this House to defend individually on the basis of his philosophy what is intended in this, he says we will define it on racial or ethnic superiority; then he washes his hands of it and walks away. If anything goes wrong - if there is a bad taste or a bad experience because of this legislation - the minister can say: "Oh, it wasn't me; it was the bureaucrat." The bureaucrat doesn't write the legislation; the bureaucrat doesn't put in the definitions. This is on your own conscience and on your head. And you, sir, are opening and inflaming old wounds, better laid to rest in this province than raising them again by this kind of legislation.

There is a way to go, Mr. Chairman, in providing services to people, and that is to all people on the basis of children, regardless of race, creed, colour or anything else. And that's what our free society is all about - a free access to services on an equal basis regardless of race, creed, colour, ethnic background or anything else.

I say to you, sir: your lack of your statement of philosophy and your lack of your statement of commitment and definition of this section is going to take this province into waters long ago left. They're better left in bitter memories of the history of this province rather than charting for what I think are political purposes. But as you chart the course of your government and your department into those long-distant-behind-us waters, you are going to be the author of inflaming feelings and attitudes that should have long ago been put to rest in this province.

I tell you with all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, the minister will rue the day that this section was passed in this House. That government will rue the day, and that's fair enough. But what is even worse, this province will regret that rather than providing services regardless of race, creed, colour or any definition beyond being a human being and a child, we have a step backward.

All the rationalization and all the theories which the minister may muster to justify what he's doing will go down the drain when the first instance -questionable or not - arises under this section that somebody has been defined by a bureaucrat as not being racially or ethically appropriate to this legislation. It is dangerous at this time in this nation, when we are going through a battle to keep this country together regardless of language difference,

[ Page 4554 ]

racial difference or any other attitude, to turn the clock back in British Columbia without a definition from the minister. It is the most callous and stupid act by a government that is headstrong and arrogant. It's flushed with the thrust of power, flushed with the position of making decisions. It's thrown itself into the arms of bureaucratic decisions, and misses the whole point: that to be a government you must also have a heart as well as a head and you must have some history as well as an understanding of today. I regret this. There is no wisdom in this and my good friend the Attorney-General has advised you what to do. Mr. Chairman, because of what my good friend has said, I am now suggesting and I move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 21

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

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just indulge upon the committee momentarily to note that we have some visitors in the gallery from the constituency of North Okanagan. I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Fred Hartley and their daughters, Brenda and Lynn, and a visitor from England, Andrea Bonner. I would like the House to welcome them please.

On section 5 - continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ayes have it. So ordered. Division on section . . . the hon. minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: I have listened with some....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 5?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet before the division was called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. The hon. minister on section 5.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I believe the minister was on his feet.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet and the reason was that....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, a voice vote was taken. The chairman said: "The ayes have it." We called division, and now suddenly the minister is on his feet. Now what kind of behaviour is this? Had it been the other way around, what would have happened?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: We'd be more than anxious to hear the minister say something about section 5. He hasn't so far. The opposition would, I'm sure, grant leave of the House to go back to section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is not necessary in committee. It has been the tradition of this House that we continue once a member has drawn the attention of the Chairman that he is on his feet.

The hon. Attorney-General on the same point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, two nights ago a somewhat similar situation developed when the committee Chairman was Mr. Schroeder and there was a member of the opposition on his feet. The vote was called, the opposition member was on his feet, the Chairman failed to recognize the member, and then he did recognize him. It's a parallel situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's happened on many occasions.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw the objection. Incidentally, I've been hooked on exactly the same thing myself in this House on a number of occasions.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the points made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . While it's government policy that the schools do not wait five years, the member said that it would be possible to interpret it in another light. In order that there be no

[ Page 4555 ]

doubt at all, I move an amendment to section 5 which would delete paragraph (c) and substitute for paragraph (c):

"the authority has filed with the inspector a statement in prescribed form showing that the authority has operated the school as an independent school for at least five consecutive school years, including the school year immediately prior to the date of the filing."

MR. KING: That's what we call an eleventh-hour amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought the member for New Westminster and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano had a good point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS - 22

NAYS - 13

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

On section 6.

MR. COCKE: Section 6, which is the next section for classification, deals with what the inspector may do with Group 2. Group 2 classification is where -how does one use the term "funding" without using the term "funding"? - the government has the obligation to fund not only the operating expenses but also the teaching aspect.

I have two or three questions in this section. In the opinion of the minister, what is a satisfactory programme? The inspector must ascertain if you will look in under (b) of this section, that the inspector has to ascertain that the school has established a pupil testing programme satisfactory to the inspector to demonstrate pupil progress in the appropriate subject areas under paragraph (a) .

Mr. Chairman, what I am asking here is what does he mean by a satisfactory programme of pupil testing? Does that mean teaching to test? The minister has been very vague with respect to the provincial learning assessment programme. Nobody to this day really knows what he is talking about because his deputy says one thing and the minister says another with respect to pupil testing. I would just like to know how he defines this satisfactory programme in this particular section as it applies to the independent schools.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, under section (c) , about what is talked about here in the evaluation committee. Now how much does the school have to place itself in the hands of the external evaluation committee? The Chairman will remember yesterday we asked that the external evaluation committee be other than ministerial appointments. We find that the minister wasn't prepared to go that route. Now I'm asking the minister just how much power, how much authority the external evaluation committee has over the programmes, operations. and administration of the schools. I think it's unfortunate that there isn't a wider cross-section of people who could qualify in these committees. It strikes me that the minister decided to take authority into his own hands and have a centralized programme, so I would like to ask that question.

Under (d) , I'd like to ask the minister just how many school boards have a learning assessment programme at the present time. He's suggesting, under section (d) , that the independent schools should have agreed to participate, or have participated, in ". . . a learning assessment programme established by the minister or a local school board respecting school-age children in the area served by the school." I haven't heard how many school boards have a learning assessment programme at the present time and I would like the minister to indicate how many have. Has there been heretofore any co-operation in that particular area between the independent school people and the public schools?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we would naturally expect the independent schools to meet, at a minimum, the accountability standards which we set for the public schools of the province. These include the teaching of the core curriculum. I'm pleased to let the members of the House know that yesterday the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council passed the guides to the core curriculum, so it will be in

[ Page 4556 ]

place by September I I - that is, the core curriculum in English. There will be another core curriculum in French, which unfortunately will not be ready by September, 1977, but we made no commitment to provide a French core curriculum by that time.

In the event, Mr. Chairman, the core curriculum will be expected to be taught in schools that seek Group 2 classification. The provincial learning assessment programme will also be applied to those schools, as it is to the public schools. In the public school system we are encouraging, in addition to the learning assessment programme, standard achievement testing on a voluntary basis, but with strong encouragement from the ministry. A number of school districts, I'm extremely pleased to say, are embarking upon programmes of standard achievement testing.

In addition to that, in the public school system we have evaluation teams appointed by the minister comprised of professional people who are continually evaluating schools, and departments within schools. The process of evaluation is therefore well established in the public school system and it would be the policy of the government to see those same methods applied to the independent school system. The independent schools that are doing a satisfactory job of teaching - as with the public school system, it can be anticipated the overwhelming majority of them would do so - of course would have little difficulty at all with Group 2 classification because their students will easily manage the core curriculum and display their abilities through any other achievement tests that are developed of a standard nature which measure progress, whether it be in the local school district in British Columbia, or whether it be general knowledge that would apply equally on a North American level.

I think the standards and the methods are already well laid out for the public schools system. The independent school system does an equivalent job and, therefore, they will have no difficulty at all meeting Group 2 classification.

MR. COCKE: What the minister has indicated then, I think rather clearly, and I just want to make sure of this, is that the independent schools under this section must meet the same standards as the public schools with respect to core, learning assessment programmes, and basically any other aspects.

Mr. Chairman, what has the minister to say about any learning assessment programme that has been heretofore a matter of co-operation between school boards and the independent schools? Has that occurred, or why is it suggested in section (d) ?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there is often an exchange of testing materials between the independent and the public school system. It is another manifestation of the relationships that exist all around British Columbia, despite the tenor of debate in the House. I'm sure it will continue to exist and will work very well.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm glad, Mr. Chairman, that the minister corrected himself a couple of times on the matter. When he started to answer the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , he said that the independent schools must follow the core curriculum. I'm always concerned about that statement because I notice that as soon as he says that, someone in the press sometimes writes it down, and it comes out in the public's mind that all the independent schools that receive grants have to follow the core curriculum, Later on, to give the minister credit, he did correct himself and point out only those who come under the group which we are discussing now.

I think there has been a misconception in the public's mind. The minister is inclined to mumble over some of these things and I know it makes it difficult for the press to pick up these statements. I think the public should know very clearly that schools in British Columbia can receive this without the core curriculum. They can receive some of the money, but not the equal amounts.

On this section again, Mr. Chairman, there is, of course, a major difference here with the public schools. Although the minister seems to suggest that they are going to be absolutely equal here, they are going to follow the core curriculum - he stated that and it's here in the Act - he says that if a school district is having a learning assessment programme or some form of testing, they are to agree to participate in that. Of course that's very vague. I would like to ask the minister one specific question right now: how many boards, to his knowledge, actually do have their own learning assessment programme at this time?

Also, I think a major difference here is, again, the matter that the inspector has to submit a list of certified teachers. We've gone through all that debate and I don't intend to go into it again on certification. I simply would like to ask the minister under this section, where it says under subsection (e) (i) the school must submit to the inspector a list of certified teachers, a list of teachers who are not certified, a description of their qualifications and a description of the teaching and other responsibilities those teachers hold.... The word "certified" here.... I think we must get this clear, because there was so much confusion on it before.

In subsection (ii) it goes on to say: ensure that all teachers employed at the school are certified within five years. . . ." What certification are you talking about here, Mr. Minister? Are you talking about the certification that every public school teacher goes through, or are you referring to the

[ Page 4557 ]

certification granted by the certification committee set up?

HON. MR. McGEER: What would be certified is as under section 1, Mr. Chairman. I would have to take as notice the exact number of school districts that are doing their own assessment programme. I can say that we are encouraging every single school district in the province to do so. Quite a number are responding. I had the pleasure of talking with the superintendent and many of the teachers in the Comox area not too long ago. There had been quite a bit of teacher resistance in the area to exposing the youngsters to standard achievement testing, but they did it anyway. We are delighted that the students were doing as well as they were. Now it's going to be part of their regular programme. So it shows that if one can overcome one's fears of testing, one is frequently pleased with the results. In any event, I can give details to the member but not from knowledge at the present time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wish I shared the minister's confidence with respect to testing. I think I've made it very clear on a number of occasions that often when we emphasize testing to the extent that the minister seems to it becomes a matter of teaching to test in the school system. Whether it be the independent, private or public school system, often that reduces the quality of education that is provided because there isn't the scope. In other words, the teachers tend to teach exactly what they know the children are going to be tested on. Under those circumstances it does reduce the quality and the scope of the education. Be that as it may, he is the Minister of Education and he can do things in his short tenure as he likes. I'm sure that that is not going to last forever.

Mr. Chairman, I want to also amplify this aspect that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was talking about on the last two subsections of this section. That is the question of establishing a five-year period in order to qualify. In other words, a teacher can teach on a five-year moratorium. After all the discussion we had over certification of teachers before and the ease of certification under this new Act, it strikes me that five years is an awfully long time. I'm asking the minister now why it is five years. Why so long? Public school teachers couldn't even get into a classroom under these circumstances or under any circumstances.

I'm bewildered about this. We have a very easy access to certification earlier on in this Act. Then to make it even simpler - and here we're concerned about the quality of education - they're being provided five years in order to have all their teachers brought up to "par" or to become fully certified under this particular Act. That's still not certified to the extent that they would have to be certified under the Public Schools Act.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's deemed that this is a reasonable period of time for appropriate regulations to be agreed to with regard to precisely the qualifications that will be expected of teachers who are certified under the Independent Schools Act. Again, if the teaching in a school is unsatisfactory, then of course Group 2 classification can't be achieved. If the programme and performance of the students is up to scratch in a given school, then of course that testifies to the adequacy of the teaching. There are perhaps few lines of endeavour where the proof of the pudding can so easily be found as in the matter of teaching and learning.

MR. COCKE: The minister must think we're either profoundly gullible or something, but he keeps contending that the way to judge the school is on the overall product of the school. He knows perfectly well that you can have an overall good result but not necessarily have that quality for everyone within the institution. I could understand this possibility if it were, say, five years from the outset of funding under this Act, and then it would fall off. What this Act does is that 20 years from now a new school sets up, qualifies for funding, and then they can go through this same ritual.

I just don't understand the sense of it. I really don't. I feel that to enshrine this in legislation is to enshrine a shortcoming in legislation. I don't really think that's what legislation is all about. Legislation should be seeking protection, as opposed to providing ways out. I'm just disappointed in the minister's attitude toward it.

MRS. DAILLY: I think we've reached the point again, Mr. Chairman, where we should specifically ask the minister: is he announcing a new policy for all teacher education in this province? If it's going to apply to the independent schools, why shouldn't it apply to the public schools?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be out of order. It must apply to this section.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, he's talking about how they're going to be certifying teachers for independent schools. If you're going to discuss that, you have to relate it to public schools.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this was very well canvassed under section 1. We had an exhaustive debate about certification at that time. I can distinctly recall the Chairman at that time pointing out to the members that this was encroaching upon further sections, but that he would

[ Page 4558 ]

permit the debate on the condition that we didn't cover the same material again in subsequent sections. This is what the member for Burnaby North is doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken.

MR. COCKE: I can't imagine why we wouldn't apply it in this section.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee, divisions took place. I ask leave to have them recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

Mr. Mussallem presented the Seventh Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, as follows:

REPORT No. 7
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Room,
August 12,1977

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Standing.Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the preamble to Bill (No. Pr 404) intituled An Act to Incorporate The Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

G. MUSSALLEM, Chairman