[ Page 5267 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Pharmacare coverage for mastectomy prostheses. Ms. Brown –– 5267

Appeal against Revelstoke Dam. Mr. King –– 5267

Forecasts of coal sales. Mr. Gibson –– 5268

Possible strike by liquor store employees. Mr. Wallace –– 5268

Limited-entry hunting. Mr. Nicolson –– 5268

Rent supplements to handicapped. Ms. Brown –– 5269

GERB facilities. Mr. Barnes –– 5270

Reading and receiving petitions.

Future of Vancouver Resources Board. Ms. Brown –– 5270

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Committee stage,

On section 8. On section 12.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5271 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5280

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5272 On section 12 as amended.

Mr. Cocke –– 5272 Mrs. Dailly –– 5281

Ms. Sanford –– 5274 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5281

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5275 Mr. Cocke –– 5281

Mrs, Dailly –– 5276 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5282

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5277 Mr. Gibson –– 5282

Mr. Cocke –– 5277 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5282

Division on section 8 –– 5277 Mrs. Dailly –– 5284

On section 9 as amended Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5284

Mr. Cocke –– 5277 Division on section 12 –– 5284

On section 10. On section 13.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5277 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5285

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5278 On section 13 as amended.

Mr. Cocke –– 5278 Mr. Cocke –– 5285

Mr. Lloyd –– 5279 On section 14.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5279 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5285

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5280 On section 14 as amended.

On section 11. Mr. Cocke –– 5285

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5280 On section 15.

On the amendment to section 11. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5285

Mr. Cocke –– 5280 On section 15 as amended.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5280 Mr. Cocke –– 5285

Division on third reading –– 5286

Apprenticeship and Training Development Act (Bill 76) . Committee stage.

On section 1. On section 6.

Ms. Sanford –– 5286 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5290

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5286 On section 7.

On section 2. Mr. Gibson –– 5290

Mr. Gibson –– 5286 Mr. King –– 5290

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5287 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5291

Mr. King –– 5288 Mr. Gibson –– 5291

Mr. Wallace –– 5288 Ms. Sanford –– 5291

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5288 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5291

Mr. Gibson –– 5289 On section 10.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5289 Mr. Wallace –– 5292

Ms. Sanford –– 5289 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5292

Hon. MR. Williams –– 5290 On section 11.

Mr. Gibson –– 5292 Mr. King –– 5295

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5292 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5295

Mr. Wallace –– 5293 On section 23.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5293 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5295

On section 12. On section 23 as amended.

Ms, Sanford –– 5294 Mr. Levi –– 5296

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5294 Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5296

Mr. Wallace –– 5294 On section 24.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5295 Mr. Wallace –– 5296

On section 20. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5296

Report and third reading –– 5297

Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 88) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5297 Mr. Skelly –– 5298

Appendix –– 5298

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a gentleman who will be addressing IPAC in Victoria at their conference in the Empress. I'm sure that he will be paying them much tribute and praise. He's certainly from time to time had lots to say about all of us and each of us individually. I would ask the House to welcome a very controversial fellow, the mayor of Surrey, Mayor McKitka.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have with us this afternoon two friends from Los Angeles, Ms. Ethel Wellington and her brother, Michael. Ethel is a neophyte airline stewardess with Continental Airlines and her brother attends Dorsey High School. I would like to have the House welcome them on their first visit to Victoria.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today from that great constituency of Columbia River Father Paul from Invermere, Henry De Lesalle, the mayor of the village of Invermere and Alan Miller, the municipal clerk of Invermere. I would like a special welcome to these constituents of mine.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are Mr. Nelson Knight and Mrs. Mary Knight of the great municipality of Burnaby, I would like the House to bid them a warm welcome.

Oral questions.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE

FOR MASTECTOMY PROSTHESES

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is to the Minister of Human Resources and it has to do with breast cancer. As the minister knows, Mr. Speaker, the breast is the site of most cancer in women and the Cancer Society of Vancouver tells us that they are anticipating approximately 1,000 cases this year. They also tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the weighted prosthesis, which women need after a mastectomy, is not a cosmetic device, but in fact is essential in terms of maintaining balance and muscular tone in women. My question to the minister is: why is this device not being covered by Pharmacare, despite the fact that this recommendation has been made to the ministry from the Cancer Society, from SPARC and from a number of women who need this device?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure all of the hon. members know, universal Pharmacare includes far more than what Pharmacare used to. It's an expanded programme and it will be viewed from time to time to enlarge the benefits available through the programme. We do get requests from a number of individuals and organizations and I'm very pleased to assure the member that this request has already received top consideration. I would expect it will soon become a benefit of the plan.

APPEAL AGAINST REVELSTOKE DAM

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister now advise the House when the decision of the cabinet appeal committee will be coming down with respect to the Revelstoke dam construction project?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I expect that the committee will present its final report to the cabinet on Thursday and we anticipate announcement on Monday next.

MR. KING: I wonder why the delay, Mr. Speaker, if a decision has already been made with respect to that project, because as I've indicated to the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your supplementary question?

MR. KING: Has a decision already been made?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Supplementary, I find it difficult to understand the process that is being gone through by the appeal committee. If a decision has not already been made, why did the minister write me a letter dated September 6, reading as follows, "I acknowledge with thanks your letter dated August 26,1977, regarding the Revelstoke Dam project, I will be pleased to discuss the matter further, once a decision to proceed is made." Now apparently the cabinet appeal committee and the minister are convinced that it is a formality to announce the decision to proceed. Why then the delay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I say again to the minister that a decision has not been made. I said the report would be going to cabinet on Thursday, and the announcement was effectively made on

[ Page 5268 ]

Monday.

MR. KING: You've already made your decision to proceed, but you won't announce it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would read his mail. It says: once a decision to proceed is made. "Once." That means "if, " "when, " "in the future."

MR. KING: That minister calls for an impartial appraisal of the facts. There can only be one answer: the decision will be to proceed. That's some independent appraisal.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is presenting his point of view.

FORECASTS OF COAL SALES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Mines. In view of the minister's statement yesterday concerning the weakness of coal markets, nevertheless what he said was that he is "optimistic for the long range prospects for coal coming from British Columbia." I would like to ask him: does the department have forecasts of British Columbia coal sales for the next few years?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean he doesn't know if they have forecasts and he says they're optimistic?

POSSIBLE STRIKE BY

LIQUOR STORE EMPLOYEES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to his statement yesterday that the jobs of 16,000 waiters, waitresses, bartenders and others are endangered by a possible strike of liquor store employees and that this could only be prevented by co-operation with the B.C. Government Employees Union. When the minister made that statement yesterday it was said that he had been unable to reach Mr. Fryer to discuss the matter with him and make him aware of the government's concern. Can he tell the House if he has since communicated with Mr. Fryer and what progress is being made?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): My ministry has been in touch with Mr. Fryer directly, and further contact is anticipated and is in fact arranged.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the public concern on this issue, if the B.C. Government Employees Union pushes for a complete boycott on the movement of liquor within the province, can the minister confirm his earlier statement that the government has abandoned an earlier suggestion that liquor could be imported from either Alberta or Washington state?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, most of the question calls for speculation on my part. That which doesn't call for speculation calls for government policy, and I think I have to leave the answer at that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister responsible for the negotiations is about to leave for three weeks of absence in Europe, and since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs yesterday was stated as saying that he didn't plan to second guess the minister and that the Minister of Finance was responsible for negotiations, can I ask the minister if any consideration has been given to him taking the place of the Minister of Finance in regard to the negotiations, since the responsible minister is to be absent for three weeks and the strike is likely as early as September 17?

HON. MR. MAIR: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and the negotiations are handled by GERB, as far as I'm aware. My responsibility as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is with respect to any strike that might occur in the liquor distribution branch.

LIMITED-ENTRY HUNTING

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): A question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Did the minister meet with Mr. Red Sorensen, president of the northern B.C. guides and outfitters, last July in order to discuss the limited-entry hunting in the Muncho Lake area?

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I did meet with representatives of the hunting and guiding association, but whether Mr. Sorensen was one of those present escapes my recollection.

MR. NICOLSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had requests for a meeting from a group known as the Resident Action for Mountain Sheep, acronym RAMS?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I've had correspondence with members of that organization. I don't recall a request to meet.

[ Page 5269 ]

MR. NICOLSON: On another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I have a letter before me that indicates that this group has vainly attempted to have a meeting with the minister. I would like to ask the minister if, in this case and as a result of this meeting with Mr. Sorensen, 50 per cent of the available rams were assigned for non-resident hunting in this limited-entry access area. Is this going to be the policy of his ministry where there is limited-entry hunting, to have 50 per cent for foreigners and only 50 per cent for B.C. residents?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Limited-entry season was imposed in this area because of our concern for the depletion of the ram species population in the area. That was the overriding concern. In fact, the imposition of a limited entry was something that was done on an emergency basis in this particular instance, and it has not been discussed by me with the guide affected. I will say that it will be a matter for review before the forthcoming hunting season.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental. It has been expressed within the department that where limited-entry hunting – and this is a fairly recent and welcome innovation in terms of limited-entry hunting – it has been understood by people from the various interest groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation that where limited-entry hunting was to take place, it would be 100 per cent for resident hunters. What is the policy going to be, then? Is this the minister's policy, and is his policy not in keeping with that of his ministry and his officials?

MR. SPEAKER: Your supplementary question is out of order, inasmuch as it asks the minister to discuss in question period the matter of policy.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think I have the answer, Mr. Speaker.

RENT SUPPLEMENTS TO HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: To the Minister of Human Resources. In July, Mr. Speaker, the handicapped people of this province were promised a rent supplement. A number of these people did not receive their supplement in July, because in some instances, the forms did not arrive at their respective offices until about July 6. They were told that they would receive the supplement on their August cheques. Their August cheques arrived, Mr. Speaker, and the supplement was not on it. Will the minister answer two questions: one, will it be on their September cheque? Secondly, is there any truth to the statement that the cheque is not going to be retroactive and that they are not going to get the July and August amounts which did not show up on their cheques?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, this particular change has been well received and I understand it has certainly received a lot of acceptance in all parts of the province. I've had no complaints. I'm assuming that perhaps the hon. member is mentioning something peculiar to her particular constituency which is under the auspices of the Vancouver Resources Board. I will check with them on that matter.

MS. BROWN: On a supplementary, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I'm glad the minister compliments himself, because no one else ever does.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: So it's good that when he has something to say he says something good about himself.

In fact, the complaints I have received came from the Okanagan and that is not under the Vancouver Resources Board, I'll be very happy to let the Speaker have the mail. They did not receive their forms until July 6, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member state her supplementary question?

MS. BROWN: My supplementary question is: is the minister standing behind his decision not to make the September cheques retroactive to cover the July and August supplement? If so, is that the way in which he accumulates his underrun – by ripping off the handicapped people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Is that the way in which he accumulates his underrun?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Why don't you run in Surrey next time and find out how popular you are?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think our concern as members of the Legislature must always be to try and provide the services to those who bring matters to our attention which may be, in fact, an injustice, an oversight or a wrong. If the hon. member really has the concern of the individual at heart, I wish she would provide me with that particular correspondence and I can assure the hon. member I would look into it immediately.

[ Page 5270 ]

MS. BROWN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the minister standing behind his decision not to make those cheques retroactive? Are those people going to get the July and August supplement added to their September cheques? No speeches – yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: It would seem unfair that if the questioner wishes to make speeches the minister cannot.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I will accept a speech from the minister if it includes a yes or a no.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: It's your riding, Mr. Premier, that's in trouble.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there's no need to question the announced policy of this particular ministry. We will stand behind our announced policy.

MS. BROWN: What the hell does that mean?

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

RELATIONS BUREAU FACILITIES

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Highways and Public Works. About two or three weeks ago, the minister took as notice a question I asked respecting the facilities being used presently by the Government Employee Relations Bureau over on Government and Bay Streets. I asked him if he would indicate whether or not that was necessary in light of the fact that the government has facilities suitable for that purpose two blocks closer to the Legislature on Government Street.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, you will get the answer today or tomorrow.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Report from the office of the Clerk, September 7,1977.

"In the matter of the petition presented to the House on September 6,1977, by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard, the said petition is irregular in that it does not contain the original signature or marks of the petitioners. See Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 16th edition, page 838.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, "I.M, Horne, "Clerk of the House."

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short report to the House on the fire at Nanaimo.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a very major fire has taken place early this morning from an explosion of the Shell oil tank at Nanaimo, which spread to the Standard Oil facilities at approximately 4:15 a.m. Mr. Venables of the Ministry of the Environment dispatched people immediately to the scene of the conflagration. Since that time machinery and equipment were also ordered from the department to help contain the major blaze.

At the present time, two people have died as a result of the fire. One of those is a voluntary fireman who lost his life during the fight to contain the fire. There has been a tremendous team effort involving the Nanaimo fire department, the RCMP, our provincial emergency programme, the provincial pollution control branch, the oil company's contingency squad and, also, MacMillan Bloedel has supplied booms.

We have also dispatched the Provincial Secretary, and the Minister of the Environment, under whose jurisdiction the emergency programmes come to fight such a blaze, to make a first-hand report of the fire, This report is from a discussion with them. They say that at the present time the blaze is contained because there's a lack of wind, and because of the efforts of the groups I have mentioned. The emergency service has it contained and there would be no need at this time to bring about an order under the Emergency Powers Act. It is with the effort of the people involved that further tragedy is at present being prevented.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Premier for this up-to-moment statement on the fire. I appreciate the immediate efforts by the various departments on the scene. Since this is a unique experience, I am hopeful that thorough reporting will be done, so that in the future in dealing with such unfortunate incidents, any experience that can be gained out of this particular one will be available for other voluntary and full-time firefighting departments.

Orders of the day.

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

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

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

[ Page 5271 ]

On section 8.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, section 8, of course, is really the crux of this whole bill. It is the section which has raised the most concern across the whole province. Thousands of people are objecting to the basic principle of direct funding of independent schools. That's what's inherent in this clause. I hope the Premier and his minister are paying attention to the thousands of people who are protesting the principle of direct financing to independent schools.

I still have hopes that this government will take a second look and move to put a stay on this bill, in order to listen to the public of British Columbia. However, as we're in the committee stage, I don't intend to abridge the rules of the discussion here. I will get down specifically to the actual section.

There's an interesting point that is being made, Mr. Chairman, by the proponents of this bill. They're making statements around this province that it's about time British Columbia did this and brought in a section such as we have to debate here today, because it happens almost everywhere else in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, that is blatantly false. There is no similar section in any educational bill in Canada to what we are looking at here today, and which we are being asked to debate in this House today. Nowhere else in Canada, Mr. Chairman, is there a direct precedent for the Group 1 schools, as stated here in this particular section.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this is understood, obviously, by many of the Socred backbenchers, or else they've been told to simply keep quiet and support it, but the Group 1 schools can actually receive taxpayers' money for the most minimal qualifying conditions that exist anywhere in Canada. The taxpayers of British Columbia are being asked to give of their tax money to schools that can practically run on their own without any government supervision. The Group 1 schools, Mr. Chairman – I'm sure you are aware – don't even have to follow the core curriculum. They don't have to have certified teachers. They just have the most minimal qualifications found anywhere in Canada. To think that we actually have to stand up here today and debate a section like this, to use the taxpayers' money in this irresponsible way....

We're dealing again, Mr. Chairman, with an arrogant Minister of Education who has been determined from the time he walked into this Legislature to force this kind of bill down the throats of the people of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister has actually thought through this. I notice that sitting beside him is his assistant in this bill, who I know was responsible for drafting it. That is why he is there to assist the minister.

But I do want to make a point here that comments have been made relative to this bill and this section on the possible percentage that can be granted to these independent schools in Group 1 and Group 2. Mr. Chairman, this is the big question mark in everyone's mind, irrespective of whether they support this bill or not. How much money is going to be given to the independent schools of this province? I think it's about time that this minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I may, there was a previous ruling by a previous chairman that general funding could not be discussed, only specific funding as it relates to this section.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. But the fact is, under this section we are discussing the percentage that is going to be granted by the cabinet of this province. I'm trying to discuss that percentage. I'm trying to find out from the Minister of Education, who's determined to ram this through.... I'm trying to find out from him because, after all, this money belongs to all the people of the province. I'm doing my job as a member of the opposition. What percentage does he have in mind? What percentage is he going to march into cabinet with and recommend? I think that is the very first question that I want to ask the minister. What percentage do you have in mind in granting to Group 1 and Group 2 in the first year of operation? Remember, Mr. Chairman, it's not your money, Mr. Minister of Education. It's the people's money.

You may get away with this bill, because you have the numbers and somehow or other you've pulled the backbenchers into line on this. I don't know how, because I'm sure many of them do not agree with this bill. It's interesting to note there's no debate from them on it, no support vocally. But I think you owe it to everyone in this province to give us an idea of what percentages we are talking about here. That's my first question on this particular clause.

You say the percentages are to be based on the average operating cost per district. We find that advocates of this bill are pointing out that the average operating cost in B.C. is $1,720, I'd like the minister to perhaps bring us up to date, but the figure I have is closer to $1,654. 1 think that would be of interest to all of us if he could bring us up to date. Which of the two figures is correct? So there are two questions.

Now the third question on this particular clause, Mr. Chairman. The minister, having been in the post a couple of years now and having been an education critic himself, is well aware how the average operating costs vary from district to district in this province. Let us take the district of Armstrong. Average operating cost is $1,633 per student, Then you move to the district of Delta, and the average operating cost is $1,438. Yet this bill is based on this percentage of the average operating cost from district to district.

[ Page 5272 ]

What rationale is there for that?

The other concern goes back to the amount of the percentage which we're hopeful we will get an answer on from the minister. It was suggested by one of the minister's associates that it could possibly work out that Group 1 could receive 20 per cent of average operating costs and Group 2, 50 per cent. There's 70 per cent of the average operating cost right there. Well, let's take the average operating cost – 70 per cent of $1,654. Let's start thinking how much money the independent schools of this province are going to get in relation to the actual budget that is given to the public schools of this province.

We're quite aware that teachers' salaries are much lower in the independent schools. I think they now average between $7,000 and $9,000. With the AIB in effect and salaries not being able to be raised, when you start working that out, if they're going to be able to get up to almost 60 per cent in total, if you take Group 1 and Group 2, they're going to do very, very well in relationship to what's given to the public schools.

I want the minister to be able to rationalize that. Does he think that's fair? Actually, we're being asked to pass a clause, Mr. Chairman, where they can get 100 per cent of the costs, or 110 per cent or 120 per cent. We don't even know what we're voting for. The taxpayers of this province are being taken right down the road by this minister on a bill that we're being asked to support, and we can't even go out and tell the taxpayers what it's going to cost.

Mr. Chairman, I will have further questions but I hope we can have some answers from the minister.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, it's not the intent of this section to predict next year's budget. The amounts to be awarded will be determined, as the section states, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. As I previously explained, the details of the funds that will actually be paid out to independent schools will be predicted in a budget before the House, and the member opposite will have adequate opportunity to debate next year's budget when next year's budget is presented.

We could spend the rest of this year speculating about next year's budget. We could all enjoy many, many hours on every minister's estimates speculating on what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council might give for highways or for the Law Reform Commission or for reforestation or for summer student assistance in Labour or what-have-you. It would be an interesting debate and could occupy the members' time, but it would cast no light at all, Mr. Chairman, on what the actual budget for any of the ministries would be. It would be totally irresponsible of me to attempt to predict for you or for the member opposite what the budget next year would be, what the Minister of Finance may be able to collect in the way of taxes from the people of British Columbia, what the individual estimates for any department might be, let alone one part of the Ministry of Education. I wish to reiterate that the discussion would be completely reckless, and moreover would be out of order.

The member did raise one question with respect to this section that I thought was legitimate: namely, why is it that the percentages to be given to any school are related to the cost of that school district rather than the provincial average? That, Mr. Chairman, is because there is a variation in the cost of educating students in British Columbia according to the geographical region in which the school is located. That's why the school district budgets in British Columbia are not identical one with the other, why it isn't just so much per pupil, so many pupils, and that's what each school district gets.

Historically, the Ministry of Education, as the member should know, has taken into account variations in the cost of providing educational services according to the geographical area of British Columbia. That's what this particular section reflects. If an independent school is in a district where it costs more than some northern communities in British Columbia, then it's proper that the grant to a particular independent school should be in line with what the public schools are receiving in that area rather than some provincial average which is unrelated to the true costs of that particular area.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the minister started out rather well yesterday. He answered a couple of questions and surprised the blazes out of everybody. But today he starts out as his arrogant self. I guess he needed the night to sleep it off. No answers at all. He gets up and he says: "How can we predict?" He's given us a bill that we know nothing about. We have no idea what it's going to cost, and he says it would be feckless to discuss that kind of situation.

The fact is that this is a brand new programme in this province. Is it too much to ask how much it's going to cost? Even an estimate. But no, the minister has to get up and make some snide remarks in answer to the member for Burnaby's (Mrs. Dailly's) proper question. A proper question. She would be less of a member if she didn't ask those kinds of questions of the minister. And the minister would be more of a minister if he weren't so arrogant in his answers.

Mr. Chairman, we have many criticisms of this section. I don't know if it was written before or after midnight, but I will suggest this to the minister: this section provides the minister and his inspector the opportunity to treat every school in a different way.

Favourite schools can get favoured treatment; other schools do not get favoured treatment. Other

[ Page 5273 ]

schools could be completely left out in the cold. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that any ministry wants to have so-called enabling legislation so that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can do whatever happens to suit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But, Mr. Chairman, we've got too much of that around here, particularly in that minister's bills.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that you can recall another bill that you've seen under different circumstances in this House, a bill that will be discussed more fully, I note on our order paper, some time later on. Order-in-council enabling legislation – and here we have the same situation permitting the cabinet, permitting the inspector, permitting the minister to treat different schools in different ways. Mr. Chairman, that can become a method of blackmailing.

There is no formula here. There is a basis for setting up a formula but there is absolutely no restriction on the minister. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said that one school could be treated to 100 per cent, another school could be treated to 50 per cent, and yet another school could be theoretically treated to 1,000 per cent of the operating costs of a public school within that area. I hope the minister can suggest to me that there is some way that there is some restriction on the minister, the inspector and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the way they handle the different schools.

If favouritism is allowed to prevail, if special schools are handled in a special way, well, then, Mr. Chairman, once again it's a very good reason why even those people who are supporters of the concept must find it very difficult to support this particular concept.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing that I want to bring up and that's the fact that, actually, when you get right down to figuring out how long it takes the net amount to get to the recipient and the formula and so on, it's going to be about two and a half years late. The formula is worked out on a backward report and that's a year and a half behind, using the last part of this section. I could suggest to the minister that the B.C. School Trustees Association have just made available their budgets a day or two ago. If the minister hasn't the capacity within his ministry to have figures made available to him quicker than this, well, then, I would suggest that he should smarten up the ministry.

This, Mr. Chairman, is another criticism from the other end of the ledger. This section is really the heart of the bill; this is the granting section. This is the section that provides for the opportunity to provide the money for support of the private schools. It's a bad section; it's a bad concept. But what about the minister explaining the kind of latitude that he's provided himself, just for starters?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm doing my very best here to answer specific questions reasonably on this bill as best as any reasonable person could answer them. But I can't, Mr. Chairman, go beyond my authority as a minister and speak for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I'm not the Minister of Finance; I'm not establishing next year's budget. I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that people who had themselves participated in this process and therefore couldn't plead inexperience as the reason for raising questions of this kind would recognize what the circumstances are. Now I know there are people who might feel that they had this term of office without ever becoming aware of what was going on, but, Mr. Chairman, certainly I can't talk about next year's budget. How can I possibly do that?

And I must confess, Mr. Chairman, to being more than a little exasperated at several times explaining what is in plain language in the bill. The member implied – at least I got that impression – that we could have a percentage for school A which we liked and a different one for school B which we didn't like and a third one for school D, and so on and so on and so on. He said it. Well, you see, this is the problem: we've got responsible members of the press taking down what the member says, perhaps reporting it to the public, and the public might get the impression that there was some basis in fact for that suggestion. This is what's so difficult about it all, Mr. Chairman, because it's important that the public understand what the bill says.

Section 2 (a) and (b) referred to percentages for Group 1 classification and Group 2 classification. Then it says, in subsection (3): "The two percentages referred to in subsection (2) " – that is, the one percentage for Group 1 classification and the other percentage for Group 2 classification – "shall be used to calculate the grants to individual schools." They're not to be percentages of the provincial average, but percentages of the costs in that school district. So if the school resides in Smithers, it will be a percentage of that school district, which may be different than the costs of a school in Cranbrook. But that's got nothing to do with whether the member, for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) or myself like or dislike a school; it's a mathematical calculation. It's fixed by the statute that we are debating now.

Now I can only plead with the member, Mr. Chairman, to read the bill. Save us the time of explanation on the floor', save the public the embarrassment of reading one thing in the paper. This is what always happens with the NDP: you get one thing in the paper being reported as to what they say; then it all has to be retracted when the facts come out. We're going through this exercise again today.

A suggestion has been made that we could set the percentages any way we like by whim, whereas the

[ Page 5274 ]

legislation clearly points out that it's a rigid formula. It's not established by the inspector of schools – that is, the two percentages. That's the only part that is variable here. The percentages aren't set by statute. They're to be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the advice of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , who says how much money is available for all of the programmes. That's something which the Legislature will have an opportunity to debate, because the budget next year will be before this Legislature as surely as the world turns. Those numbers can be precisely debated and the member can say whether she believes they're satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

I would predict, Mr. Chairman, the member would find them unsatisfactory since she's unalterably opposed to the bill, and did everything but vote against it in principle. But she will have an opportunity to express her opposition to all of the details when they come before the House, and there's nothing that I will ever be able to do to persuade her that it's a good piece of legislation.

Madam Member, you'll have lots of opportunity to say that the amounts that are being given to independent schools are far too much, but that time will come next spring, If I were to say to you now it was $1, it would be too much; if it were $1 million, it would be too much; and if it were $10 million, it would be too much. But they would all be speculative figures, and you'll have an opportunity to say it's too much when the actual figures show in the budget next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything is too much.

HON. MR. McGEER: Anything is too much? Well, you see, I respect your point of view. You have one position on this and the government and I have another position on it. That's what debate of second reading is all about. This is when it would have been appropriate for you to lodge your complaint against the principle of the bill.

But I don't think we should be debating the principle of the bill under this section, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we should be debating next year's budget under this section. I don't think we should be debating things that don't exist under the section. Therefore we've spent a good deal of time fanning the air.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not read his own bill. Each school is handled separately in this section. Don't tell me to reread the section; I've reread it so many times my eyes are blurred and I can't believe that any minister would introduce this kind of financing formula. The fact is, it's here. Look. Listen to it; since you haven't read it, I'll read it to you. The Attorney-General could use a little bit of wisdom as well. But, Mr. Chairman, this is what the section says. Let's get down to the beginning of it.

"8 (l) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations.

" (2) Without limiting subsection (1) , the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe

" (a) the percentage to be used to calculate the grant under section 9 to an authority for an independent school. . . ."

That's an independent school – one specific school. You're handling each one of them separately. That's what I charged in the first place and I don't withdraw that charge.

What does the second part, (b) say? "The percentage to be used to calculate the grant under section 9 to an authority school for which it has Group 9 classification." '

"An authority" – so once again, you're dealing with a specific. Don't forget – if you read the definition section, the authority is the representation from each private school. Then he goes into the third part of that whole thing suggesting: "the two percentages referred to in subsection (2) are percentages of the average operating cost...." So what? One percentage may be 100 per cent; another percentage may be 1,000 per cent. One percentage could be 50 per cent and another percentage could be different.

So, Mr. Chairman, I really think that what the minister is doing is trying to fan the air, as he charged the opposition with doing. He always has to throw in a couple of nice witticisms about the NDP. At least most of us in the NDP have stuck with one party, not jumping all over the place for political opportunism.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): But not one policy.

MR. COCKE: One policy, ma'am. You know better than anyone. You are so uncomfortable with that bunch of Liberals over there that you don't know really quite what to say, do you? Anyway, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It's interesting that the minister made those kinds of suggestions when the two people who are in here debating this situation right now are two people who did speak in second reading on this bill and placed very carefully our position before the public of British Columbia, and we are not particularly being absent from our seats right now under the same circumstances. Mr. Chairman, this situation is a bad situation.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister this afternoon is toying with the

[ Page 5275 ]

members in opposition by refusing to give as any information at all with respect to the kind of funding that we might anticipate next year.

Now look, Mr. Chairman, I want to review what the minister has said. He has said that we are not discussing next year's budget and he brings in a facetious argument about comparing the amount of money that might be contained in the Highways budget next year as opposed to the amount of money that we might find contained in this bill. I would like to ask specifically of the minister what sort of research has been done. In other words, is the minister proceeding full tilt on this without having any idea, any knowledge, any information, any research on which to base this bill which he is asking us to support?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're not discussing the principle of the bill. We're discussing section 8.

MS. SANFORD: All right. This section refers to the percentages that are going to be set. Now when the minister drew up this section, which allows the cabinet to set the percentages which will be used for funding for the two classes of schools, I want to know what kind of background research was done. Way back in July, there was an article in one of the papers, Mr. Chairman, which quotes the Education ministry consultant, Jim Carter, as saying: "Operating costs up to 80 per cent could be subsidized under this bill."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. There was a ruling made by another Chairman, because of the time spent on the definition section of this bill, that general funding would not be applicable in further discussions. I stand by the ruling of the other Chairman, which was challenged and sustained. All I'm asking you to do is stick to the specifics of this particular section – specific funding as it relates to this section.

MS. SANFORD: Based on the research that the minister must have done – at least I would hope that he has done – applying it to this section and his knowledge of the kinds of independent schools and private schools that there are in this province, based on the current enrolment in those schools, based on the figure of 80 per cent – we will assume that the percentage to be used in section 8 is 80 per cent – how much money would that be? I wonder if the minister could answer that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before the minister proceeds, again I know of no rule that prescribes an answer, only a question.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there are somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 youngsters in independent schools in British Columbia. There may be any number of these apply to the ministry. That process of receiving applications will commence when the bill passes the Legislature. We make no assumptions on what level of funding may go to independent schools.

Now I'll answer this for the final time, Mr. Chairman. The amount of money paid out to independent schools will depend on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as section 8 specifies. The provision in the budget will be brought down next spring. I'm not in a position to speak for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , to make predictions about next year's budget, either for the independent schools or the public schools. Therefore the discussion, as I've stated before, is feckless.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 8 and the percentages, the opposition is elected to the House and they could stand up and say two and two is five. It's their perfect right to do so. They could stand up and say the world would spin from left to right or right to left. That wouldn't alter the facts of the matter.

While we may encourage full and free debate, there's no way that I can explain to some of the members opposite the plain language of this bill and what it means. Again, it would be a waste of time for me to go over and over and over this again, and I would only commend to our patient friends of the Fourth Estate that they merely publish the section. It's self evident, and any reasonable person would be able to understand it. But we have the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) who keeps standing up in the House and saying the equivalent of "two and two is five."

I'm exasperated, Mr. Chairman. I'd like your advice on what one does in circumstances like this.

MR. GIBSON: Keep calm.

MR. WALLACE: Don't you sometimes take advice?

HON. MR. McGEER: That two and two is five? Well, how can I? We've already brought some amendments to the bill, as you can see on the order paper, as some of the people here have suggested. I can only say that the evidence is there. I realize the member made a speech last night insisting that we never made changes and we never listened despite the evidence in the particular bill that was before him. Naturally, we're anxious to have....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I'd be happy to have it

[ Page 5276 ]

that way with the member, but I want to assure him and the other members of the House that we're delighted to find improvements to the bill. Obviously, any member of the government would be. But really, Mr. Chairman, in this particular circumstance that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) raises, there really isn't anything that one can do about that.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really find it incredible that the minister is asking us to pass this section 8 without giving us any inkling at all as to the figure he may have in mind. Let's assume, Mr. Chairman, that there is no continued downward slump in the economy of this province. Let's assume that the moneys that will be coming into the treasury next year approximate those of this year. Now based on that, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. I'm sorry, hon. member, you're discussing general funding, and .that has been ruled against. It's not my ruling; it is a ruling that was sustained. It's a ruling of the Chair, challenged and sustained, and I must tell you that you are out of order in that area. I'm sorry, but you're out of order.

MS. SANFORD: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister might then be able to give us some indication, based on the research that he has done, of what sort of thing we can anticipate here. I know, Mr. Chairman, you're getting very impatient with me, but I find it most difficult to go back to my constituency and say: "Yes, in the, Legislature a whole new statute was passed, which means a whole change in the direction of educational funding in this province, " without giving them one inkling as to what the minister is looking at.

Perhaps I could ask him one final question, Mr. Chairman. Could he tell me what figure he might be asking for next year when he goes to treasury for funding for this section?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we're having a little cross joke here – nothing to do with the bill. I wish to make the point that I consider this a most serious bill, one of the most serious to come before the House. I'm somewhat taken aback, frankly, at the light, feckless manner in which the Minister of Education apparently deals with this bill, and I'm quite serious about that.

We're talking about exasperation over the percentages in this, and the minister is expressing his exasperation. But we most certainly are exasperated too. We know that the minister cannot tell us what the Treasury Board is going to approve for the estimates next year. That is not what we're asking.

The point we're trying to get at, Mr. Chairman, is when this minister went to the cabinet and pushed through this bill because of his own philosophical commitment to it, surely.... I want to ask the minister this specifically: when he went before cabinet to ram through this bill and somehow convince them, is he trying to tell us that he did not present figures to the cabinet? Are you telling us that the Social Credit cabinet accepted this bill from the minister to fund independent schools of the province without any discussion on money whatsoever?

Now talk about exasperation. I think we all know that there is no minister, surely, who can go before the cabinet with a bill that's going to require money, considerable sums of money, Mr. Chairman, and not discuss it. Or is he telling us that this great business-like government is so non-business-like that they let the Minister of Education walk in and push through a bill for funding for independent schools in this province, and he doesn't even have to discuss with them what the cost will be?

So back to the original question, Mr. Chairman. My question to the minister is: when you took this for passage to cabinet, I know you can't discuss with us what goes on in cabinet, but I do think that the public and the opposition should know the figures you had in mind. What would be the ultimate cost of 100 per cent operating grants to the independent schools of this province based on the number who are now able to qualify? I know you will be able to stand up and say that we don't know how many, so let's take it for the number right now who can qualify. Let's say you gave them 100 per cent – what would be the figure? Let us say you gave them 50 per cent – would you tell us the figure?

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that this minister could not walk into the Social Credit cabinet and get away with a bill involving public money and not present figures. If he had to present these figures to the cabinet, now that he has produced a bill, I think the opposition has a right to know. Give us an idea of what the figures are, because the public of B.C. each day is beginning to become aware of the fact that they are being asked to subsidize schools in this province and they don't know how much it is going to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are out of order, hon. member. The Chair has no wish to restrict debate; however there has been a ruling on general funding and I cannot permit debate on that specific area. You can discuss percentages as they relate to this section.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that. So I'm asking the minister to give us some idea of this taken at 100 per cent, and the schools that can qualify. I know that Mr. Carter, your assistant would never have presented this bill to you without also having background statistics on the cost. The minister

[ Page 5277 ]

himself could not possibly go to cabinet without some figures. What we're asking you is: what figures, roughly, can you give us at this time? We want a rough analysis. If the minister doesn't answer, then we have to assume that the public of B.C. is being asked to blindly support financing of independent schools. The cabinet blindly supports it, the Socred caucus supports it, and the Minister of Education has a free-wheeling hand over all expenditures for education in this province. Mr. Minister, can you give us some rough idea of the cost for the coming year?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the minister answers, I must again revert to the ruling of the previous chairman that general funding is not admissible any further for debate in these sections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the only occasion that I'm aware of where the public gave blind support in British Columbia was in the general election in 1972.

MRS. DAILLY: Let's not go through that again.

HON. MR. McGEER: They've corrected that. The member has not only asked me to discuss next year's budget, she has asked me to discuss things that appear before cabinet, which she was prevented from discussing on oath when she was a member of the executive council. She's asking me as a responsible person to violate the same oath which she took when she was a member of the executive council. I can tell this, Mr. Chairman, to anybody in British Columbia: so long as I'm Minister of Education I'll get as much money for education as possible. That's why we went down to Ottawa and got an extra $100 million which the NDP had left lying on the table.

MR. COCKE: Mi. Chairman, it's very interesting the way the minister ducks this question. If the minister had brought in a proper bill at the very beginning he wouldn't have had a down-the-road situation where we're asked to vote on something that no one really knows what we're voting on. He would have had a money section in the bill. That's what he would have had. Then people would have known what they were looking forward to. Instead of that, Mr. Chairman, we have an enabling section in the bill that gives the cabinet the right to do anything they like. I contend that the minister, incidentally unable to answer my questions, makes his semi-rude remarks, his semi-witty remarks, but really ducks every specific question that's been asked. As far as I'm concerned the minister is handling this bill as he handles so many other things, in a high-handed arrogant way. I say, Mr. Chairman, that we have to vote against this section.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS – 24

NAYS – 11

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

On section 9.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the amendment to section 9 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved

On section 9 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment might help some. However, I....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: How would you know? How did you guess?

However, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to be a nightmare for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . The adjustments that are going to have to be made and the payment situation, I believe, is going to be a real nightmare. My contention is that there is going to be a disparity from school to school and from school district to school district and this is going to increase the nightmare aspect. I say, Mr. Chairman, that section 9 has been somewhat improved, but it's still going to be a nightmare for the Ministry of Finance.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

MRS. DAILLY: Under section 10, Mr. Chairman, with respect again to the handing out of grants to

[ Page 5278 ]

Group 1 and Group 2 classifications, with reference to Group 1 it says: "The authority may use the grant to pay any operating expenses of the school other than remuneration of the teachers."

Now I have a very specific question for the minister. How is that going to be controlled? Are you going to have an opportunity to assess all the budgets of independent schools? I know this is one thing the independent schools hold very closely and rightly so, as long as they're not receiving tax moneys. How are you going to check up on how that money is being used in the Group 1 classification as to whether it is being used for salaries of teachers or not?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, schools receiving a grant under section 10 will be submitting an audited statement to the ministry each year. It will be on the basis of that audited statement that the appropriate expenditure of the grant will be determined. Of course, if they violate the terms as indicated by their statement, then they'll lose the grant.

MRS. DAILLY: So, what you're telling us is, if I'm correct, Mr. Chairman, independent schools in this province are going to be able to receive tax money with no accountability except to present an audit sheet.

If that's what the minister is telling us, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask him, does he really think – I hope the Premier is listening – that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to sit back and accept that non-accountability of their money?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you there will be no $103 million clerical errors in the Ministry of Education. There won't be lavish grants of taxpayers money being paid out to organizations where there was no statement of any kind received by the ministry. This was characterized by a period from 1972 through 1975.

An audited statement is a very good way of accounting for expenditure because there are penalties that go with falsified financial statements. The people who put their signature on those financial statements put their reputation with their signature. I would think it's a very excellent way of accounting for public funds; a very excellent way. So the answer to the question is yes.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, the minister stands on it; he doesn't see anything wrong with this. He thinks that's satisfactory for them just to show an audited statement and then they get taxpayers' money. But what about the taxpayers who are paying the money? Does the minister not feel that they should have a right to sit in and have an input and an opportunity to look at that school's budget? What about the people who pay the money?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this bill is to be fair to those taxpayers who have been sharing the burden of the public schools while at the same time being denied tax relief for their own children who go to independent schools. So the whole purpose of the bill is fairness to taxpayers and removal of discrimination.

The answer to the question is, yes, Mr. Chairman. The protection that taxpayers have is through the people they elect, through the budget presented to this Legislative Assembly, through public accounts and all the many devices that are established whereby public accountability can be brought to bear.

It becomes the responsibility of individual members to seek out any wrongdoing on the part of those who have trust of the public funds so there would be no secrets about any individual grants that are given to public schools. There will be no secrets about their individual budgets. Those figures will be available to the public, to the members of the Legislature and to the auditor-general who has recently been appointed by this government. All of these are devices and, I would say, very adequate devices.

The limits within which money may be spent are pretty specifically spelled out in section 10 and we're not going to send somebody in there to investigate how every dollar is spent in every independent school. That would clearly be wasteful of the taxpayers' money. But there is a system of accountability of every public dollar that is spent available to members and through them to the general public. In addition to that we've recently appointed an auditor-general to reinforce that function.

So I would think, Mr. Chairman, that the protections here axe not only adequate but they are more specific and more definite than you would find with much of the expenditure from the public purse.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, with the public schools in this province and the school districts, their accountability to the taxpayer is done by the election from the public at large to boards. On top of that, the budgets of the school boards are open to the public through public meetings. As a matter of fact, the minister has just brought in an amendment ensuring that the meetings be open to the public.

I simply want to ask the minister once more: why do the public schools have to go through this procedure and not the private schools? What is the difference?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just want a word here and a very brief word. The minister says audited statements are the way to go and there's no question about it, audited statements are fine. But can the

[ Page 5279 ]

minister assure me that, with a school, particularly in Group 1 with granting only through the non-teaching aspect of the school, by virtue of lack of good supervision or whatever on the operating costs from the non-teaching aspect, that couldn't balloon to some extent and still comply with all the audited statements in the world? I think the minister is talking absolute rubbish.

Certainly we know that there will be audited statements and certainly we know that they will be taken care of as audited statements always are. They will be proper and they will be right, according to whatever standard is set. But that doesn't say to me that a school couldn't get careless with that non-teaching aspect of their operating costs. It's just clear and simple. Actually what the independent schools were asking for in the first place was their own boards, major boards to supervise the situation. He would rather have the inspector do it, so let's see how he does.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I would just like to speak in favour of Bill 33 in general....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be out of order.

MR. LLOYD: ... and particularly the section we are going through at this time. I think that they have been set up very fairly, and certainly I haven't heard any adverse reaction from any of the private schools operating in my riding. I've had some comments, however, on certain other private schools, the ones that operate not only for academic purposes but also for private remuneration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not in order under this section.

MR. LLOYD: It's under this same particular aspect, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under the section, please.

MR. LLOYD: Yes. The concern that was raised had to do with the ones that do operate these schools for rates from private children. Is there any level of review that would be open where we would be sure that they wouldn't just be making that much higher profit? I know everything has to operate at a profit, but the concern was that some particular schools might try to pocket the extra allowance rather than pass it on to the students' parents. I wondered if the minister thought of that aspect, or if there was any particular review that would be available for it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but that would be out of order under this section.

That is general funding. Shall section 10 pass?

MRS. DAILLY: I think the member for Fort George actually brought up a very valid question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be out of order under this section. General funding or funding of independent schools; we're only dealing with these two aspects.

MRS. DAILLY: Under 10 we are dealing with the grant ...

MR. CHAIRMAN. With the grants.

MRS. DAILLY: ... which were paid for the operating expenses of the independent schools. If I recall, the member simply said, what accountability will there be when those grants referred to specifically in this section are paid, that some schools will not just use the money for their own profit-making purposes, and not return the grants which they receive from the government to the parents? Now, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness I think that the member had a perfectly valid question. He's dealing with operating grants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, he's not dealing with this section.

MRS. DAILLY: Where can he deal with that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not up to the Chair to tell you where you can deal with it. You must read the bill yourself.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: My ruling is that it's not under this section, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, he is asking specifically about the operating grants paid to independent schools, and section 10 specifically mentions the payment of operating grants. I would like a further explanation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member I that would have been done under second reading. What we're talking about here is the -use of the provincial grants, not grants that may come in from other individuals or anything else. That is under second reading of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: That's what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about provincial grants going to independent schools.

[ Page 5280 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

MRS. DAILLY: Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Specific provincial grants.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. Now the hon. member asked, I thought, a very valid question. He said: "If those specific grants are given to independent schools, how is the minister going to ensure that no one of those schools will use the money for their own profit instead of allowing for the lowering the tuition fees?" I'm just making a point. I think the minister should answer that question. I think it's quite a valid question.

Supplementary to the question the member asked in the area that we are dealing with on operating grants specifically: what guarantees are there – the minister still didn't answer me – that the sort of thing which that member has very validly brought up will not happen? What guarantees have you?

HON. MR. McGEER: May I go back to section 1 to read the bill for the hon. member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, we are dealing with section 10.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, it's hard to answer the question. I understand your point, Mr. Chairman, but it's been covered already under section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is precisely the point that the Chair has made, that it has been covered under another section and is not permissible under this section, and I so rule.

MR. COCKE: It has been covered under another section. As a matter of fact, phone calls have been made to independent schools, particularly schools such as St. George's. The question has been asked: what will happen when you get funding? They say that their rates will stay the same. The question has been answered,

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. McGEER: As indicated in the order paper I move that section 11 be deleted.

On the amendment to section 11.

MR. COCKE: Speaking to the amendment, let's think in terms of the scenario. Why was it there in the first place? Everybody who read the bill felt that there is an awful lot of it that happens to be an anomaly, but this section was particularly anomalous. In reading this, the only thing that occurred to me was that section 11 was there because it had to be in order to keep the Premier an honest man. Remember during the election campaign one day the question was put to him: "how are you going to run this whole programme?" He said: "Well, we're going to let the school boards do it." They couldn't let the school boards do it, because the school boards refused to do it. However, they could keep him a little bit honest by putting in section 11 which does all the things that we know about, that is, giving the school boards some access to the granting. So what happened was, the Minister of Education said to his draftsman, his authorities and his experts: "You've got to keep my boss happy and you've got to keep him looking honest." Now that's a particularly difficult job to do. I guess they feel that they've done it effectively enough now because it's been sitting in the bill for some months, and now they're prepared to divest themselves of it.

I congratulate them. It should not have been there. Any amendment to a bill such as this seems, in a way, to be a waste of time. In any event, that was how it all occurred, with the minister, out of deference to the Premier, who had made these rather remarkable statements, really not knowing how he was going to go about it. But he says: "Well, we are going to let the school boards do it." Of course, there was a yowl and a hue and a cry that came up from the school boards: "No dice." Now we are back without a section 11.

It's just interesting. Maybe the minister would like to get up and tell us whether or not that story pretty well hits the nail on the head.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member in the House that that story has the typical validity that we associate with statements from the member for New Westminster.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. McGEER: You can take that as a compliment or an insult.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that answer is a typical arrogant answer from the Minister of Education.

Amendment approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing on my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 5281 ]

Amendment approved.

On section 12 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just for your clarification: section 12 is amended and is now section 11.

MRS. DAILLY: Dealing then, with section 11. Whether one is in support of this bill or not – I made it quite clear, I think, where I stand on it – I think that anyone would be concerned about this section. Under this section, full power is given to the inspector to turn off and on at will the grants to the independent schools. Although I don't believe in grants being given – period – if this government is going to push it through, surely there should be some fairness in the dispensing of those grants. Yet, under this section, you are putting the power entirely in the hands of one person, the inspector.

It actually states, Mr. Chairman, that the inspector may order that the installments given to these schools be reduced or discontinued. That's one man. Now, I ask the minister: does he consider that a reasonable way for grants to be distributed to any group? Why has he given this enormous power to the inspector? What is this inspector going to use as his criteria? I know that it states here in your clause: if they have "ceased to comply with a standard described in section 5 or 6 or a regulation under this Act ... it may ... be discontinued." What sort of standards are you talking about? What regulations are you talking about?

I think if I were an independent school this would make me exceedingly nervous.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Chairman, we require in the legislation adequate protection for the public purse. If a school, for example, were to stop teaching the B.C. core curriculum, having been given a Group 2 grant on the basis that they would teach that core curriculum, then it seems to me only reasonable that the grant be withdrawn. The protection against arbitrary actions or what might appear to be arbitrary actions on the part of the inspector is contained in section 13. We can't discuss that yet.

The point about it is, unless you have some method by which the inspector can act in cases of obvious abuse of the intent of this legislation, then, of course, the public purse is not being protected in the fashion that the member for Burnaby North requested. That's what the purpose of this section is. In a subsequent section, we will be able to deal with whether or not there's protection against arbitrary bureaucracy. We believe that the two sections balance one another.

MRS. DAILLY: All right. So the minister has said, for example, if an independent school is getting grants, under Group 2 presumably, because they are teaching the core curriculum, and it is found out they aren't, then the grant could be taken away.

My next question to the minister is: he must, surely, have some idea of how this is going to take place. What sort of a staff is going to be needed to do this? You can visit a school once a year and you know very well that you may not be seeing what is going on all year. You would actually have to have someone as you have in the public school: the principal and the teachers responsible to the Public School Act, to the school board elected by the people, to the superintendent and to the public. But none of this holds for the independent schools under this Act, except this: how are you going to be able to tell the public that you're going to check on whether the core curriculum is being taught? You will have to have someone there every day of the year. Have you thought this out, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we have already dealt with this at length under section 4 of the Act, I realize that the debate section by section has been so prolonged that many members may have forgotten the discussions of earlier sections. But provision is made for evaluation committees and inspections and so on of the independent schools. So they'll receive every bit as thorough attention from that point of view as the public schools of this province.

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, the minister said section 13 is the appeal section. The minister hasn't read the bill. Section 12 is the appeal section. What's the matter with the minister? He amended the bill five minutes ago, and then he says, "Look at section 13." I wonder about that Minister of Education.

Anyway, now that the minister has the bill straight in his own mind, let's go back to section 11, which is the one we're debating now. Section 11 does exactly the things that we contended in section 4. It makes the inspector the mighty bureaucrat it makes the minister the "trust me" soul that he's always been; and it makes the private schools prey to his whim and his will. This is the mighty inspector, Mr. Chairman, with the sword of Damocles hanging there in section 11. The minister knows it.

This is a dictatorial section, and there is no elected people except the minister in this whole process. There's nobody there really monitoring the system other than the bureaucrat and the "elected official." The minister hardly has time to really look after this particular responsibility. After all, he's busy delivering scientific papers in Norway, he's trying to ran ICBC into the ground, and also he's trying to run the public school system as well as the universities

[ Page 5282 ]

and colleges into the ground. So, Mr. Chairman, I have grave doubts about the merits of this section 11.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, section 13 won't become section 12 until we get to it. I can only repeat that there is really adequate provision in the bill for thorough inspection of the schools, I think, to the satisfaction of the members. I remain confident that this aspect of it will work very well.

MR. GIBSON: After careful reading of this section and of section 9 (2) to which it refers, I'm still not clear on something and I'd like the minister to clarify. Let us assume that during a particular school year – let's call it the school year of 1977-78 – a school qualified for Group 2 funding and is eligible, therefore, to be paid during the following school year. Let us then assume that in the following school year, which is 1978-79, it ceases to qualify, either completely or, in the opinion of the inspector, is required to have some reduction. Will it nevertheless, in respect of that second school year, receive the full payments for the first school year during which time it did qualify 100 percent?

HON. MR. McGEER: If they've earned their grants for their performance in the previous school year, they'll get the grants.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that clarification and that seems fair to me.

Now I want to make a further comment on this section. I understand the need for control of the taxpayers' money. That must be there and this is the measure in the bill that provides for it, so I think we have to accept it. But I think the independent schools should understand the dangers to their independence of this section.

The inspector has the power to hammer any independent schools through cutting their grant 100 per cent or just to squeeze them gently through cutting their grant in a somewhat smaller amount. That to me gives an inspector the power to bend an independent school to his wishes in any way. Independent schools have to understand that as they come to rely upon the funding in this Act, as they will more and more, their clientele, the parents, the persons from whom they have previously drawn their economic support, are going to be used to no longer providing that support to the school in the measure that they are now receiving public funds. So as they become accustomed to public funds, they will become more vulnerable to the wishes of the inspector.

I simply want to point that out, and say to the minister that it shows the crying need for some kind of an independent board – I would prefer elected, but even a Universities Council-type board – to stand in there as a judgmental or an appeal mechanism of some kind. Pending that – and I hope the wisdom of this will be seen in amendments to this independent schools Act in future years – I would most earnestly suggest to every independent school that if they see the slightest incipient example of this kind of tendency of improper squeezing with insufficient appeal, they bring that attention to their local MLA for the fullest debate during the minister's estimates. That's the only current defence that they have. I think the defence has to be institutionalized in due course in the form of an elected board or some other such mechanism.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this section, if it comes to a vote, because we have to have, as the minister said, some kind of accountability for public money, but I do say to every independent school that there is a potential danger in this section. We will all hope that the inspector of the day and the minister of the day won't fall prey to the terrible temptation to use power and to mould the independent school system the way they might wish through the squeezing ability of this section, but as long as any possibility is there, it should be guarded against in future legislation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, just in response to that, I might say that there would be the same problem of dependence on government grants and vulnerability whether there was a universities council type or even an elected board, as there is with the superintendent. The ultimate appeal obviously has got to be the political appeal because this is where the ultimate power lies and this is where the ultimate responsibility must be taken.

As with many appeal mechanisms, it eventually finds the way to those who take their responsibility at the ballot box every few years. There's that vulnerability on the side of the independent schools, but there's a like vulnerability on the part of the elected politicians if they abuse their trust. I think that's the balance that must be struck. I personally don't feel that the political process would dare risk the degree of arbitrariness that might be implied by the member's statement. Mind you, time will tell and if better mechanisms can be devised, then no doubt they'll be the subject of proposals for amendments and I'm sure any reasonable government would wish to accept those alternatives.

However, speaking about education and what it attempts to do in a general way, we encourage local initiative in the public school system. We did get a little bit stiff over the core curriculum and the provincial learning assessment programme. Then when our core curriculum booklet came out, why, a lot of people said it was there already and it was just a sham. But it wasn't the intention, Mr. Chairman, of the Ministry of Education to invent a lot of new

[ Page 5283 ]

material to be taught in the schools any more than it would be the intent for independent schools to sit down and devise a curriculum and insist that that independent school teach at 10 o'clock on Thursday, October 14, a given set of subjects in grade 3. Rather it's to lay down a broad programme and to say: "Teach that broad programme, and no nonsense about that."

The point about the core curriculum wasn't that the material was lacking; it's that a lot of people didn't want to teach that material. That's the whole point. Sure it has been there right along. All we're doing is we're insisting that it be taught – that the material that's there be taught. It doesn't take up all of every teaching day. We're not going to set different standards for the independent schools from those which we would set for the public schools. The material is there and the independent schools can look at that material and say: "Does that suit us?" If it suits them, then they should apply for Group 2 classification.

There will be no mystery about the general programme that will be laid down as part of the core curriculum. It will be modified from time to time, but it's not going to undergo a revolution so that you put everything that you had last year in the furnace and start with a whole new set of material next year. That core curriculum, in broad context, is now laid out. There will be additions and modifications. They won't be major, but every school now knows what its responsibility for teaching will be. Every independent school will be able to look at that and say either they want to do it or they don't. They're going to have the same kind of protection against radical change that the public school system has.

I really can't conceive of how a responsible independent school could fall prey to any form of arbitrary decision on the part of a superintendent or the government of the day given the requirements that we have of laying down a broad programme of instruction and a method of assessment. Moreover, for schools that may feel our assessment programme is not adequate, and where they may not be certain that their own students are meeting standards that are accepted throughout Canada or North America, there are any number of standard achievement tests that are available where one can compare the score of a student or a school or a district, with amazing accuracy, with the general knowledge held by students of large geographic regions such as North America, smaller geographic regions such as Canada, or getting right down to provinces or districts. There are plenty of ways, Mr. Chairman, by which evaluation can be achieved.

But the board context is now declared and the independent schools have plenty of opportunity to study that before committing themselves to a programme with government support, which I admit would be very painful to have withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his remarks. I don't want to go into the standard achievement test question, which is a very broad question and, indeed, I would have thought one of the reasons for getting into this whole independent schools legislation. We are not necessarily going to rely that much on standard achievement tests in that area, but that's a philosophical thing we will see worked out as this legislation is used in practice. I want to come back to the question of regulation and control of the actions of the inspector. If the inspector in the public school system – who, I suppose is the deputy minister – were to take certain actions of a financial, regulatory curricular or other nature which seriously adversely affected, let's say, district 44, which is my own constituency, then there is a group of legitimately constituted people in district 44 who are there with public recognition and the elected right to say to Victoria: "Look, you're not treating our district right." Because they have been elected, they have some authority to stand up to, as I say, to the analogue to the inspector, who is the deputy or the minister. There's at least a contest. It may not be an equal contest, because Victoria is going to prevail in the end, but there's some chance at least to have a public discussion and to bring some public opinions to bear with elected officials on both sides.

The independent schools don't have that intermediary body; they don't have the analogue to the school board; they don't have the analogue to the Universities Council. In fact, they just have individual institutions, many of them very small, that don't have the ways and means of mobilizing public opinion and don't have the legitimacy of being elected representatives.

The minister may say: "Well, ultimately the politicians in Victoria are accountable, " but as the minister knows, general elections, fortunately or unfortunately, don't turn on questions like the curriculum content of the Waldorf School in North Vancouver or St. Thomas Aquinas High School, or something like that. So there may in theory be an appeal to the electorate the next time around, but in fact, except in very rare cases, that appeal doesn't exist. That is why we have local school boards to provide this local appeal process and regulatory process and buffer in the public school system.

I'm a realist. We're not going to get it in this bill. But I'm saying that the system in the future will be better if the minister seeks and introduces some kind of analogue to the local school board in the public school system. Then neither I nor any other member nor the independent schools themselves will have to worry so much about this section we're now debating.

[ Page 5284 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this is again another exceptionally important section of this Act that really causes a great deal of concern to me personally and I know to many other people. I'm speaking on behalf of thousands of people who have signed petitions and written letters on this matter.

What are the criteria for receiving tax money? I want to ask the minister specifically because this section deals with the withdrawing of provincial grants from some schools if they don't meet certain standards. I think we should get it on the record, loud and clear from the minister: is it correct that schools which will be using American programme learning materials, schools which are oriented to another country but are still teaching the core curriculum here...? I'm referring to that group – I think it's called the Texas Programme Outfit – which obviously is selling the material for profit. Will they get grants from this government under this section or will their grants, rather, be withdrawn? Will they get them in first place or will they be withdrawn? I know we're talking about withdrawal. Will they get them? – one question.

I remember when I was a school trustee in Burnaby, Mr. Chairman, we have an institution called the Temple of Abundant Life. The philosophy taught there was a philosophy that I don't think the average person would endorse, but they had a right to exist because they weren't receiving tax money.

Now my point is, though, if we have decided that any philosophy or religion in this province can be supported by tax money, I think the minister should explain to us what power he's giving to this inspector. Is this inspector going to go around and say: "I don't like that particular religious philosophy, but this one's okay so it can stay and receive grants"? Would the Temple of Abundant Life still get grants because they taught the curriculum or wouldn't they? What power in the hands of this government to turn off and on, at will, grants to independent schools.

I'm speaking on behalf of the danger also to independent schools who are going to be at the mercy of the particular philosophy of the government in power to decide whether they should receive grants or not. But I'm also, as you know, Mr. Chairman, opposed to this bill because of many of these problems that this minister is creating and which we never had before in this province. I would like to ask the minister specifically how is the decision going to be made when it comes to a matter of philosophies that are being taught in different schools? What if that inspector doesn't like that particular philosophy? Will he turn off the grant? Mr. Chairman, this is the crucial question here. If the minister doesn't have an answer, he'd better withdraw the bill.

Mr. Chairman, it's the taxpayers' money. We have a right to know. Is this money going to be handed out, given at whim by one person, one minister, one government, based on their ideas of what philosophies should be taught and what shouldn't be taught in this province?

Now I may be sounding and appearing to take a very extremist position here, and I am taking it and it's not extreme, Mr. Chairman, because it's the crux of the dangers of this bill in the wrong hands. I can assure you that we are going to have chaos in this province with this kind of bill.

Will the minister answer? What kind of criteria are going to be set up for the giving and the withdrawal of our public taxpayers' money when it comes to the philosophies that are taught in different schools? As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I've heard there is even a school that teaches an anti-labour philosophy. Now whether you are pro-labour or anti-labour is not the point. Should taxpayers' money be going to support that? Now that's my question. If they're teaching the core curriculum, Mr. Chairman, from everything I read in this section, they get the money. And we're asking trade unionists of this province to give their tax money to support a school that will be teaching an anti-labour stance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this section deals with withdrawal of funds.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I know. I'm asking on top of the withdrawal; I simply want to know. It states here: "This inspector has the right to withdraw funds." Are they going to withdraw funds from a school that's teaching anti-labour philosophy? Are they going to withdraw it from a school because they don't like the particular philosophy that's being taught? Is the minister going to answer those questions?

Now he's sitting there smiling, but, Mr. Minister, it is not a thing to smile at. Have you no answer? How are you going to decide?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one member may speak at a time, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister: what criteria are you going to use for these grants, particularly when they're going to be teaching the core curriculum?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mi. Chairman, this was covered under sections 5 and 6, which deal with the criteria for grants. They would be withdrawn if they failed to meet the criteria that we've already discussed under sections 5 and 6.

Section 12 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS – 25

[ Page 5285 ]

NAYS – 11

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

On section 13.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

On section 13 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is good luck to the inspector, more power to the minister. Again the minister has taken unto himself all powers of appeal. On an appeal from an authority they can appeal to the minister, and so can a teacher whose certification isn't being made readily available by the inspector. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's just part of the centralization of authority.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. McGEER-. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper that section 14 be renumbered section 13. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 14 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister could have at least had the grace to be silent on this.

particular situation. Had he left that section out, then the teacher wouldn't necessarily have to be a member of the B.C. Teachers Federation. Including this is a bit of an insult, a slap in the face to the B.C. Teachers Federation. This amended section says a person need not be a member of the B.C. Teachers Federation to be a certified teacher. Why include it?

If it had been left out, wouldn't that have been satisfactory? If the bill were silent, I suggest to you that such would have been the case in any event.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my name on the order paper that section 15 be renumbered section 14. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 15 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is the proclamation amendment and I suggest that the proclamation of this bill should be sometime in 1994, if the minister would agree.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 33, Independent Schools Support Act, reported complete with amendments.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. McGEER: With leave, now.

[ Page 5286 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 33, Independent Schools Support Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS – 25

NAYS – 11

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 76; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. SANFORD: I raised yesterday the definition of "trade school" meaning a person, and I would like to thank the minister who, although he did not answer the question during second reading, did provide me with the information. While I'm not entirely satisfied that a trade school is a person, at least I understand now why the definition is written as it is.

I would like to ask the minister about schedule B. This is section 1 – " ‘apprenticeable trades' means a trade included in schedule B of the regulations." Now under the Act that is going to be repealed, Mr. Chairman, that list is included in what is now called schedule A. I'm wondering if the minister is going to be changing that whole schedule or if the transfer will be made from the old Act, which we are repealing, now called schedule A. Will that, in fact, become schedule D, or will there be additions to or deletions from that particular schedule that already exists?

The other point that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I would like to thank the minister for taking the time to write out for the opposition the amendment which the minister intends to introduce during committee stage.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:Mr. Chairman, to the member for Comox, it is the intention of the government to take the present schedule and transfer into schedule B under this new Act without any particular change. The reason for moving from a schedule of the Act to regulation is to provide ease with which to expand the list of apprenticeable trades. Each year brings new opportunities to deal with certain trades by means of the apprenticeship route. The present legislation did not preclude the ministry from entering into apprenticeship agreements, but even though the trades were not designated, we think it more appropriate for the benefit of apprentices that it be clarified in regulations so that the trades they're engaged in are, in fact, designated and set out in the regulations.

For the benefit of the other members, I did have the opportunity of speaking with the member for Comox a few moments ago on the definition of "trade school." The reason a "trade school" is defined as a person is by reason of the provisions in the part of the Act dealing with trade schools which calls for applications, bonding, and makes certain provisions for penalties in the event of breach. Now it is normal to think of a school as an institution, a building, a place, but we can't get an application, or bond a building or place; nor can we pursue bricks and mortar in the event there is a breach. Therefore, after careful deliberation with legislative counsel, it was determined that this definition would be provided.

I must also point out that there is the possibility of the minister excluding a person from registration. I wish to assure the members that that's solely for the purpose of enabling assistance to be provided to certain trade schools in the new or emerging concept of industrial training. Some manufacturing operations actually provide a trade school facility and, by reason of the limited extent to which that facility may be used, they may not be required to register even though they may be getting some assistance from the minister or from the senior government.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Section 2 gives the minister some very considerable powers which, in my opinion, go well beyond the question of apprenticeship and training. I do not particularly object to that but I want to point it out. One is the possibility of entering into agreement with any person, including the federal government, on job creation or employment and the other one I would particularly point out is the forecasting of employment and training needs. These

[ Page 5287 ]

are providing powers under this Act for the function the minister described yesterday as the most important function of his ministry, namely manpower. I think it's appropriate that those powers should be there, but I would like to ask a question specifically related to the power and, I suppose, the duty provided for under (b) (vii) , which is "forecasting employment and training needs."

Now a good deal of the debate yesterday centered around the idea that training is well and good, but are there going to be jobs available when the person has completed that particular training? I want to ask the minister if he can take a moment to describe to the committee how specifically this power and this responsibility is going to be carried out. Might we hope to have in a year or two, for the guidance of our young people in educational institutions, a sort of "supply and demand" schedule? It might say: "In this particular occupation we foresee a deficit three, four or five years in the future. In this particular occupation we see that there is going to be a surplus and you'd better watch out." Can we look forward to that kind of thing, which I think is gravely needed in British Columbia and, if so, when?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has touched upon what is probably the essential obligation of the Ministry of Labour through the manpower division and he's indicated quite clearly the areas in which we have so far been lax in this province.

It is the essential part of the manpower division of the Ministry of Labour's role to concern itself through the research branch with forecasting for specific requirements at the moment. The way it presently works is that when some initiative is perceived by government, through the Ministry of Economic Development usually, which will require significant manpower, through cabinet committee techniques a chain of action is set up whereby the Ministry of Labour and the research division address themselves specifically to what is the available manpower supply, the extent to which that manpower supply may need to be increased, the length of time available for that purpose and the training facilities presently available to train people in the required trades. And I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the officials of the Ministry of Labour are skilled and do a competent job on this matter. But the difficulty that we perceive – and this is also the case in other provinces – is that this is not an ongoing function. It has generally been dealt with on a specific project.

For example, there is talk now of the Alcan pipeline and has been for some time. I can assure, Mr. Chairman, that the officials of the Ministry of Labour are busily engaged in precisely this activity now. But that short-range forecasting is entirely inappropriate because it doesn't give us the opportunity to reach down into our educational system and make sure that there is coming along a supply of persons who are beginning training in a way which could make them available to move quickly into the work force with some specialized training techniques. Therefore that's the reason this specific provision is here. As a result of negotiations and discussions with other provinces and with the national government, this is also perceived as the direction the nation as a whole must go. That is why this particular responsibility is placed under section 2, which authorizes this minister to enter into agreements covering such matters.

Properly functioning.... We expect that before the end of this year it will be properly functioning. We will be doing with Economic Development and other ministries, an assessment of what we may see over the next five or ten years – as much as is possible to predict the direction which the province's economy may go – and then make some calculations based upon present training facilities and the presently available work force for required training for young people and for those presently in the work force today for upgrading of skills. It's a different forecasting task but it's one that we believe with modern techniques of research can be carried out, and it will have, we believe, major advantages particularly for those students who are presently in schools.

Our distress at the number of times that young persons were attracted to go into the vocational and trades field, prepared themselves in our educational system to go into an apprentice programme, taking the pre-apprentice courses, for example, only to find out that when they got to a level where they should go into apprenticeship, they have been told: "I'm sorry, there is a waiting list and you can't get on for three years."

Well, that's a breakdown in two areas in the system: firstly, a failure to forecast what the needs may be; but, secondly, a failure to counsel properly. We think with the process that is now underway, not only forecasting but the counseling link to educational systems and the facilities made available for the Ministry of Education will help to prevent this situation occurring, or at least occurring as often as it does today.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his comments and believe that he's moving in the right direction. I would just like to make two further representations: one, that as these forecasts are developed – with all of their failures and difficulties because they can never be precise – they will be made public for the guidance of those working up through the system; and, secondly, he speaks of the counselling process. I submit to the minister that just as there are estimates of demand for particular job

[ Page 5288 ]

positions, so too, to guide those in the educational system, there have to be forecasts of supply.

It might be possible, for example, that one might forecast a demand for X number of welders or typists or doctors or whatever five years down the road, but if at the same time feedback isn't coming in from counsellors that while there's a demand for X, there's 2X people who want to go into that, you can still have the imbalance. You've got to have both sides of the forecasting equation. It seems to me that there has to be, in discharging this responsibility, a feedback from those involved in counselling of young people in the province.

MR. KING: I generally welcome the minister's comments with respect to the direction that he foresees under section 2.

There's one thing that I think might have been helpful to include in this section and that would be a statement of policy that the minister has articulated in the House this afternoon. I think it would be helpful to have a statement of policy, particularly in light of the authority that the minister has taken unto himself. I don't really argue with that, but when we get into the area of immigration and recognize the historical problems we have had in terms of accommodating our own work force, rather than the importation of outside skilled workers in response to short-term tasks, then that is a significant new function, really, for the Ministry of Labour – one that I can hardly argue with, I might add. But I think it would be helpful to have some statement of policy. The minister has articulated one that I think could well have been in the Act.

The other thing that I'm concerned about is that the ministry lay high emphasis on taking the initiative rather than being in a responsive position to development that looms on the horizon. I would suggest to the minister that that probably includes liaison on a broader basis than with the Ministry of Economic Development. I think it involves a good means of liaison with industry throughout the Province to determine what the possible priorities and projects of the future may be so that the lead time the minister spoke of in terms of gearing our education in the proper directions can be attained on a longer termed basis. I welcome his remarks in that regard but I urge him to broaden the horizon in terms of the liaison on discussion.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, a small matter, but I notice in talking about the discretion to the minister and the cabinet under section 2 that under section 2 (b) (9) there's the very all-encompassing word "matters." In other words, the minister can enter into agreements with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or with the government of Canada or with a province relating to "matters" prescribed by the cabinet. Is this not an unusually wide, one-single-word definition that in fact just about empowers the minister to enter into any kind of agreement with these authorities?

I'm not suggesting that this may be bad, but I can't recall a bill in this House where one word of such all-encompassing interpretation, namely the word "matters, " is included where the province can enter into agreements where substantial sums of money might be involved, and cost sharing or otherwise. Would the minister just care to tell the House what kind of examples he foresees as being typical of being included under the umbrella word matters"?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , I thank him for his comments and I'm pleased that he raised the matter of immigration. It is a difficult problem, as the member well knows from his experience when he was minister. We are establishing for the first time in the Ministry of Labour, we believe, a capability to deal with this immigration matter, not only with respect to those immigrants who under the laws of Canada come to this country seeking to join us as Canadians but also to those short-term arrangements, whereby we, unfortunately, still go outside the province and bring in workers. In fact, if we had the wits about us to forecast better what our needs are, we could supply them with out own citizens.

I expect that there will be a policy statement made shortly with regard to immigration. I think it's wise that this whole question of manpower responsibility be committed to a White Paper which could be circulated broadly.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan also mentioned the broadening horizons involving, as well as government, industry, and discussions on this matter. The member is aware of the establishment of industry advisory committees under his ministry in construction. This is also being expanded now into mining and smelting, We see in this manpower responsibility, great advantages by creating, with the co-operation of government, industry and labour, which is involved with those industries, more and more industry advisory committees, which can deal specifically with the problems in those industries. At the same time, they can assist government by indicating trends that are taking place in industries and the development potential that they perceive from the forecasting that they make as well. The forest industry is one, we believe, where there is a serious need for one, as well as in the travel industry and in the travel and hospitality industry generally. Work is going forward on both of those at the present time.

"Matters" is about as broad a word as you can select these days, and to the member for Oak Bay

[ Page 5289 ]

(Mr. Wallace) , we didn't know what else to do. In the field of action by governments federal and provincial and manpower matters there is a dynamism, which I think is refreshing and a good change. A lot of new initiatives are being developed.

Quite frankly, we are offered the opportunity from time to time, as the federal government particularly becomes more and more involved in this field, of entering into agreements, and we want the right to enter into such agreements, because manpower is one of those areas in which there is overlapping jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments under the British North America Act. We want to be ready at every moment to take fullest advantage of initiatives which may be designed by the federal government.

Let me give you an example of two. We find mobility allowances, which are available as workers are moved from region to region through this country. That involves us in entering into agreements. There is a mobility agreement with regard to plant shutdowns and so on. We have the opportunities made available to us for training and travelling allowances associated with training and the mobility of workers. Those are only a few examples of the new concepts which are constantly emerging as this nation becomes more adept at dealing with a highly mobile work force.

I would have been happier if we could have been more specific, but we attempted as best we could in the first eight sections to define very specifically the nature of the agreements that we might contemplate. But we also don't want to leave ourselves without the authority to conclude others which are related to this whole manpower responsibility.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister which, in view of its generality, he might not choose to answer. But if he does, I think it might be useful to the committee.

Both in second reading debate yesterday and in committee stage today, reference lids been made to the interface between the federal-provincial levels of government in terms of manpower responsibility. The minister yesterday mentioned the increased co-operation that he thought was taking place. As well, I think there was a concern expressed about duplication of services. I wonder if the minister would care to articulate to the committee his perception as to where the line of demarcation ought to be between the two levels of government, and how generally responsibility in the manpower field ought to be divided.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As clearly as I can, Mr. Chairman, let me say first that it is my view, and that of other ministers having manpower responsibilities across this province, that there's no question where the major responsibility rests – and that's with the provinces. As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan well knows, work has gone on for the past five years between the various provincial governments to ensure that their positions at the bargaining table with the federal government, clearly hold to that view.

The federal government is very aggressive these days in the matter of manpower. They have available to them large sums of money to turn into this particular field. There is growing concern on the part of most provincial governments that the fiscal power which the national government has at its disposal in this respect sometimes works contrary to the best interests of manpower development in the provinces.

With those words of caution, let me say that I believe the national government has a major role to play, particularly with respect to regional disparities that may exist and the need to generate activities in the manpower field which will diminish the consequences of those disparities.

I would, however, be most concerned if the national government interferes even more than it presently does in what would appear to be a purely provincial responsibility. More and more the national government, through Manpower, is becoming involved with money in training activities. They're spending significant sums of money in counselling activities. When I spoke yesterday of emergent co-operation, it was in the sense that, from discussions with the Hon. Bud Cullen, we think we are obtaining some understanding, at least of the national government, that those programmes must be focused with provincial programmes on the solution, rather than the development of parallel programmes. We find this in the present Canada Works programme, Young Canada Works, and, at the same time, the youth employment programmes that are conducted by various provinces.

We think greater impact can be brought upon the problem if the two governments merge their ideas. We are doing so; we are making available our facilities to the national government. In large measure, they are making their facilities available to us so that we can give the best service to the client.

MS. SANFORD: Just one brief question, Mr. Chairman. The minister expressed concern yesterday about the waiting time that's involved now for some people to get into these various apprenticeship programmes. He made reference to tile fact that there is sometimes lack of communication so a student enters a pre-apprenticeship programme and finds that he can't get into the apprenticeship programme for some time. I'm wondering if through the improvements that this section offers in terms of preparation and forecasting and predicting training needs, lie anticipates that waiting period can be virtually done away with. If so, how much time does

[ Page 5290 ]

he anticipate it will take to do away with the waiting period, which is now two, three and sometimes more years?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish I could say how soon this will come about. I can assure the member that it is the intention of this ministry, using the tool the occupational training council provides for us and in turn providing to the educational system the forecasting of needs, to diminish that waiting period and hopefully offer to persons going into vocational and trades training in this province the opportunity for continued educational programmes, merging from the secondary school through pre-apprenticeship training, occupational training and on into the apprenticeship trade without delay. That's the goal. How quickly we will achieve it I can't really say.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I have made available to the members of the opposition four amendments to section 6, and I would move those amendments now with this explanation.

Section 6 is the power of investigation and inquiry for the purposes of this Act. It gives us presently the right to enter and inspect the premises, equipment and training facilities of an employer. We considered when we drafted this section that every trade school was obviously going to be an employer and they would have some employees, but the director of trade schools has urged us to clarify the situation so that under no circumstances could he be denied the opportunity of inspecting the training facilities.

Therefore the first amendment is in section 6 (l) (a) in the fourth line of the section: after the word "employer" to add the words "or a trade school." I move that first amendment to section 6.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the following line, again following the word "employer, " to add the same words "or a trade school."

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The third amendment to section 6 is in line 6 of the section: after the word "employment" to add the words "or training" so that the inspector could concern himself with conditions of employment or training.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The fourth amendment to section 6 in line 9 is again after the word "employment": add the words "or training" so that we can inquire into the conditions of employment or training of any person.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have what you might call a parliamentary or constitutional concern with this section. I'm not concerned with the fact that operational and training allowances and capital grants should be set up and disbursed. That's necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act. What I am concerned about is the apparent bypassing of the Legislature in so doing.

Section 7 (l) would give the minister powers to allocate funds that he receives and, subject to correction, it would seem to me, it would allow him to do that without going through the Legislature and without.... The minister shakes his head. I would be glad if he stood up and clarified that.

As to the taxation, there's no question about it. Subsection (2) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe a system of assessments on the employer for the establishment of apprenticeship schemes which then will be paid into consolidated revenue. That, in my view, Mr. Chairman, is just another small delegation by this Legislature of its right to set imposts on society generally or on particular sectors of it. I am aware that this is not a first', I'm aware that, for example, the Workers' Compensation Board has this kind of authority. But I do not think that fact makes it right.

I did not want to allow this section to pass without a statement of my now very strong objection to this. When things like this must come back to the Legislature to have percentages and schedules changed, then there's a requirement and an opportunity for public review that is simply not there with order-in-council decisions. It is my personal belief that this Legislature should in no case delegate its own powers of taxation as we're being asked to do in this section.

MR. KING: I just have one question under section 7. 1 wonder if the minister could give the committee some indication of what he has in mind with respect to the authority vested in section I to make agreements with other provinces. I don't really object to that but I just wonder what kind of circumstances he envisages which would require that kind of agreement – the authority for that kind of agreement.

[ Page 5291 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I could answer the last question first. There is a move, certainly in western Canada, for there to be some co-ordination between the western provinces with respect to apprenticeship training. We find that apprentices are being encouraged to move within the western provinces in particular for purposes of training and opportunity. As a result, we may be involved in agreements not only with the national government concerning their training allowances and funds available for that purpose but also with the governments of any of our neighbouring provinces in this for that reason.

MR. KING: Reciprocal training?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Apprentices who may start their training in the province of Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba may complete their training here. We want to ensure that there is equitable sharing of the costs.

Now with regard to the questions raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , under subsection (1) of section 7, those moneys that are referred there passed through the estimates of this ministry and/or the Ministry of Education. If I had my estimate book here I could refer the member to funds that come under the Adult Occupational Training Act of Canada to the Ministry of Labour. They are passed through our estimates and they go to the Ministry of Education. They are also included in their estimates so that none of those moneys which are negotiated with the national government are expended by either ministry without first having been reviewed by this Legislature.

I'm not certain that I clearly understood the concern of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano about subsection (2) . Yes, we can provide a method of assessment, but again those moneys go into and form part of consolidated revenue. Therefore the expenditure of those moneys would again be the subject of control by this House.

I might say that this section has never been used to my knowledge nor to any of those officials in this ministry. It's been on the statutes of this province since 1935. We find no evidence of it ever being used. As a matter of fact, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) will know, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor or the minister making any assessment on employers, that has now become the subject of agreements between employers and unions, and the establishment of joint councils for purposes of apprenticeship training. In many respects, moneys are available for extensive training and they are developed in that way, rather than involving the government at all.

MR. GIBSON: I am relieved to find that this assessment power has existed since 1935 and not been used in that period. But I still want to draw attention to the question of principle. I believe in the unemployment insurance national scheme. It's up to parliament to set any changes in assessments on the employers. I'm certain, because I've recently studied it, that in the United States social security scheme it's up to congress to set any changes in the rate of payroll assessment.

It seems to me as a matter of principle that when there are assessments on payrolls to achieve certain specified social ends, those amounts and levels should be set by the legislatures involved rather than by the executive branch involved. That's what I'm getting at and that's why I object to the wording of subsection (2) .

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up for just a moment on the types of agreements that could be entered into with other provinces under this section.

I was noticing in the paper just the other day that there was an Education ministry official who is quoted in the press as saying: "It breaks my heart every time I hear about the huge numbers of skilled tradesmen heading for Alberta because they can't get jobs in B.C." It means that we're spending millions of education dollars to train first-class tradesmen for other provinces. I'm wondering, in view of the fact that Manpower officials are saying that there has been quite an outflow of trained people into the province of Alberta, whether in fact the agreements that come about under this section would make some provision for the fact that we have paid to train these people and they are now leaving the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the agreements so far contemplated have not gone that far, that we would be asking another province to contribute towards the education of skilled tradesmen who might move from British Columbia to, say, the neighbouring province of Alberta. I saw the same report which the member referred to. I think one has to be careful in expressing concern about such activities, because I wish to assure the member that there are often just as many who move in the other direction, as large projects particularly commence in British Columbia. We get a significant influx of skilled tradesmen, certainly from the western provinces.

Particularly in the construction industry, the trades are highly mobile, and it's one of the circumstances which affect that particular industry and give rise to many of the unusual labour training practices that one finds in construction. It is that whole mobility; it's a sort of nomadic work force which moves from project to project, particularly those of significance.

[ Page 5292 ]

Section 7 approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, while I approve of the idea of a provincial apprenticeship board, I just find it interesting that there are no, even approximate, limits to the number of members. It just states that "the board is established, consisting of members appointed by the minister." Could the minister give us some approximate idea of this board? How will it be put together? How many people will be on the board? And will it be on a regional basis that members will be appointed, or will there be a cross-section of representation of the various types of apprenticeship training?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We currently have a provincial apprenticeship committee, which doesn't have the scope of authority that the board is being given here. But there are presently, I think, seven positions filled on that committee. We foresee the expansion of this board for two reasons: one, because of the increased number of trades that are now apprenticeable; and as well, because of the additional responsibility that they are given.

While we didn't specify that in the selection of members of the board there should be any representation domination by labour or management, the intention of this ministry is to ensure, as much as is possible, that each of the trades is represented, on both the employer and the employee sides. So there is brought to the board, regardless of whether they happen to be on the side of employer or employee, the kind of experience and, indeed, dedication to apprenticeship, which is required in order to discharge their responsibilities.

We are presently contemplating between nine and 11 members on the board, which we think will be adequate. We have asked the various trade groups to nominate persons whom they believe will serve on the board and we hope to have them appointed and in operation very quickly.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. GIBSON: This is the section that gives this new board its powers and its duties. I'd like to ask the minister if he would care to expand somewhat on words that he had to say last night. He was talking about how the assignment of apprenticeship positions should be made. I'm quoting him now; he was posing here a question to the official opposition. He said:

Do you want apprenticeships with people who are trained in Skills, able to carry out their responsibilities without hindrance? Or do you want the trade union movement to control apprenticeships? It's got to be one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

He went on a little bit further to give a sentence or two of the arguments on both sides of the case.

I'm wondering if the minister would care to take the committee somewhat into his confidence as to how he comes down on this one, or how he argues both sides of the case.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no. It's a very important question. It's one of the questions which this board is going to have to address itself to, and I have no doubt that it will do so in consultation with the various parties that are involved. But it would be very useful to know the minister's views, as there have been some very unhappy situations.

The minister, and I'm sure the whole House, is aware of the case of the 32-year-old man who was unable to become an apprentice plumber because he was ruled to be too old at the age of 32. The human rights branch, in my opinion, on a technicality upheld that refusal. I'll say no more about it because the ministry has very properly referred the question to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, But there have been abuses, and there may well be abuses in other areas that aren't run by the official apprenticeship programme. In some of the professions, for example, there are difficulties of entry. Here we're talking about the specific duties of this apprenticeship board, and if the minister would care to advise the committee of some of his thinking on this, I think it would be found very useful.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is the reason that we have, in establishing this board, given them specific responsibilities to deal with the qualifications. It isn't only the matter of age, as in that one instance. We are quite concerned, as the member for Comox reported to this House in her remarks yesterday, at the virtual absence of any women in our apprenticeable trades, as apprentices. This leads one to conclude that there has been perhaps too great a control exercised by certain groups in our society with regard to the apprenticeship field. I wouldn't like it to be thought that my remarks last evening were in any way critical of the position which the trade union movement has taken concerning apprenticeships. As a matter of fact, if there is any feeling....

MR. KING: We know you're in this other guy's pocket.

MR. WALLACE: You were until yesterday. It fell out of his pocket with the bill yesterday.

[ Page 5293 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where were we? Section 11. I don't want it thought that I was expressing any criticism of what the trade union movement has done in the field of apprenticeships. Quite frankly, the trade union movement has moved into a vacuum which has been created by the failure on the part of management in many cases to discharge their proper role in the apprenticeship field. Certainly in some of our trades there has been far too little attention paid by the employer to his responsibilities in ensuring that he has in his work force the appropriate number of apprentices. If there is any complaint to be laid, I think it's to be laid at the feet of the employers who, by default, have created a situation where the trades have themselves moved in and said: "Fine, we'll took after the matter of apprentices." And they have been allowed to do so.

I'm not sure that this is going to be easy to correct, or, indeed, it needs much correction. In many cases, as I indicated a few moments ago, the matter of apprentices is done through joint councils of employers and trade unions. I think this is, in many cases, very desirable, particularly in the construction industry. I don't think there's any intention on the part of anybody to interfere with those techniques which have been employed with great success over a number of years.

In having a larger, more responsible apprenticeship board representative of employers and employees – people who are dedicated to the concept of apprenticeship – we think we can redress, to the extent that redress is required, any imbalance which may have developed over the years of perhaps some neglect on the part of employers in discharging their roles. Through the board, and also through the industry advisory committees of which I spoke a few moments ago, we hope that we will be able to regenerate the attention and enthusiasm for apprenticeship which in some trades has been lacking.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, since this section deals with the qualifications needed and the way in which these will be evaluated, I'd like to ask the minister about subsection (2) and particularly (2) (c) where it states: "The Board shall herein decide appeals from decisions of the director of apprenticeship or an examining board." I'm just puzzled. Does this mean that when an apprentice fails an examination and chooses to differ in opinion from the examining board he can appeal to the provincial apprenticeship board? This is how it reads. It's quite clear. It says that the board shall hear and decide appeals from the decision of the director of apprenticeship or an examining board.

It seems to me there has got to be a definite distinction between examiners, whether it be in medicine or law or on apprenticeships, and the board supervising the whole area of qualification. In other words, if an intern were trying to get registered in British Columbia, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has all the legal power to determine the registering of that physician. But the people who would do the examinations on the person's capacity and expertise and skill should not have their decision questioned.

Now this may not be the intent of this section. But it reads, Mr. Chairman, as though an apprentice would have the right to appeal the decision of an examining board to the apprenticeship board. This to me would seem to make the situation very difficult for those persons who are examiners, who are given, presumably because of their own ability and experience, the responsibility of examining candidates to become full-fledged workers. Yet it would appear that these examining boards are subject to having their decision appealed by the apprentice who fails an exam. He can then, according to this, put an appeal to the provincial apprenticeship board. Now I don't think that's what the minister intends, but if he does intend that, it seems to me to create a very different situation for the examiners.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is no intention to override the examining boards except in the case where some discretion needs to be exercised. The examinations and the establishment of the boards, of course, are the responsibility of the director. We have a situation where a highly-skilled tradesman who may have emigrated to this province wishes to get a certificate. There is no question about his ability but he may, by reason of some difficulty with the language, have a problem with the fixed examination that is there and he would have to sit again and again perhaps in order to pass the exam. There is no discretion in the examining board or in the director to modify the examination to take that sort of thing into account.

But if there is no question about the man's skill by reason of the fact that he may have been many years in his trade, then that may be an opportunity where some discretion should be exercised, and that case is what the board is for. But it's not for the purposes of having this board as an escape mechanism from the examining board, except in extraordinary conditions such as those I have mentioned.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it disturbs me a little bit, the particular example that the Minister chose where an individual might be considered to be skilled in a trade but might have language problems or other problems, because, of course, in the professions we have exactly that problem. As the minister well knows, particularly in medicine, you can't get your licentiate of the Medical Council of Canada until you can speak English – and I'm not claiming that I speak English as others do. I just anticipated a comment

[ Page 5294 ]

from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

But I just wonder: would it not be wise to have some amendment to make much clearer the intent of this subsection? Because the way it is written, it leaves it as though the apprentice can appeal to the apprenticeship board any or all decisions of the examining board. Now the minister has made it plain that that's not the intent of the bill and maybe we're trying to be too specific on this issue. But the way it reads, there is no clarifying in this phrase or in this subsection (2) that it only would apply in the kind of examples that the minister quoted. Would the minister not consider that it's worthy of some greater definition of what kind of appeal is possible under this subsection?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that we will watch very carefully because, as I indicated a few moments ago, it is not our intention to provide any escape mechanism from the requirement of taking examinations or to use this as a way around the examining board. I think, however, in the example that I gave there is a distinction to be drawn between those persons who might be in an apprenticeable trade and those who pursue the profession of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . How do I say it? If you want to have any of your plumbing fixed you may not need the same kind of skill as if you have to have your plumbing fixed, if I make myself clear. I think there is a distinction there, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You must define plumbing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

I'm glad the member raised this because we thought that it was appropriate in setting up this board to also afford it the opportunity of having cases brought before them from an examining board because this is one way of determining whether the examining boards themselves are discharging their responsibilities properly, But I have, quite frankly, not contemplated the possibility that it could be abused. We'll watch it very carefully.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MS. SANFORD: This is the section which the minister indicated yesterday gives him quite wide-ranging powers. I quite agree with that. I have a couple of questions, though, with respect to an issue that I raised yesterday. That is: why is the director, with these wide-ranging powers, not able to arouse and promote the interest in the adoption of apprenticeship in trades, which was part of the old

Act?Now I know that the director can also carry out other duties as directed by the minister or the board, but it was purposely left out and I'm just wondering if the minister has any explanation for that. Why did they choose to leave that section out, which I thought was a good section in the last bill? I would really like to have the minister make a comment on that.

The other point that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, relates to section 12 (d) , where the director of apprenticeship shall "monitor the quality of apprenticeship training." Now I'm wondering if the minister would not agree that it might be better to have a committee undertake this function rather than leave it up to the director alone to assume that responsibility. I think that is a huge responsibility for one person to undertake – to determine what the standards are that are being maintained. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that as well.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, with respect to the responsibilities of the director to arouse and promote, that's rather antiquated language and we believe that what is in section 12 (h) , to "establish and maintain an information and counselling system for apprentices, " is similar.

MR. KING: What's antiquated about it? I've seen you aroused.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As one gets older, it becomes more difficult. (Laughter.)

If I might say with regard to subsection (d) , monitor the quality of apprenticeship training, " that is presently done today. We have a staff of apprenticeship counsellors in the ministry under the apprenticeship branch and that is their full-time job to make sure that the apprentices who are assigned to them as a responsibility are properly looked after. It can't be done by a committee. We have something like 12,000 apprentices in the province at the moment and to monitor their training by the use of a committee would be rather difficult. But the monitoring is not done by the director himself; it's done by his staff. It's his staff of apprenticeship counsellors who operate out of the Minister of Labour's offices in various areas throughout the province. They are on the spot and they are able to determine whether or not an apprentice is receiving the appropriate level of training. You will notice that there are provisions in the subsequent sections of the Act which give the director the power to move in if the training is not proper and make some significant changes in the agreement and in the arrangement.

MR. WALLACE: Again in relation to examining boards, under section 12 it reads as though the director on his own will appoint the members of

[ Page 5295 ]

examining boards. I just wonder again whether the minister could give a quick comment on the mechanism to be used. Will it, in fact, be the director who will choose the individual persons to serve on the examining boards? Would it not have been better to have the apprenticeship board itself, which consists of 9 to 11 people, select those persons who would serve on the examining boards? These examining boards are going to be pretty important components of this whole legislation and, as the minister himself said a moment ago, there has to be a mechanism to ensure that the examining boards are fulfilling their required function. Surely that is more likely to happen if you have very prudent and careful choice of the members of an examining board. It seems to me you are placing a lot of faith and hope in one single individual if the director of apprenticeship is given the authority, as in section 12 (e) , to choose the individuals who will serve on the examining boards.

. HON. MR. WILLIAMS; Mr. Chairman, if I may refer the member for Oak Bay back to section 11 (2) , he will notice that it is mandatory that the board "establish trade advisory committees and examining boards and specify their duties and rules of practice and procedure, " so the examining boards are, in fact, a creature of the provincial apprenticeship board and not of the director.

But with 12,000 apprentices in various parts of the province the practice is that the examining boards are in fact panels of skilled tradesmen in whatever the trade might be. It becomes an administrative task for the director to select from the panel examiners who will be available in various parts of the province as the need arises. Therefore, what the member refers to in section 12 (e) – the appointment of members – is really an administrative responsibility to select from the panel that the board has already created the persons who will serve from time to time. It's quite a turnover because it's an onerous responsibility, so that the panels are usually quite large.

Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, in section 20 (2) , 1 find this passage: "The director of apprenticeship may give credit to a person for the period of his employment or training in a trade before this Act applies to the grade." The word "his, " Mr. Chairman.

I am not being humorous or facetious, One of the areas where there is potential for bringing about equality of opportunity in employment, particularly in training, is through the area of the apprenticeship programme. I find the reference to "his" to be sexist in implication. It's an area where a real thrust can be made to provide opportunity for women. The

Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) shouldn't sneer at that, Mr. Chairman. It's singular in terms of...

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Sexist?

MR. KING: Well, certainly. The word precludes women, Mr. Minister, in my view. I don't think that's the intent of the Minister of Labour. If the hotliner finds that humorous, I disagree with him, Mr. Chairman.

The problem is that it's only a few years ago that the first women in the province of British Columbia, under the stewardship of the New Democratic Party, were accepted in apprenticeship training courses in this province. Just about three years ago. It's about time that women had full availability to whatever industrial training courses they choose to participate in and compete in,

Certainly I'm not accusing the Minister of Labour of any intent, but I think by implication the reference to "his" – the masculine – is disincentive to women going in and it appears to be exclusive of women. I think that's ill-advised and I wish the minister would have a serious look at changing that to language which would not imply sexism or the preclusion of one gender, however you want to term it. I think that could be done by amending that section to read "their" employment, rather than "his" or "her." That might do it.

I certainly don't presume to give the minister legal advice, but I think an alternate word could be found that would remove the connotation that is offensive, not only psychologically, but I think in real terms.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that section 20 (2) be amended by deleting the word "his" in the fifth line. I think that that pronoun can come out without losing any offence to the section. It will now read: "May give credit to a person for the period of employment or training in a trade before this Act applies to the trade."

Amendment approved

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On section 23, Mr. Chairman, I move the deletion in subsection (2) (a) , in the fourth line of that subsection, of the word "minimum.”

Amendment approved.

[ Page 5296 ]

On section 23 as amended.

MR. LEVI: Here the bonding relates to the school and then I think a little later on it does relate in part to the student. I was actually going to bring this up at the end, but I noticed it. In terms of the bonding, that's a performance related to the school itself, as a trade school. Is there a requirement in terms of bonding for the individual student? If there is, I have a question on that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the bonding is with respect to the school and not with respect to the students. Perhaps I could explain that the amount and the terms of the bond are subject to the discretion of the director. The reason for that is that it varies depending upon the nature of the school, the number of students who are attending the school or likely to attend the school, and the nature of the tuition that is charged. That's the case under the present legislation. It's the school that's bonded, not the students.

Section 23 as amended approved.

On section 24.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I was just puzzled on section 24 (2) , by the minister's comments when we started committee reading dealing with interpretation. He said that the minister could, or the trade school definition.... He was explaining how it had to be described as a person, but that it could exempt in writing those cases where, perhaps, there was a very small number of individuals involved and the school was not registered.

Yet in section 24, which we're now debating, it says: "No trade school shall operate as such unless it is registered under this section." Now how can you have it both ways? Can you enter into agreements with the federal government for certain payments, having excluded the trade school, while within the very same bill you can't call it a trade school unless it's registered?

I'm confused at this apparent contradiction, which the minister referred to when he was giving the definition or interpretation of "trade school" under section 1.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is to be found in the fact that we can take a particular training institution and I can exempt it from falling within the definition of trade school, and therefore, it is not subject to section 24.

Now I wish to assure the member that the instances where such exemptions would be provided are extremely limited, and they arc generally provided in cases where an industry is operating its own school. Let me, for the sake of an example, take the Finning Tractor Company, which operates a highly qualified school for training people related to that particular industry. It may be necessary to oblige them to register, because they draw their students from a very narrow ambit and everyone recognizes what is taking place. They're not just sort of offering positions on the open market, as is the case with other trade schools. It's a bit of a closed operation. Well, it isn't necessary for them to register because the students that they train ... the basis upon which they are made available through Manpower has already been thoroughly investigated and registration isn't therefore essential, with bonding and so on.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just be clear on this, Mr. Chairman? The minister is saying then – if we could use the word "closed" to quickly define what we're talking about – with a closed, small institution like the Finning Tractor example, there could be federal-provincial cost sharing in regard to that school, although it is not registered. The fact that it is not registered is covered by the interpretation under section 1, which gives the minister the very authority that it not be registered. That does open the door to deciding how small is a small, closed school, or what kind of discretion is to be used in determining if some schools are small enough or closed enough that the minister, in his discretion, can exclude them from the provisions of section 24.

Section 24 is a pretty blunt, direct statement that says: "No trade school shall operate as such unless it is registered under this section." Yet we now have determined that under the interpretation section, section 1, certain training institutes or small, closed training facilities can in fact be looked upon apparently by the federal government as a trade school and some money is forthcoming. Yet in point of fact it is not registered as a trade school. It seems to me this is a dangerous contradiction in two sections in the same bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:Mr. Chairman, if I can refer the member for Oak Bay to the definition of "trade school, " it means "a person who teaches a trade to students for compensation." Now in industrial training techniques where training is taking place within an industrial organization, funds are made available for Canada Manpower and may be made available from the provincial government in order to finance the cost of the operation of that school, instructors and so on. That may be deemed to be compensation. Yet by the very nature of its operation, the way it gets its funds – it doesn't charge any tuition to the students themselves, and it's not in the market of advertising that it offers this training for a fee – the other requirements that would normally apply to a trade school aren't

[ Page 5297 ]

necessary. It has to qualify in the first instance before thy moneys are made available from Canada Manpower or through the Ministry of Labour. The examination takes place at that level. You know that no fees are being charged, it's for purposes of upgrading existing employees. Rather than having them run foul of the obligation to register, we're giving the power to exempt them.

Sections 24 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76, Apprenticeship and Training Development Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 76, Apprenticeship and Training Development Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 88.

LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have a few comments on the proposed amendments in this bill. The changes which are proposed for this Act this session result from a detailed study of the Land Commission Act over the past couple of years and some experiences with the Act for that period of time. During that period of time, certain weaknesses were identified and noted; some redundancies were also identified. The amendments work towards resolving some of these redundancies and weaknesses.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that many of these weaknesses or redundancies, as the case may be, were pointed out by representatives within the Land Commission over the period of the last two or three years to this government and to the previous government. This is the first opportunity of amendments to the Act – at least the first opportunity that's been brought to the House.

Basically, the bill before the House, the Land Commission Act as it is known now, is being revised to, first, clearly identify the purpose of the Land Commission – that is, to work toward the preservation of agricultural land, to better identify lands within and without agricultural land reserves as to their suitability for agricultural purposes.

The demands upon the commission for such other land uses as parks, greenbelts or land banks will be removed from the Act, and these responsibilities will be taken over by other line departments of government at no loss to the citizens of British Columbia.

The terms of office for the land commissioners, as they are now known, are defined. In addition, regional advisers may be appointed to assist land commissioners in their deliberations with regard to specific lands which will come within the area of that regional adviser. The adviser's terms in office, if we wish to call it office are also defined.

Modifications are also made in the amendments to permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to better control the lands within an agricultural land reserve by providing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council powers to attach terms and conditions to any lands that may be exempted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. At the present time, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is permitted to exclude lands but is not allowed to attach terms and conditions under the Act.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, public hearings must be held if a regional district, a municipality or the Land Commission makes application to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for exclusion of land. At the present time this is not a requirement.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as well, will be able to hear applications from the regional districts or municipalities or the Land Commission when a request is made by one of those a-Teas of jurisdiction for use of lands within an agricultural land reserve which would not exclude the property but would permit other than farm use.

These powers presently are in the hands of the Land Commission and they are held by the Land Commission exclusively. They e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is restricted under the present Act to exclude only, not permit other than farm use as may the Land Commission at this time. The amendments would, therefore, give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council parallel powers to those held now by the Land Commission.

Amendments also provide for an appellant to further appeal his case, if denied by the Land Commission, directly to the minister who may, under certain circumstances, permit an appeal – not permit the application but permit an appeal – to go forward to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

[ Page 5298 ]

Presently the Land Commission again is empowered to allow this, but only the Land Commission at the present time is empowered to allow such an appeal. This procedure, if we adopt these amendments, will allow a citizen of the province the right to appeal to an elected representative rather than be denied such avenue o appeal by a board that is appointed.

Other amendments to the Act, Mr. Speaker, will allow an owner of land who desires to consolidate his holdings, if he holds several parcels of land, to do so without the necessity of a very expensive legal survey. This would be done by agreeing to a covenant with the Land Commission.

Over the past year or year and a half we have found several examples where possible consolidation of farmlands would have occurred had the person owning the property not been faced with considerable legal survey costs. We have had several requests from persons who wish to consolidate asking us if there was some possible way they could consolidate without these large costs. This would permit this.

Additionally, the new amendments will allow the Land Commission or the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council to compel persons to post a bond to ensure that terms and conditions, as set out in an exclusion situation or perhaps for permitted use, are met when they are applied to successful applications.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the changes proposed will provide for a somewhat improved appeal system and a better representation of persons making sue decisions on land within an agricultural land reserve

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, intended to be brief but I wonder, since it's close to o'clock, if the government would be willing to accept a motion to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Skelly moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the House

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

APPENDIX

33 The Hon. P. L. McGeer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 33)

intituled Independent Schools Support Act, to amend as follows:

Section 9 (2) , line 3: By deleting "on" and substituting "by"

Section 11: By deleting section 11.

Section 12: By renumbering the section as section 11, by deleting subsection (2) , and by renumbering subsection (3) as subsection (2) .

Section 13: By renumbering the section as section 12.

In subsection (1) , by deleting "Group 1, Group 2 or local support grant"

and substituting "Group 1 or Group 2 grant".

Section 14: By renumbering the section as section 13.

Section 15: By renumbering the section as section 14.