[ Page 1075 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 1075

Mr. Jones

Ms. A. Hagen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Cashore

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset I'd like to ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts to meet later today for the business of organization.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 18.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure to rise and continue our debate and discussion of Bill 20, providing an opportunity for the opposition to review each clause and to point out our concerns with each section, those sections that we are supportive of, and to try to offer some constructive criticism to the government regarding our concerns.

Section 18 is a very short section –– 1 guess - and the minister has heard this concern before - my concern is when I see five. This section allows for the chairperson or any five members of the council to call a meeting of the council. It's just that number five. When 1 see the five members, 1 think of the five government appointees. The whole point of the power of this council, and the potential power of five appointees, with the top-down kind of approach that this council seems to be taking versus a more grassroots approach that gives power to the annual general meeting . . I suggested yesterday the need for the setting of a quorum for the council, and even suggested the section where that quorum might come in. Without that, it leaves open the possibility that the five government appointees could call a special meeting of the council, and then in themselves constitute a quorum for such meeting.

1 know the minister will suggest that we're pointing out the worst-case scenario and that the council itself will set a quorum, and that the section of the bill does provide for appropriate notice to be given to the other members of the council, to prevent the possibility of that happening. But when we're scrutinizing and vetting this legislation, we have to look at these implications. Even though they may be remote possibilities, it's important that, before the legislation passes through this House, all members have an opportunity to see that these possibilities do exist.

1 know the minister has been very patient in his responses, and I'm sure he has been through this legislation many times, and with the BCSTA and the BCTF, but I'm hoping that the opposition is pointing out some concerns that the minister has not heard before. When we do view this legislation, we want to see that checks and balances are provided and to point out those sections where we don't think there are appropriate checks and balances. I don't think we can always rely on the doctrine of reasonable people behaving reasonably; perhaps if we did, we wouldn't see this entire bill here today.

So I would like to point out to the minister the concern about the number five, and that it does have connotations that I think are inappropriate for the legislation and do ring alarm bells. I would just leave that with the minister, and suggest that had we had a quorum set earlier, then we wouldn't see the five members here.

Section 18 approved.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, in the gallery today we have a visitor from the town of Smithers, Mr. Francis Stan. Would the House make him welcome, please.

On section 19.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, this section of the bill allows the council to defray expenses of its members or any members appointed to its committees. When I see the phrase "to defray expenses, " that often means incurred expenses and does not always include the opportunity for reimbursement for lost income. I think this section raises the question of who is to cover the lost salaries of members of the council or college who are working on college business for the college or committees of the college.

The closest analogy to this is the work done by the teaching profession for the BCTF or for the ministry, and when teachers are involved in that kind of business, the School Act provides for leave of absence with the substitute costs being home by the sponsoring body.

With regard to this section, can the minister tell us whether college members will be granted leave of absence under the School Act for business of the college and its committees? Can the minister anticipate whether or not such provisions will be adequate to cover the amount of time required for college business and whether the college will pay for substitute costs for time incurred doing business of the college?

[10:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, that will be up to the college and the school boards. At the present time I believe the leave is covered not in the act but in the regulations. So if recommendations come forward for that to be covered in the regulations, we'll look at it at that point.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is quite a large section. It governs the general powers of the council, and it gives us our first opportunity since looking at the object of the council to examine how this particular body will function. I have a number of questions to the minister, and I'll try to go through them as they follow through in this particular clause.

[ Page 1076 ]

First of all, this clause is permissive. It notes: "The council shall, subject to this act, govern and administer the affairs of the college and, without limiting the generality of this, may" - and then goes on to note some of the activities that the council may undertake. It is a very, very wide range of activities relating to the specific mandate of the college under the areas of discipline, qualifications and professional development. It then goes specifically into some of the structures that the college may employ. The clause deals fairly extensively, then, with matters relating to teacher education and continuing teacher education.

I'd like the minister, first of all, to comment on the permissiveness that 1 understand is implicit in the use of the word "may." I'd like to ask what his purpose is in then defining some of the specific tasks that the college would undertake, and to ask him to comment, too, about whether he sees other models that the college might indeed decide to put in place and to follow consistent with the spirit of the act.

This clause is quite specific - for example, in terms of subsection (b), where it sets up an executive committee, and it's quite specific, too, in the latter clauses, particularly in (f) and (g). So I'd like the minister to comment about the degree of permissiveness that is here and whether there is some flexibility in the council in following through with some of the direction that seems to exist within this clause as a whole.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The term "may" in the Interpretation Act has two acceptable meanings: one of them is "permissive- and the other is "empowering." In other words, it allows the college to, in effect, run the affairs of the college, but they are as per the act. So I'm not quite sure what the member's concern is when we say that the elected council may administer the affairs of the organization. That seems to be standard procedure in any organization.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister then, in explaining the interpretation of those words, to comment about what the balance is here, permissive or empowering, and how he sees that word being interpreted in relation to this particular clause.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, 1 don't think any act spells out every interpretation of every word in the English language. May, the permissive, means they may choose to do so. If they choose to do so, then they are empowered to carry that out.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the second part of 21, the section establishes the appointment of an executive committee consisting of the chairman and not fewer than six other council members, with a quorum of four, and notes that there may be considerable delegation to this committee. Could the minister comment on the government's intention in establishing this executive committee and perhaps suggest some examples of the duties and powers that it sees this executive committee taking to itself

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, 1 think the intent of an executive committee in any organization, whether it be chamber of commerce or anything in the province, is that they generally appoint an executive committee. Then, as it says in the act, "with the limitations or conditions considered necessary, " they can delegate any powers to this executive committee except a few that we felt were the prerogative of the total council.

So again, the intent is fairly clear: they can have a working committee of the council that can pay bills and do certain things as authorized by the bylaws that the council establishes.

MS. A. HAGEN: Is it the expectation of the government in the establishment of this council that the members of the council, either some or all, will have full-time responsibilities for this council, or that they will in fact be part-time responsibilities? Is it possible that members of the executive council, the chairman, or other members of the executive committee - if that is what the council chooses to establish - might be full-time people? Would the chairpersons of the discipline or the qualifications or the professional development committees be full-time people? Or would these people be performing their duties as well as continuing to act as fulltime professionals in their respective school districts?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we are getting into the area that we did yesterday, that "anything is possible " type of thing, and "what have you done about it?" What we have said is that the college council can decide how involved they are going to be, if they stick with policy and hire a lot of the work done and give direction in that respect. It may be a part-time council. I don't know. The college might decide that it requires a full-time chairman, and that other members will meet. I don't see anything different about that than any other organization; for instance, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It started out with part-time people doing it and moved to full-time. But that is the council's decision, and accountable to the members.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. All of these things, then, that are to come to pass surely involve not only time but cost. I'd like to move now to explore the issue of fees. As this particular clause notes, the executive committee that may be established is excepted from setting fees payable by members. When the issue of fees came up when we were first getting into committee discussion on Friday, the minister noted . . I'd like to just read his comment from the Blues: "If the member would read subsequent sections of the act, neither the council, the executive, the minister nor anyone can set the fees that the college will assess to its own members. They are for operating costs, and that has to go to the total membership through their annual general meeting. That's the only body that can approve those membership fees."

I'm the first to admit, Mr. Chairman, that I don't pretend to be an expert yet on this bill, although I have read it many times. I am not clear, in reading the bill, how in fact fees are authorized. It's not clear to me that the bill states what the minister seemed to indicate to us on Friday. I would like, at this time, to ask the minister if he would please clarify for us how fees are to be established and in what part of the act we would find that information, so that we may understand who authorizes them and how they are authorized through the act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, Mr. Chairman, it's easy enough to take the answer to one question and then apply it to another. But I think there is something implicit in the democratic system that perhaps the member is not aware of. The council may set the fees. They may say: "The fees shall be so

[ Page 1077 ]

much." I have no difficulty with that at all in that the council is elected by and accountable to the teachers. So they can set any fees they want, if you want to put it in those terms. They can say: "We're going to set this horrible fee." If the members, through their representation, through their vote, do not support it, then there ain't no fee.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

So by interpretation, in a democratic organization, any executive can say the fee shall be so much. Maybe that means setting the fee, but that fee is not in existence until it is verified by the membership or supported by the membership. To say in every clause that the council may call a meeting but that the meeting has to be verified by the members - to use some ludicrous extremes here . . The council is the elected representative of the people it serves and therefore accountable to them.

MS. A. HAGEN: I could perhaps then presume that one of the things the council might do in respect to its annual meeting, which we did discuss at length yesterday, would be to have some process for the authorization of those fees, although this is not in fact prescribed by the act. It appears that the council has the authority in some form or other to be the body that takes full responsibility for the costs of this organization, and, depending on its bylaws and on how the annual meeting is run, there may or may not be any accountability except through the electoral process. It seems to me that although the act is very specific in many areas, this issue of fees and who is responsible for setting those fees is a major issue, especially when one looks at the many tasks that are being delegated to this particular organization. Those tasks are very extensive in respect to the education sector of our province.

Let's move on to some of the matters relating to professional development and qualifications. These are encompassed in two very important sections of this particular clause, (f) and (g). In subsection (f) there is a reference to establishing and maintaining a system of continuing teacher education. I would like the minister to interpret and explain the word "systeMAY so I can understand what in fact that word is intended to encompass here.

[10:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Obviously, if the college is dealing with qualifications and certification of teachers, they have to have the role of improving that so that they can, in effect, deal with improving the competence and performance of a member they might judge to need professional upgrading. They do not have to get into specific training programs. They could, for instance, indicate that a person should take a certain course in order to qualify for certification. Those are the professional types of things. The courses can be offered by anyone. They don't have to set up a teacher training institute; they can refer that to the existing institutes. I'd like to remind the member to go back to the word "may" that precedes all of these sections and that makes this permissive. They don't have to do this. How can they possibly deal with certifications, qualifications, upgrading and improvement of performance if they are prohibited from any role in that regard?

MS. A. HAGEN: I take it from the minister's response that he does not see this particular body having total responsibility for this area, although the word "systeMAY certainly does suggest a fairly encompassing perspective.

In the United States there are some fairly specific kinds of requirements that are a part of upgrading and continuing education. There are also the more permissive kinds of plans that simply say that we have to be sure that something is in place.

How does the minister see this body interfacing with the faculties of education at the universities, the kind of work that goes on in school districts? What role does he see this council filling in relation to existing programs that are quite extensively in place in this province at this time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would imagine that in most cases what the college would look at is that they accept the training program of a certain institution. They might make recommendation that, say, all teachers, all training institutions, should include a specific course. They might suggest that because of some new development in the profession or some new demands on the profession, institutions consider incorporating some sort of a training program to match that.

Probably the example that comes easiest to mind is the way computers are moving into the school system. I'm only speculating here, I'm not trying to tell the college what to do, but they might suggest to teacher training institutions that all graduates, in order to be acceptable in this day and age, might perhaps have at least a basic course in computers - because they walk out into the schools and there are the computers -to save the in-service that needs to be followed up. There were all sorts of things. When I was a phys-ed teacher, there was a recommendation that if I wanted to be a phys-ed teacher I should . . Every phys-ed teacher had to have some first aid training. I found that quite acceptable because you were working with possible physical injuries. So those are the kinds of things. As I say, I'm basically just using a few examples from experience and from interpolation, if you like, of what might be needed.

MS. A. HAGEN: It would appear then that the minister envisages this particular work to be relatively ad hoc and that there will be other groups that will continue to Provide in-service education. It doesn't appear to me in reading this clause that some of the very extensive work that has been done in this whole area has been taken into account in structure or in implementation. I've been aware of and very impressed by two previous studies which were done by the Joint Board of Teacher Education, one I think in 1977 or 1978, commonly called the McGregor report, The Education and Training of Teachers in British Columbia, and then a further report a year or two later, Preparation of Teachers for the Public Schools of British Columbia, with a really prestigious committee of deans and members of the faculties of education, senior people from the Ministry of Education, B.C. School Trustees' Association representatives and lay members. That particular report provides a very, very comprehensive document proposal for not only the training of teachers but also the in-service and retraining of teachers and the governance of that training. It notes all throughout that report the importance of a conceptual framework, of the need for consultation and involvement by the parties that are involved.

[ Page 1078 ]

1 don't see in this particular move to supposedly give to the professionals the opportunity to have a wider say in their certification and in their training the sort of thing that really recognizes those partnerships. For example, we don't have on the council any representation from the trustees. We don't have a suggestion that they will necessarily be the policymaking body. They may do things in relation to upgrading and in-service, but it is not necessarily their mandate to take responsibility for that.

I think one of the things that we have said over the years is that there needs to be a group that is mandated to take that responsibility. The report, for instance, of the joint board recommends that a new joint board of teacher education continue to operate under appropriate legislation and that it be established as a corporate entity to carry out this comprehensive and coherent and well-defined process, and it acknowledges the partners - the Ministry of Education, the faculties of education at our universities, the teachers' organization, the trustees and lay people. It seems to me in this regard that we have another ad hoc group that may take some responsibility, that may pick up on some needs as they perceive it, but nobody who has an overall responsibility, although presumably this group might decide that it was going to take that on.

Again, there are costs involved with this particular in-service upgrading or retraining kind of activity. Because I have not been in the system for a couple of years, I would like the minister to confirm for me that within the fiscal framework there is some allowance to school districts for in- service training of teachers; that that is one of the elements of the fiscal framework that allows school boards to have some responsibility in the area of continuing education.

I'd like the minister to comment on what the situation will be with the new college. Is it the intent that school boards will continue to have dollars available to it? Is it a possibility that the college will be undertaking, through the fees of its members, a more expanded role in teacher education? Is there some devolving of costs on to teachers that are presently included in the funding that comes through the fiscal framework and the budgets of school boards?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would seem that we are trying to get into debate on the whole area of education, fiscal framework, budgeting and all of those sorts of things. This is completely irrelevant in this section.

The college is a professional body that may provide services to its members. That does not mean that they are going to take over everything that exists - reinvent the wheel. The member makes a point of many good reports that have been done, suggestions that have been done. Perhaps if you want to move ahead, subsection (g) says: " . approve for certification purposes the program of any established faculty of teacher education or school of teacher education." So the college may say that if you have taken these courses, like in any profession - engineers, lawyers, doctors . . When you get admitted to the bar, they don't set up a course. They don't take over the training of lawyers. What they do is say that if you have a certificate of graduation from that institution, we have recognized that as a valid institution and therefore you qualify.

Further on, in section 26, 1 believe, it says they can cooperate and work with any educational institution, any other group that is interested. This legislation is not intended to replace or take over the whole educational structure; it is basically intended, in this case, to deal in an acceptable way with the qualification and certification of teachers. Right now it is the prerogative of the ministry to say what is acceptable and what isn't. This legislation turns those powers over to the college, to their own professional colleagues. They will be the judge of what qualifies them to be a teacher, to be acceptable, to get the certificate. That's really what we are doing here, not setting up a total new institution –– 1 don't even know how the member finds that even implicit in this act, let alone stated.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, 1 think what I am pursuing here is who is going to be responsible for policies in regard to this whole very important part of our education system.

The minister has indicated that certain tasks may be undertaken by the college. Certain tasks may –– 1 presume he has answered - continue to be undertaken by school districts. Certain tasks may be undertaken by the schools of teacher training and education. They may be undertaken presumably by whatever group is formed by the teachers in pursuit of their working and teaching conditions.

My intent in exploring the word "systeMAY and exploring the perspective of costs is to try to get some idea in this regard about whether the minister has any thought about who is going to be responsible for broad policies in this area, and who is going to be responsible then for funding the implementation of those policies, because 1 would suggest, through the Chair to the minister, that one of the most important issues, certainly one the minister seems to be addressing at least in part in this act, is the training and the qualifications and the upgrading and the currency of teacher certification.

The very fact that we have the kinds of studies that we have over the past number of years - studies, 1 might note, that the ministry has shelved, that it has not acted on - leaves me concerned that we have a policy vacuum here. Where we have a policy vacuum, we also tend to have some ambivalence around the issues of who is going to fund those activities. That is what 1 am trying to get at here.

[10:45]

We can pursue it in either (f ) or (g). I'm pursuing it now, in terms of the in-service, because that clearly is a fairly dispersed activity, undertaken by a number of parties, but there doesn't seem to be in this act any further initiative that would take us toward the establishment of some policymaking body.

Is the ministry going to continue to have any concern about these issues? As a result of that concern that may be manifested in policy, is it going to continue to have some financial responsibility? I think it's important in our understanding of this act to know what the responsibilities of the various actors in the education field are going to be and to try to understand how this act will impact on the work and the responsibilities of others. So if the minister could perhaps give us some indication of what his ongoing commitment as the Minister of Education will be in these areas of in-service training and upgrading and in the area of financing, 1 might have a better feeling about what responsibilities then might devolve onto this new College of Teachers, which may establish a system but which the minister suggests doesn't have to. In his examples he has suggested more that they would pick up on particular needs, whether it be for computer training or for some special kind of upgrading that is seen as being very current. It's a constant kind of issue, and one that from the

[ Page 1079 ]

point of view of that profession we need to have some clear understanding of, in terms of who is going to be responsible, who's going to set policy and who's going to fund. If the minister could comment on that, it would help me to better understand what this role is going to be.

HON. BA. SMITH: 1 ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

HON. B. R. SMITH: In the gallery today are 24 grade 11 students from Oak Bay high school, along with their teacher, Mr. Russell Ball. They are here to listen to the Legislature in session. It's fitting perhaps that they're here when there's a bill dealing with the professional future of teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: 1 seem to be answering questions here not on the legislation so much as on anything and everything that the opposition members, for whatever purpose, want to attribute to the legislation. You want to know whether we're going to keep funding education. Of course. This act has nothing to do with funding education; that's another issue. The ministry right now is into curriculum development, and the best forum that has been considered for curriculum development has been for people from the ministry to work with people in the field to see what the concerns are. There's a whole curriculum process. It doesn't say anywhere here that the ministry's going to fold up and go away. Whenever we put out a new program of studies, whenever we do a revised curriculum in any subject . . Built into any of that is always in-service training and so on –– 1 can't tell you how much the amount will be three years from now if a new curriculum comes in.

For instance, the new family life education program of studies and curriculum guide have been slated for September 1989. In our ministry budgeting we build into that, automatically, concerns for in-service, for training, for making people familiar with it. There are various processes: people going out into the field, bringing people in - representatives from various areas. To expand on that, the member perhaps may be aware that just a week or so ago we announced that the sex education program for AIDS education will be put into the schools, for 7 to 12, in September; with that, we put an amount of money, which included materials, in-service training, coordination and all of that sort of thing.

So that doesn't say that all of a sudden we're going to turn all of this over to the college. But neither would 1 want the college to be prevented from doing any professional upgrading of their members, as in any other profession. So this is what this says. It has nothing to do with budget and curriculum and all of these other things that have been thrown out there to create what I call a false anxiety that, somehow or other, all of the load that the ministry is doing is going to be now turned over to the college. No, we're not getting out of education in the province and turning it all over to the college; we're staying in there.

MRS. BOONE: Further to what you said just a moment ago, Mr. Minister, when you were indicating that you were not getting out of the education business - I'm glad to see that; we should get into it - one of the concerns that 1 have is that there are costs that are associated with the various things certificates and the accreditation of the various faculties of education, etc. These are things that the ministry has done in the past, and there are costs associated with them. It appears that these costs are going to go directly onto the backs of the teachers, who will be assessed something through their annual general meeting, as you say, in a democratic process, on a fee structure, and who will then be charged for things that in the past have been ministry responsibilities. Is there any move by the ministry to provide funding for any of the things that the ministry previously did, such as issuing of certificates? Does the minister intend to follow with those items the cash value that the ministry already has?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: 1 can assure you, the only thing that prompts remarks from me such as "No, we're not getting out of education, - to get, "Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that, " is because it was never considered. It's the role of the Education minister and ministry to carry on with education. But it's only when the suggestions seem to come that somehow or other we're going to turn over our entire mandate to someone else –– 1 can assure you that is not the case.

The member said they will be charged for all of these activities. You keep missing the essential point in this legislation: the teachers will elect their representatives, and they will decide how many of these programs to go into and how much their members are willing to pay in order to do it. I'm not charging them. The government isn't going to charge them. Their own people will decide how much they're willing to put into this program.

MRS. BOONE: 1 think the minister misunderstood me here. There are things that they have no choice about, You must be certified; a teacher must maintain the certification. Right now the ministry is responsible for issuing certification. This is now going to be the responsibility of the college. Is there going to be money funded? Is the money going to follow that responsibility? You are now putting that responsibility into the hands of the college. Will the money that was there in the Ministry of Education be following that responsibility, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps it might help the member if the estimate is that it might cost about $10 to $15 per member to provide them with their certificate. Maybe that will alleviate some of your concerns.

We wanted the college to be an autonomous body. We have said that we will pick up the cost of the first election. We have indicated in the negotiations that if there is a massive registration process where they now have to be registered under the college . . We have that function now, we have a budget for that sort of thing, and we're quite willing to see that through.

When everything is in place and the college is simply maintaining the list –– 1 don't know how much cost there is to maintain the list in the computer or on the files, and 1 don't know how much the cost will be just to consider the new applicants - at that point perhaps the college might well be autonomous. But certainly there is no intention to just step out of this. This is what 1 keep saying: we're not turning all of this over.

When the college gets into the fee structure of what they're going to do and that sort of thing, 1 think it's going to be a very nominal amount to run their profession. There are a lot of people there. If they and their members want to expand

[ Page 1080 ]

and get into other programs, it will be their decision as to how far they want to go and how much money they want to spend and, ipso facto, what fees they have to charge.

MRS. BOONE: It is my understanding that the ministry spends approximately $500, 000 per year on the section of the ministry that deals with certification. As anybody knows, there is a bureaucracy that follows any procedure. I think you're missing the point if you're saying that there is not going to be a cost value there, because there is going to be a cost, and there is going to be a cost when you're looking at approving certification for programs at the established faculties. You're going to have to have people on staff to go out and make sure that the faculties of education are functioning and presenting the necessary programs. So there are costs there. I think the ministry is missing the point here if they don't see that there has to be some transfer of money from the Ministry of Education to this teacher college in order to maintain the functions that you have given to this college.

I don't think I'm going to get an answer on that question, but I would like to ask you something with regard to what my colleague was going on about: professional development days. Currently there are a lot of professional development days done locally. They're called local pro-D days, and they're done by the local associations. As there are not going to be any local associations now - as you stated earlier when we were talking about the zones, etc. - and the associations will be dealing strictly with bargaining, how will these local pro-D days take place? Maybe the question to you is: will all professional development that takes place in districts be from the college down to the local level?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have some difficulty spending time answering questions where the answer should be self-evident.

Right now, pro-D days are carried on in a district . . Nothing to do with this legislation. This is the professional governance of teachers and how that operates - nothing to do with the pro-D days. If a local association now chooses to bring in a speaker, they tell their members, you know, that we have a $10 registration fee for the convention or whatever you want to call it, and they pay for that. They have that.

There will be local associations in this legislation. The local associations will decide what they do. How many pro-D days they have in the district during school days, or how many they have on weekends, will be negotiated with their boards. So I don't know how the member connects this to the college. The college is dealing with the professional role of teachers. Now if they choose . . I can't see the members from the local associations saying: "We'll send you all the money, and then you put on the pro-D days in our district."

I really happen to believe that the locals now look after their professional development activities and that they Will continue to do so. We're not eliminating local associations here. They'll have the full power that they have now.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like some clarification, because I'm really confused. I understood that the local associations, or the unions or whatever the teachers chose to have, would be dealing strictly with bargaining and would not be dealing with any type of professional development at all. That was the understanding that I had, and that the college was to be there as a function that dealt with professional development.

Now maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Can the minister clarify that: will the union, if it chooses to become a full bargaining unit, then be responsible for the professional development of its members?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All we're saying in this legislation is that the local union or association shall be the collective bargaining agent. Nowhere does it say that they may not do anything else for their members. How do you read that into this act? It simply says they may bargain for them. It doesn't say: but they'll have to stop breathing."

[11:00]

MRS. BOONE: This legislation states that the council for the college "may . . . matters allocated to the professional development committee . . . ... I understood that the college would be the group dealing with professional development, from remarks during the debate on second reading and from what the minister has indicated - that that was taken out of the BCTFs hands because you did not feel that the BCTF was handling that properly. I remember the minister stating that he was concerned because at an annual general meeting there had been no statements regarding professional development, and it was therefore necessary to establish a college because the BCTF was not interested in professional development and only interested in political activities. So I'm really very confused as to what the intent of the college is if it's not going to do professional development. If local associations or unions are still going to do professional development, is the college only there as a disciplinary body? I'm confused as to what your intent on this is, Mr. Minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a couple more questions that I'd like to ask the minister in connection with subsection (g). It appears from subsection (g) that the college has exclusive power over accreditation of teacher education programs. It says that the council shall "approve for certification purposes the program of any established faculty of teacher education or school of teacher education." First of all, I'd like to ask the minister if this is a procedure and a clause unique to British Columbia. Are there other jurisdictions where professional bodies of teachers have this responsibility? Upon that answer, I'd like to pursue another question in that regard.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All this does is transfer what the minister now does to their own professional body. The minister now must say: "This school is acceptable for a certificate - through the ministry." He doesn't do everything himself, but the minister has to authorize that. And this simply turns that over to the college. It's certification -what's acceptable for certification. Now the minister has to decide; under this, the college - their own colleagues will have to decide.

MS. A. HAGEN: Apropos my earlier comments about policy and some of the concerns about course content and the process by which teachers are trained, it seems to me that we are avoiding the issue and its implications. There may be an assumption that the college is going to undertake a much more extensive role in this regard than the ministry has been prepared to. And certainly, if we're looking at a process of program review and research, that's a fairly major task. There

[ Page 1081 ]

are costs and staff involved. I think the public interest is very much of concern in this particular matter, because the public has always noted that it wants to have some say in it. Is it the minister's intention that the full cost of this particular effort be borne by the teachers, or does he have in mind some other suggestions about funding for this particular subsection and the accreditation process?

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: 1 want to know who is going to pay for this process. 1 want to know whether it is going to be the teachers, or whether the minister is going to contribute to the process. 1 also want to know whether the minister has any concern for, if you like, the public's input into this matter. As the report of the joint board notes, the public's welfare should be protected by certification processes. I'm not suggesting it's not protected by teachers; but the school trustees, for example, are not represented in any way in this whole process. Is the entire process of teacher certification or accreditation now to rest with the college? Who's going to pay for that? Has the ministry any ongoing responsibility either in policy or cost with that? Will the school trustees have any input into that accreditation process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: School trustees - anybody -will have input. We did have quite a discussion on "with regard to the public interest" in an earlier clause, so 1 feel that there's ample opportunity for public input. But the college themselves . . . . The people will decide that, and 1 don't know how onerous a process it is to say: "We have a recognized institute of teacher training, and we recognize that." If they choose to do an evaluation of that, that's what the council will have to decide; that's what their members are . . . . 1 indicated that the reason for the five appointments on the council is so that the schools - the teacher training institutions - will have a representative. They will pick one. All 1 have as minister is the technical job of appointing that person. So they'll have input. They'll have expertise that's provided there. The other four appointments can be from any area.

As far as whether school trustees will be part of the teachers' college, 1 have some difficulty with that, in that this is a teachers' organization primarily. The school trustees have the BCSTA. Believe me, they have all kinds of input, and they have all kinds of communication with teachers. I'm sure that they would have all kinds of communication with the college. They have all kinds of communication with the ministry, and it all comes together.

This is not sort of one thing that, if 1 may repeat, is going to take over the whole educational structure: training, qualifications, everything else. This is simply a body that's going to do what the minister does now. If 1 say 1 can't recognize the training program in that school for a full certificate or a degree, as the government says in post-secondary that . . . . Again, as 1 say, there are certain institutions that are degree-granting institutions, so that approval process is there. 1 don't see this cost. To talk about costs . . . . Tome, if there are 30, 000 members of this organization, and if they pay $100 a year each, that's not an exorbitant fee. Yet it provides $3 million for these functions, if my arithmetic is correct; I'll check it on the computer.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question on this whole matter of certification and upgrading in-service . . . . It is not the intent of the ministry to have any ongoing input, except through its delegates on that council, on the matter of accreditation, teacher training or in-service upgrading of professional development - except as you noted, Mr. Minister, with new courses and so on; the kind of thing where there is an obvious responsibility of the ministry to provide materials. But from a policy perspective, from an administrative perspective, that whole responsibility has in fact been devolved to the college and its elected and appointed council.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think it has been indicated, Madam Chairman, that the minister has reserved the right to have two appointees, which I suggested could represent the ministry interests. Similarly, as the minister, to the extent that it has been possible, has met regularly with the BCT17, the BCSTA, school boards - all of those - 1 would expect that the minister would continue to meet regularly with the college. The minister won't have a vote on their board but would certainly be meeting with them regularly.

MRS. BOONE: Just going back to the BCSTA business, presently the BCSTA is represented on the minister's advisory commission on teacher training. Transferring this power to the college means that the trustees don't have a voice, as you've already indicated. Have you consulted with the BCSTA regarding this? What is their position on the fact that they will no longer have a voice regarding teacher training?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, we have consulted with them, and 1 don't accept the fact that they will no longer have a voice in education.

MR. R. FRASER: Madam Chairman, 1 actually really like this section. I think it's a great opportunity for teachers to do the things that other professionals do. 1 encourage you to think about it in a more positive way than you're doing, for there's no doubt in my mind that other professionals such as engineers, lawyers, doctors, etc., have colleges and do indeed approve curriculums across the country. In the case of engineers, 1 know it's on a national basis. There are some universities that provide engineering courses that are not accredited, and engineers cannot become professional or become members of the board or the bodies of associations unless they take additional course material. So here we are giving to the professional teachers the professional obligations and duties and responsibilities that other professionals already have.

The ministry has done a great thing here, taking it out of the heart of government into the hands of the members, and that's the way it ought to go. The bill is philosophically good in this respect, totally good, and I encourage you to think more positively about it. Negatively there is almost no downside. The members can afford it, there is no doubt about it. With 30, 000 members and even a modest fee, there is no question they can afford to do certifications if they wish.

Clearly every other professional association is subject to the powers of the Legislative Assembly, all of them - engineers, doctors, lawyers and everybody. So they will have exactly the same status and it is good in that respect, and 1 have no doubt that teachers will do it well.

MS. EDWARDS: Madam Chairman, to continue our positive look at this bill, 1 would like to have the minister

[ Page 1082 ]

explain to me a situation. 1 am not sure whether this might create a problem but in subsection (b) (iii) it says that these kinds of committees cannot deal with matters allocated to the qualifications committee. However, under subsection (g) it says that they may approve for certification purposes the program of any established faculty of teacher education or school of teacher education. Is it not possible that there could be a contradiction there, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: 1 think you have to read the legislation the way it is stated. This section says, "the council shall, subject to this act, " govern these things, and that is (a), (b), (c), (d), etc. They can appoint an executive committee under (b) and give them whatever powers they feel they can. So subsection (g) refers to the council. In subsection (b) (iii) we're talking about the powers of the executive committee which are restricted, that they can't take over from the council the matters of qualification, professional development, discipline or fees payable.

MR. JONES: I would like to pursue with the minister a question my colleague from New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) was trying to get at. It basically relates to the responsibility for policy development in this very important area of teacher education.

1 don't think it is really appropriate for the minister to comment that a lot of these things are self-evident, because 1 think if they were we wouldn't be asking the questions we are.

It says in the legislation that the general powers of the council are to approve teacher education programs. Implicit in that is a lot of power and responsibility for the council, but it doesn't really speak to the overall, broad policy development of teacher education in the province, although that is implied.

Maybe another way of putting the question to the minister that the member for New Westminster asked is to inquire: does this legislation impact at all on the University Act? The University Act sets up a statutory body, the Joint Board of Teacher Education, which has the responsibility now to advise the minister and the universities about teacher education.

[11:15]

It is not self-evident to the minister either, obviously. So could the minister comment on the broad policy development which, as 1 understand now, is governed in the University Act by the Joint Board of Teacher Education. Does this act impact on that act? Do we no longer need a Joint Board of Teacher Education? Does the minister plan to dissolve that board? What is the power in terms of policy development in this province for teacher education? Does it fall to the college? Does it fall to the Joint Board of Teacher Education? Where is policy development going to come from after this bill is proclaimed?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: 1 think if you read subsection (g) carefully, it says, "approve for certification purposes." That's all. The policy of the teacher training institutions, the universities and all of that sort of thing can go on. What to me it means is, "approve for certification purposes." It simply means, do we consider the program that they're offering as adequate to issue a professional certificate to this person in British Columbia? It doesn't get into the whole realm of policy development or program development at the universities. It simply says: this is acceptable for certification in our college; this may not be.

MR. JONES: It seems to me that right now we have a body that does that. The Joint Board of Teacher Education is the one that advises the minister and the universities about teacher education. Unless I am mistaken, that is now the responsibility of the Joint Board of Teacher Education. If that responsibility is now to be shifted to the college, what is the role . . . ? Certainly the role of the Joint Board of Teacher Education is reduced. The teachers' college will have the major influence on teacher education in this province. Do we no longer need a Joint Board of Teacher Education?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall section 21 pass?

MR. JONES: Similarly, Madam Chairman, I'm curious about the teacher qualification service. Is it to become part of the College of Teachers? Can the minister tell us if the budget of the teacher qualification service is going to be rolled into the College of Teachers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not quite clear on what the member is asking, about what's going to be rolled into what. The college is going to be doing the certification program. What is the concern? What is the question?

MR. JONES: I appreciate that these are sweeping changes that are being made to our education system, and that there are implications of this legislation that have an impact on other bodies. Two of the bodies that this legislation has to affect are the Joint Board of Teacher Education and the teacher qualification service.

The teacher qualification service presently has a function of determining, for salary purposes, where teachers fall on the salary schedule. Teachers come to this province from all over the world with a variety of qualifications, and those qualifications are evaluated. If we are providing this college with powers and functions presently held by these other bodies, are these other bodies to continue, and are the costs of these bodies going to be part of the expenses of the teachers' college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The TQS - teacher qualification service - really has as its only function to classify teachers for salary purposes. It has nothing to do with the professional status as determined by the college.

MR. JONES: I think the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) made a good point that the minister clarified for me: the question of professional development at the local level and at the provincial level. It seems to me that a major motive behind this legislation is to separate those two functions at the provincial level, and it certainly is a logical inconsistency not to have those things separated at the local level. The member for Prince George North was asking a very legitimate and appropriate question about a logical inconsistency in the legislation.

I would point out another one. I'm sure the minister is tired of my pointing out areas that are quite specific and others that aren't specific. But it seems to me in subsection (b) we have a quorum specified, a quorum of four, whereas

[ Page 1083 ]

for the council itself we do not have a quorum. That is another example of inconsistency.

I don't know whether to commend or criticize the minister in terms of what's being done here with teacher education. At least the minister is doing something, and successive ministers who have preceded him have neglected to do very much in terms of teacher education in this province. There have been so many studies and reports in this area, a lot of good work by a lot of significant people in the education field over the years. In 1978 one of the most recent reports on the training of teachers was done. These reports go way back. I remember one called the Coffee report when I was going through university, and I think that one collected dust on the shelves. The 1978 report of the committee headed by Malcolm F. McGregor, a renowned academic in this province .... He chaired that committee, which I think had broad representation on it from the Trustees' Association, the Teachers' Federation and the ministry. One of the members of that committee was the past deputy minister, Mr. Carter. That group studied this question for almost a year, and as we see so often in education, there was a great deal of time, energy, commitment and involvement by all these people to come up with recommendations. They meet with the faculties of education. They meet with the deans. They meet with the executive of the BCTF and the BCSTA. They hold hearings around the province. They meet with superintendents. They get input from the public. And they come up with recommendations.

The question is: what happens to those recommendations? One of the things that I think the McGregor commission correctly suggested to do with teacher education -but I don't know if it's recognized in this legislation - is that the universities must be by their very nature autonomous. It suggests that we cannot give instructions to the universities. We recognize and must in this report that to be interpreted in terms of what is essential and desirable. Certification, however, is controlled by the ministry, which issues licences. We hope the universities will be eager to assure their students that they are fully qualified before application for licences are submitted. I don't know if that concern is really addressed in this legislation.

The McGregor commission suggests that the Joint Board of Teacher Education be eliminated. The minister just advised us that it will not be eliminated and that instead a council for the education of teachers be established. This council will collaborate closely with the board of certification and will recommend policy. So here's the policy development body being established, concerning the preparation of teachers, who will monitor the programs. It seems that this is being given to the college in this legislation, and that this council will be advisory to the faculties of education.

It's a different kind of structure that gives more autonomy to the teachers than is certainly being suggested in this legislation. They will also serve as a coordinating authority for continuing education. The recommendation of the McGregor commission set up a separate structure, and this structure had a membership quite different than what is being proposed here. The membership recommended by the McGregor commission was that there be three deans of the faculties of education, a registrar, two teachers in service and two trustees. I think my colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) and the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) have pointed out that trustee involvement is significant because they have a tremendous concern for teacher education, and it is omitted in this legislation. Also the council recommended by the McGregor commission had two members of the lay public and the deputy minister or his representative. So the McGregor commission was part of the long history of teacher education.

I guess we had a change of minister, and we had another study, and again, some excellent members were appointed to these committees. I feel sorry for these people. I wonder how the Ministry of Education can continually ask people to take on these responsibilities: Roy Bentley, dean of education at the University of British Columbia, and Dave Brousson, who served on the McGregor commission and also on the Joint Board of Teacher Education, studied this matter; significant members of the education community from the BCSTA, the BCTF and the University of Victoria - Dr. Arthur Kratzmann, who is now on the commission on education; the vice-president of Simon Fraser University; prominent members of the ministry. They all served on the joint board's investigation into how teacher education in this province should be developed.

This body of prominent people in the field of education took two years to look at the certification and decertification of teachers, the selection of candidates for teacher education, the structure and content of teacher education and the preparation of teachers for specialized areas, as well as a number of other significant matters related to teacher education; and they came up with a number of recommendations, none of which we see in this legislation. Here was a study by prominent members of the community, who put their hearts and souls, I suppose, into this review. Again, it sat on the shelf.

One of the areas that they recommended . . . . I think the McGregor commission made a significant recommendation in terms of the delicate relationship with the universities. That's been neglected in this legislation, as well as the joint board's recommendations on the operation of the governing body. They suggested that the conditions leading to the effective operations of a collaborative decision-making agency require considerably more attention than has been given in the past. Unlike the McGregor commission, they recommend that the Joint Board of Teacher Education continue - or at least that a new joint board continue, unlike the responsibilities given to the college in this legislation - and that it be established as a corporate entity, as the college has been.

[11:30]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I just make a comment here? The principle of the bill has been approved in second reading. If I'm hearing correctly, that's really what you're dealing with.

MR. JONES: No, Madam Chairman. Thank you for that advice. I'm dealing with a significant section of this legislation that is going to bring about profound change to the operations and responsibilities of teacher education in this province. This has not been debated in principle in second reading, and is being debated at this time with respect to the section, which gives the college powers to approve teacher education programs, unlike what has been done before. I'm pointing out that over the years there has been significant input into how this should be achieved, and I'm suggesting that what we see in this legislation is not what's been recommended to successive governments over the years. I would hope the Chairperson would consider that relevant, germane and non-repetitive.

[ Page 1084 ]

I'll leave that with the minister, that this collaborative element, which was a key one in the recommendation of the Joint Board of Teacher Education, which spells out a series of ways in which that collaborative approach, which I . . . . These things are subtle and so critical, and are often omitted in these operations. Just as the McGregor commission pointed out the importance of the universities being dealt with delicately, the operations of this governing policy body should be dealt with . . . .

I would like to just mention one more situation that's occurred. Going back to as recently as January 14, when the minister set up a teacher training committee . . . . I don't know what the teacher training committee is going to do now. The chairman of that committee is advising the minister now. We have this ten-member committee, again composed of very prominent people within the education community, that is supposed to look at teacher training, and we see that the power is being transferred, since January 14, 1987, to the teachers' college to approve teacher education programs.

I commend the minister for the composition of the committee - representatives from the ministry, the universities, school superintendents, the home and school association, trustees and teachers - a good mix of people representative of the education community to be part of this review to determine the best possible mix of professional and practical training experience that we should be requiring of our teachers.

It seems to me now that this area is being transferred to the teachers' college. I am amazed that these people continue their willingness to serve on these committees to research into subjects and come up with recommendations that sit on the shelf. Then we see the government proposing legislation that is quite different from the recommendations in this area that have been proposed in the past.

I would leave that with the minister. I don't know whether he wishes to comment on any of my comments or not.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think it is essential that I comment on some of the statements that have been made. The member now says that the teacher training committee that was to review the existing status quo of teacher training programs and how they could be improved and that sort of thing is now useless. I don't see the connection here. That committee can report and can do all of those things - the McGregor report. All of the other things . . . . Technically, I guess, the member was out of order for the last ten consecutive minutes in that this legislation does not deal with teacher training programs. This legislation does not deal with universities' control. This legislation does not deal with any of those things. Subsection (g) very carefully states "approve for certification purposes." So all that the college will be doing is either accepting the graduation requirements from any institution or not. Hopefully, and in any area, anybody who has an idea how that can be improved will have input. If it comes through the college, fine; if it comes through the BCSTA, fine; if it comes through students, fine. No problem with that at all. But to talk about how all the reports and studies and everything done on teacher training have somehow been negated by this legislation is incorrect. If those result in better-trained graduates from teacher-training institutions, whatever those committees recommend, great. Then probably the college will approve them, even more readily, for certification.

1 have to go back to it: this legislation is dealing with professional autonomy of the teachers in this province, to decide who qualifies for a certificate - "approve for certification purposes." That's what we're talking about here. I commend the member on his extensive research on these topics, but they're not relevant to the debate we're having.

MS. EDWARDS: May I request leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS: The Association of School Transportation Supervisors of British Columbia are meeting in Victoria today, and some of the associates' wives and members of their families are here with them in the gallery today. I request that the House make them welcome.

MR. JONES: The point I was making was that the power to approve teacher education programs is like the right to grant a licence to practise the profession of teaching in this province, and all of the things that go into that are determined by that power. The minister seems to be saying that I'm reading the Section 1ncorrectly. Section 21 (g) says: " . . . approve for certification purposes the program of any established faculty of teacher education or school of teacher education." If that doesn't give the college power to approve teacher education programs, I'd appreciate clarification of that.

My point was, based on that premise, that the body that has the power to approve programs has tremendous power, so all those studies that really were commissioned by the government . . . . The government certainly has the power to do these things, or had in the past - what will be the past after this legislation is approved. The government commissions these studies to make recommendations, to go into that process, which culminates in the approval of those programs. I was merely suggesting that these studies have not resulted in elements that are going into this legislation; that the certification . . . . Certainly the college could take into account these kinds of things. They were done for successive Ministers of Education, and ignored. Hopefully, it won't be by the college. The process was tunnelling this information into the government and into the ministry.

1 think it would be logical that these good people see some reflection in legislation of the tremendous amount of good work they've done. The small point I was making was that they do not. We see a new blanket power being given to the College of Teachers and not reflecting this. Hopefully, over time this will happen, because I think good work was done by these committees. I'm pleased to hear the minister say that the new advisory body on teacher training can still exist. I suppose they will report to the minister and the minister will make recommendations to the college. I hope these good people are willing to serve and continue the good work that has been done in past studies. My point was that I see the key in controlling teacher education and the power to approve those programs.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

[ Page 1085 ]

MR. JONES: 1 would like to comment that under section 22, which gives the council power to make bylaws to carry out the purposes of the college, all but a few matters that are referred to here are generally found elsewhere in the bill. If I'm reading it correctly, the three exceptions seem to be fees, members in good standing and matters concerning discipline. 1 would like to ask the minister . . . . 1 think the previous discussion has clarified that this Section 1s the section that suggests that, rather than the annual general meeting setting bylaws for the college, it's really the council that sets the bylaws. Certainly the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) wasn't criticizing the minister in suggesting that several times he's mentioned that bylaws are the responsibility of the annual general meeting. 1 think it was just for clarification that she was making that point. 1 would like to know if, because these sections set out quite clearly that it is the council which will govern the college rather than a more grassroots kind of control . . . . The kinds of organizations that I'm familiar with do have more of what 1 consider a democratic nature and don't totally rely on the election process, that because you've elected a representative, that representative can speak on your behalf on a wide variety of issues and not allow input into those decisions. In the province we have that kind of structure where we elect representatives to sit in this assembly, and quite a period of time goes by before the electorate has a chance to speak on those issues. But most smaller organizations run more democratically and allow more input for the members.

I would just like to ask the minister if he would not agree that the effect of sections 21 and 22 is really to place all the important powers that the college will have into the hands of the council rather than into the hands of the membership. It seems to me that we have a top-down structure being set up here. Maybe that's more efficient and maybe that's the intention of government, but I think the minister would have to agree that this is the effect of sections 21 and 22 - to give powers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, 1 guess you have to read the lead-in statement, which says: "The council may make bylaws not inconsistent with this act or the School Act." In other words, they may make bylaws to govern all, each or any of these areas. For instance, the council could make a bylaw at the request of their members that any fees that they set must be approved at an annual general meeting. That would constitute a bylaw. They could do that. The members could ask them to do that or anything else the council does. 1 do not see the council as being somebody else in the college. The council is them. You know, they are elected by the members - full control by the members. So the members could indicate that they will only vote for candidates who will bring every report and every bylaw back to the annual general meeting, empowering the council to act in the governance of the college, but with full control, through the democratic process, by the members. 1 don't know how strongly 1 can say this: the council will not be some other body; it will be colleagues, by their choice. By "their" 1 mean the members - full control by the members.

[11:45]

MR. JONES: Full control by the members through elections. 1 appreciate the perspective of the minister on that. However, it seems to me that in setting up a council and a college, it's a real opportunity to inject views of democracy into that. Certainly the minister is correct; it could be as democratic as he suggests I that those bylaws could be suggested to be approved by the annual general meeting. But as the legislation is written, it implies certain things, and just because the members do have the opportunity to elect representatives does not necessarily mean that in all matters they are going to accurately reflect the views of the membership.

Certainly, as a member of this Legislature . . . . There are many people who would like to have an opportunity to vote on this legislation now, and I think the more opportunity we have of these kinds, the more democratic the nature of the system that we're suggesting. And there was an opportunity here for the minister to really empower the members of the college, to really create a democratic institution and to give those members, through the power to approve the bylaws rather than having the council do that, rather than without even any provisions being spelled out for ratification of those things by the council, by the college members . . . . Certainly the minister's view is that elected representatives have the right to govern and will govern by the will of the members. That may be true, but it's as much seeing the best possible view of the college as opposed to the worst-case scenario. Perhaps something in the middle would have set up some other mechanisms that would have made this college more democratic.

1 would like to ask the minister about subsection (h), which uses the phrase "member in good standing." I'm curious, because this is a term that, to my reading, is not used or defined elsewhere in the bill. My question to the minister is: does its inclusion here give the council the power to set requirements for membership other than those specified elsewhere in the bill?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, this is allowing them to set a bylaw as to whether or not a person is in good standing. One of the bylaws might be related to a member who does not have his fees paid up to date: no, he is not in good standing. That's not an unusual clause in any organization. Those are the types of things. They may come up with a bylaw for something else, but 1 think it would have to be acceptable to the members.

MR. JONES: 1 would like to ask a question with respect to discipline. Although discipline of members is dealt with at length elsewhere in the bill, subsection (2) of section 22 does set out some requirements for bylaws dealing with discipline. In subsection (a), written reports as to the facts and results of hearings are required of the discipline committee.

1 would like to ask the minister: why isn't there any requirement that these reports also be made available to the member in question? It seems to me that that would be a much fairer method, and would ensure due process for the member on whom reports are being transmitted to the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: 1 think there are such things as laws of natural justice. With the appeal provisions elsewhere in the act, 1 think it's implicit that the member will be informed of the report and has every right to request it. As 1 say, laws of natural justice, if nothing else . . . . This section was certainly intended to make sure that a discipline hearing couldn't be held and that a decision couldn't be made without the decision, the reasons and the record in written form.

[ Page 1086 ]

MR. JONES: If I could ask one further question on discipline, Madam Chairperson, subsection (b) of that same subsection provides for the possibility of the discipline committee in some cases exercising the powers to suspend or expel without reference to the council as a whole. My question to the minister is: shouldn't at least the power of expulsion - which gives that body a tremendous power over individuals' lives and careers - be reserved to the council as a whole, rather than as it is spelled out in this section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The discipline committee, the small committee, may exercise the disciplinary power of the full council. But I think if the member would read on: " . . . but the disciplinary power of suspension or expulsion shall not be exercised by the discipline committee without the consent of the respondent." Translated to me that means that if, for instance, the discipline or working committee holds an inquiry, and the respondent - the person who is the subject of the inquiry - agrees, "there is no use in contesting this further; I will accept expulsion or suspension, " it ends at that point. If the member does not consent, then of course the whole process has to kick in, the whole council.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to come back to subsection (2) (a) of section 22. The minister made reference to the rules of natural justice, but I believe that subsequent to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Attorney-General's department has been reviewing this kind of legislation, say as it pertains to the Mental Health Act and any types of appeal procedures. I would like to ask the minister: does he have plans either to entrench that within this section of the act, or to do so within the regulations, so that the provisions that can be reasonably expected through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would at least be written into the regulations governing this section of the act? Would you at least be going that far?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, what we're talking about here is the right of the council to make bylaws. Those bylaws could presumably and possibly should include that any written report shall be made available to the member, so the college has that. I'm sure the members would demand that of their elected representatives. What we have said here is that by statute it is guaranteed that this will be in writing so that it is in fact available.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, since it is pointed out here that a written report would be issued, it would be appropriate and decent to include the party who is so being disciplined as a recipient of that report. Further, it would seem to me that if it's not a requirement of natural justice, it is at least a requirement of natural decency that the individual should have the opportunity to meet with the committee and hear verbally presented the reasons for the decision. I would also be interested in the views of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) on this matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, 1 fully suspect that the council, in their bylaws, would say that this written report . . . . We require that it be a written report, so that is guaranteed and assured. 1 think that the member can count on this report. If there is any question of withholding it, the laws of natural justice kick in. In other words, the member may require that he get this report. I don't see that we have to write everything into the legislation that is not necessary. In other words, we're guaranteed that a written report will be made. The council may make bylaws to ensure that that report is given to the member. If they shouldn't happen to make them, it doesn't matter; the member is still going to get a report just by requesting it, through the laws of natural justice.

1 have complete faith that it will be available to them. This is their colleagues we're talking about, not some separate body trying to police them. These are their colleagues looking at professional autonomy for their members.

MR. CASHORE: More specifically, the question was: would you envision the report also being presented to the individual in person? I'm not legally trained and I do not know whether natural justice requires that, but it would seem to me that natural decency would. My question to the minister is: would you expect that that would a] so happen, in terms of saying that you have faith in this process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, if the member is to get a report, to my knowledge there are only two ways: personally, or through council if he so requests. Anytime a member gets a report, it has to be handed to him personally or delivered to his lawyer.

MR. CASHORE: This is my last question. 1 did ask this earlier, but 1 would still like the answer. Would you consider outlining, at least within the regulations governing this act, some of the requirements that could reasonably be expected under the rules of natural justice?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, 1 think there is some question as to whether I would have the power to make regulations like that.

Section 22 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chain

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

Hon. B.R. Snidth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.