1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

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

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

Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 4500

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Committee stage.

section 3.

Mr. Cocke –– 4500

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4501

Mrs. Dailly –– 4501

Mr. Stupich –– 4502

Ms. Brown –– 4504

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4505

Mr. Barrett –– 4505

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4506

Mr. Cocke –– 4509

Ms. Brown –– 4511

Mrs. Dailly –– 4511

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4512

Mr. King –– 4512

Ms. Brown –– 4514

Mr. Stupich –– 4514

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

Mr. Cocke –– 4518

section 4.

Mr. Cocke –– 4518

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4519

Mr. Wallace –– 4519

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4519

Mr. Macdonald –– 4520

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4521

Ms. Brown –– 4521

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4522

Mr. Cocke –– 4523

Mr. Levi –– 4523

Mr. Gibson –– 4524

section 5.

Mrs. Dailly –– 4525

Ms. Brown –– 4525

Mr. Gibson –– 4526

Mr. Levi –– 4526

Mr. Cocke –– 4527

Mr. Barrett –– 4528

MT. Nicolson –– 4530

Mr. Levi –– 4531

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4531

Mr. Barrett –– 4532

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LAUK : I would like to introduce some distinguished members and supporters

of the New Democratic Party in the greatest constituency of Vancouver Centre.

Natalie Andersall, Valerie Barrett - no relation - and Sandra McGehay are all

from Vancouver Centre. Would the House make them welcome?

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

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

Oral questions.

MEGAVITAMIN PILOT PROJECT

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4498 ]

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER : Proceed, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The individual receiving a therapeutic agent prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacist is responsible for payment of that agent. In British Columbia, the Ministry of Human Resources offers total or partial financial assistance in prescription purchases to all eligible residents of the province. This financial assistance is provided by the ministry through the Pharmacare programme.

The ministry, in determining which prescription drugs are eligible for purchase assistance, depends primarily on the decisions of the food and drug directorate regarding efficacy, therapeutic claims, safety, and proper manufacturing. As an initial criterion, drug benefits of Pharmacare must have received approval from the food and drug directorate on d e above areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

[ Page 4499 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER : Deliberately.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4500 ]

him to table the document that substantiates his allegation.

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

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : First, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Kemble, Judy Milligan's physician, is away for the present, and we don't know when her physician will return. But since we cannot obtain confidential information or patient information from a doctor, our director made contact with the B.C. College of Physicians, who in turn attempted to make contact with Dr. Kemble. And they will continue to try and obtain this contact. With respect to tabling the information regarding the discontinuance of that committee which existed prior to 1974, 1 will try to obtain this information for the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

But I must warn him that it is very difficult to obtain some of these documents, since upon taking office there wasn't anything available in my office; the files were gone.

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

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO PROTECT THE HOMINOIDEA

AT HARRISON HOT SPRINGS

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M 216,

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

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Committee on Bill 33.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

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

section 3 - continued.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster) : Well, Mr. Chairman, we had started discussing

section 3 last night. The minister decided to give us some vague and hazy answers with respect to this

section as he has in the preceding sections. On 1, 2 and 3, we now have been served with exactly the same kind of concern on the part of the minister.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, in

section 3 we find there is one way of certifying a teacher. We certify a teacher three ways altogether, because in the definition

section we found there were two areas where teachers were automatically certified - those who had been teaching for 10 years or more, and those who qualified under the Public Schools Act.

Therefore, this is the third end of that particular qualification, and that is subsection (3) , under teacher certification in the definition section. This is certified by the inspector. What we are finding now is that the minister may.... That's interesting - it's another "may" in this Act. Someday I would like to see an area where the minister "shall" do something. Other areas in the Act that pertain to other groups, they "shall, " but the minister "may." He has a little bit of flexibility where others don't. The minister may set up this committee: " (

a) constitute one or more independent schools teacher certification committees, and (

b) name the persons to be members of a committee." I suggested last night that there should be some flexibility, some avenue for others to be appointed to that teacher certification committee besides the minister's appointments. The minister so far hasn't answered that criticism.

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

[ Page

4501 ]

there's a whole

section dealing with certification and it winds up dealing

specifically with the teacher -that is, the criterion that the teacher must

meet, or the proposed teacher must meet. That is: "No certification of

qualification for teaching shall be issued to any person who does not furnish

to the minister, or his duly authorized representative, satisfactory proof that

he is of good moral character and a fit and proper person to be granted a certificate."

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

My enthusiastic colleague behind me is really waxing eloquent today. Mr. Chairman, I believe there should be this baseline. We see the baseline. I know the minister can get up and indicate that

section 150 of the Public Schools Act is, in fact, not that tight.

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

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, I would like the minister to give us his philosophical outlook on this question and explain why it is that he has produced a

section like

section 3, which again lends to the lack of credibility of this whole exercise. I would wonder why it is that the minister has decided not to answer that question, and why he has decided not to draw his own comparison between the Public Schools Act, sections 149 and 150, and

section 3 of this particular piece of proposed legislation full of holes.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Without purporting to defend the minister in question,

I think perhaps some of these questions were asked during the

interpretation

and

definitions

section under the word "certified." Perhaps the matter

was covered sufficiently at that time.

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

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

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

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

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

We in the opposition think this is going to be very bad for the students of this province. However, the minister seems to believe that the independent schools should be allowed to have different criteria for certification.

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

[ Page 4502 ]

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

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

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

MR. STUPICH : Well, Mr. Chairman, in line with your earlier remarks, it is true that we did discuss certification under

section 1. We discussed the three ways in which a teacher might qualify for certification - for automatic certification, I will remind you. In this particular section,

section 3, we are dealing specifically with certification.

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

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

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

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

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

Is it intended that the independent schools shall get together and elect representatives who will be on this independent schools teacher certification committee, and that the minister will accept those elected persons? We are getting some democracy into it - the first element of democracy - if that is done. Does he intend to go out and select from those schools? Does he intend to look to any one of those schools and ask that school in particular to put forward names that he will accept?

Those schools certainly have a very vested interest in having people on that committee who are going to nominate, to recommend, knowing full well that their recommendation is going to be followed by automatic certification.

Those schools are going to have a very vested interest in putting the kind of people on that committee who will recommend the kind of people they find particularly useful in their own individual schools. You will recall yesterday in the definition

section that we were talking not about groups of schools, but schools individually are going to be recognized as authorities under this legislation.

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

[ Page 4503 ]

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

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

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, you know it never ceases to amaze me how the minister can respond. He responds at the beginning of questioning on a particular

section with a no response; then, after a while, he begins to reflect on what he said earlier, and that is to suggest that he has answered a question when he hasn't answered the question. Mr. Chairman, I asked him questions today that he was not asked yesterday; neither did he respond yesterday nor has he responded today. His answers to the member for Nanaimo yesterday were vague and, as a matter of fact, confusing to the extent that he answered them in two or three different ways at different points.

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

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

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

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, the minister says "government policy." We've been accusing the minister of centralizing everything in his office ever since he has taken office, because that is one of the very first moves that he made. Now he is making that same kind of move in this particular area. I would suggest, as I suggested yesterday, to those who are interested in independent schools, that again another piece of their independence is lost. With the first three sections of this bill we have decided that the bill is misnamed.

It cannot any longer be called Independent Schools Support Act, because they have lost their independence completely. Centralization in Victoria, centralization under an inspector, centralization under a minister - and that's government policy, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

We do have some people in the ministry who could conceivably contribute to an independent school certification committee."

"Could conceivably" - Mr. Chairman, he's certainly answering

the question as to whether or not anybody could be on the committee. But apparently

at this point in time - and this was yesterday evening - he had not decided

whether or not anyone from his ministry would have any participation in this

committee at all. The words are, from the Blues, "could conceivably."

We then go on, Mr. Chairman: "Obviously such a committee would not be restricted

to people who are members of the ministry." There might not be any there,

but they wouldn't be restricted to that except that: "One obviously

wishes" - at this point it's a wish only - "in a matter of this

kind to involve those who are experienced in matters of teacher hiring and teacher

qualification in the independent school system."

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

Chairman, but let's say working it through the House. "I think the independent schools would certainly be consulted in this matter."

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

[ Page 4504 ]

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

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

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

As I have pointed out before, their whole reason for existence is their independence in these areas. I think the minister should inform us if, as we know under the Public Schools Act, teachers can be decertified for various reasons. If you are going to set up a certification committee, is that committee going to have the right to adjudicate over hirings and firings in the independent school? I can't put the question more simply, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is a vital question. We must have an answer from the minister on this.

I think the independent schools want to know - the taxpayer who is going to finance these schools has the right to know - if this government is going to have any say whatsoever in the hiring and firing, as they do in the final area of arbitration, over matters of personnel in the independent schools. Could the minister tell us if the certification committee will also be dealing with and setting regulations on hiring and firing in independent schools?

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member....

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

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

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

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

section 3.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Chairman, my only interest in discussing

section 3 of the bill is the quality of education in this province which is going to result from the implementation of this piece of legislation. And this is the reason why....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Section 3.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The quality of education would appropriately be discussed under

section 6, which specially explains the criteria that need to be met for a Group 2 classification of schools. The quality of education in the instructional sense is not an issue in

section 5 and it certainly is not an issue in

section 3.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, the minister said that

section 6 and there probably are a couple of other sections is where that question can be discussed. But it certainly can be discussed, Mr. Chairman, with respect, under

section 3, which is a

section where teachers are certified. Now if teachers are not a very important aspect of the quality of education, then I suspect that my whole education went down the tube, just at this juncture.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Your point of order is well taken. The debate will be, according to the standing orders, strictly relevant to

section 3, and it has to do with teacher certification committees.

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

I'm restricting myself to talking about certification and the committee that's going to deal with it, because it's very important, in terms of the quality of education, what the criteria are for certifying these teachers and just what kinds of rules and regulations this committee is going to live by. That is precisely why I am raising this under this particular section.

Because I want to know from the minister if in fact this committee is going to be using as its criteria any rules or any qualifications which are presently not going to be required of teachers already certified or of teachers already teaching in the private school system. Will the minister let me know whether the committee is going to have any instructions from him in terms of the qualifications and the criteria which they're going to be basing their decisions on, in terms of certifying these teachers? The reason I'm interested in that....

[ Page 4505 ]

HON. MR. McGEER : A point of order. This was covered yesterday, Mr. Chairman, under

section 1, and covered very exhaustively. It's detailed in

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes, much of this debate was covered in

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

MS. BROWN : The point which I'm raising I don't think was covered yesterday under

section 1. Because in

section 1, as you know, I stayed in order, almost exclusively with certification of teachers, and I did not raise any matter that could have been covered in

section 3. This is the reason I'm raising it now, because under this section, the minister has the exclusive right to name persons to this committee. So the minister must have, at the same time, some kind of idea in his mind as to the instruction he's going to give these people who are going to form the certification committee. He's been asked by a number of other members of the opposition exactly from where he is drawing these people and we haven't been able to get any kind of response from him on that.

So I'm raising a different point, and that is: what kind of instructions will he be giving to the people named to his committee in terms of the qualifications that will be demanded of the teachers who are going to be certified under this committee? The reason I'm asking this question is because I want to be sure that everyone who teaches, Mr. Chairman, whether it's in the private school system or in the other school system, meets the highest qualifications that exist.

So if the private school certification committee - or the independent schools, as they're euphemistically referred to here - is going to have qualifications and criteria that are above the ones presently in existence for the public school teachers, I want the minister to apprise us of that fact.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed that a member who's been in this House for almost two terms now would not be aware of the meaning of the

section as it's written and the operation of the ministry under any legislation that's passed by the House.

It quite clearly states in

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

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

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

section 3, which gives the minister the right to appoint the certification committee.

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

section 3. I'm not asking him to deal with the broad principle of the bill. That would be out of order.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4506 ]

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

What method of appeal is there to the certification committee? There are four simple questions. Could you answer those, please?

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. There seems to be a dispute in the House as to whether they were or whether they weren't. We are under

section 3, and we cannot insist upon an answer in any case.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, we're under

section 3 today. If he answered questions of this section, he was out of order. I wouldn't want to respond to him being out of order. I'm in order, and I'm asking him bluntly:

(1) How many people will be on the certification committee?

(2) What areas of the community will he draw them from?

(3) Will they be paid?

(4) Are they going to be appointed on a rotating basis? Could he answer those, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall

section 3 pass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT : Well, Mr. Chairman, that is an incredible non-answer. Now I'm not asking you, Mr. Chairman, how you define how legislation should be written. I'm asking you questions on legislation that is written and is in front of us - not how you arrived at how you wrote it. I ask you again; you're asking the taxpayers of this province to embark upon a whole new field of spending public money. There must be an accountability of how that money is to be spent, whether it is $1 million or $30 million.

I'm asking you calmly, through the Chairman - hopefully you will abandon some arrogance and answer to this House and the people of this province - how many people will be drawn from in the community, what is the length of time they will serve, will there be a method of appeal by the professional person concerned to decisions by the committee and, if so, how will that appeal method work?

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

[ Page 4507 ]

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall

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

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

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

section 3.

MR. BARRETT : I know.

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

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

MS. BROWN : No, he didn't.

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

MS. BROWN : Yes, he would.

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

Don't you think both the proponents and the opponents of this bill have a right to those questions, or does the minister feel that he is alone in this information and aloof from sharing it with the House?

Would the minister care to answer those?

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

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN :

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

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

I have a responsibility to ask these questions of the ministers on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. I will resume my seat after I repeat the questions, to avoid repetition.

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

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, as I have stated many times to the member, if it were intended that such details be exactly and rigidly specified, then, of course, they would be written specifically under

section 3. Since it is not specifically written under

section 3, that means that there is no intention that these details be rigidly specified. That is why you have regulations, and that is why no rigid specifications can or should be given by the minister. The regulations will be approved by order-in-council. As a former Premier of the province, the member opposite should know better than anyone in the House that that is the way legislation works, even if the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , who never was in the cabinet, would perhaps be unaware.

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

[ Page 4508 ]

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

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

section 3, please.

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

MR. COCKE : No!

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

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

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

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT : I ask the minister again, in good humour: how much money will be spent under this

section to put this committee in place by way of salaries or - what was the word used? - "stipend, " wasn't it? There was a $3,600-a-month stipend to the man on ICBC. Is Ray Torresan going to be hired to give you the PR to put this bill in?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Please proceed.

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, all matters of appeal might best be debated under

section 13. There are two subsections.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, this section, I'm sure, will be on the statute books for many, many years in British Columbia. There may be many policies that would be followed under this

section by individual ministers, individual governments and individual cabinets. I can't specify for the member details of that kind. As I explained yesterday, in giving some general idea of the course of action, I wasn't going to attempt to handcuff people by making specifics under legislation for a specific

section of the legislation where specifics weren't intended. And I can't add more to what was in the Blues yesterday except to explain how the legislation must work in practice.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that the legislation may be on the books for many, many years. That may be. The minister has said that there may be many

interpretations by other cabinets. That may be. But I'm not asking the minister to foretell the future. I'm asking you, the man who is responsible here today, what you're going to do with this section. To stand up and say that somebody else might do something with it- doesn't mean a fig to me. What I'm worried about is what is going to happen now, while you're breathing and I'm breathing.

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

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

[ Page 4509 ]

minister. If you want to filibuster or dodge, don't start telling me that some future cabinets may not even approve of what you've said. I don't give a fig about that. I ask you bluntly, through you, Mr. Chairman: will the minister tell this House whether or not it is his intention to have these people paid? If so, how much? How many people will be on the committee? Where in the community will they be drawn from? Will there be a right to appeal their decision?

Simple questions, and let the future Minister of Education, whoever she or he may be, answer the questions that are put to him or to her, but I'm asking you - not the ex-Liberal, now that you're a Socred - but the new, reformed Social Credit Minister of Education: what are you going to do with this

section which you caused to be authored and you're asking this House to give you total responsibility for? Could you tell us? What are you going to do?

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

MR. BARRETT : Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just referring to 43 - oh, repetition of debate. I accuse the minister, under

section 43, with being repetitious in his answers. They're all nothing, and I want to call the Chair's attention to the fact that the minister, under

section 43, is abusing the rules of this House by saying nothing. Now they're through the little game.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Now back to

section 3, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT : Certainly I'll come back to

section 3. How many people will be on the committee? Where will they be drawn from? Will they be paid? Is there a right to appeal? Could the minister tell us that? Will there be a right to an appeal?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Matters of appeal will be under

section 13.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister: under this section, will there be a right to appeal? I'll deal with

section 13 in order, Mr. Chairman. I don't want anybody to put me out of order. This is the section, number 3. Under this

section I ask the minister, yes or no, nod your head. Stop chewing for a minute. Turn your back. Any signal you want to give me that means yes or no. Will there be....

AN HON. MEMBER : Send a note!

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

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

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

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

section 13.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4510 ]

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

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

MR. BARRETT : My questions on

section 3 have now been completed. I want to thank the minister's assistant for his co-operation. I'm getting the impression then, without the minister's denial, that the bill is political. That'll be my last question. Is this

section politically designed? Is that your opinion?

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for citing that

section of May, because you will find, sir, that

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

However, Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire your patience in dealing with the minister; therefore I will give the minister one more chance, before I cite him under that

section which you brought to our attention and accuse him of contempt under that section, by repeating these questions quietly.

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

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

Will there be a right of appeal?

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

There's contempt, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Would the hon. member please assist the Chair? The Chair does not have knowledge of any

section of our standing orders which says that a minister or any other member must answer questions. If he could give me that citation, I'd be pleased.

MR. BARRETT : Sir, I refer you to the

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree it does become very tedious. As a matter of fact, as one who doesn't particularly enjoy tedium, I would be very happy if we could go on with this bill and go on with the other sections, but since we haven't had any answers to the questions under

section 3, it strikes me that the minister has to either indicate to us other than by his rather vague answer today saying that it would be government policy, government appointees, et cetera. I would think that he could be more definitive around the questions that have been asked. I can assure the

[ Page

4511 ]

minister that there is not a word in the Blues in answer to my questions yesterday,

or those of the member for Nanaimo, the member from North Burnaby, or the Leader

of the Opposition.

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

section and the minister could clarify that vague, hazy

section by just answering the questions that we've asked.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to that one more question. In subsection (1) (

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

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

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

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

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

MS. BROWN : I wonder then if the minister would be able to tell me whether

it would be possible for this committee to establish the qualifications and

criteria for all teachers in the province, or if there is any reason why it

would operate exclusively for people who would be teaching in the independent

school system.

HON. MR. McGEER : Yes, Mr. Chairman, because this committee would operate under Bill 33,

whereas the Public Schools Act is a different Act of the Legislature.

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. Any question that would be in order under this

section would undoubtedly be out of order under another section.

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

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

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

[ Page 4512 ]

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

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

I want to reiterate that that should not be taken away from any school which does not receive funding. But the minister's answer has been given today, that he does not intend to see that what applies in the public school

section will apply in the independent school. This is a very, very basic principle which I'm very concerned about. My question to the minister is: how can he possibly condone in this bill the usage of public money -taxpayers' money - which would actually permit dismissals of teachers on non-educational grounds?

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, of course the member is free to draw any

interpretation she wishes from the legislation, whether such an

interpretation is possible for a reasonable person to draw or not. But I will say that the member, as so many of the official opposition have done, is discussing the principle of Bill 33. 1 think the courageous thing for that party to have done would have been to discuss the principle of the bill instead of running out of the Legislature, where they wouldn't have to take a stand, and now coming back attempting to filibuster the bill to recoup for their foolishness.

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

section 1; they've managed to vote against

section 2.

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

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

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

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

I just wish the NDP would be consistent in its obstruction. At least be consistent. No such

interpretation is possible under this

section because it has nothing to do with the certification, Mr. Chairman. This

section merely sets up committees, if the minister chooses, which will give certification to teachers. It says nothing about what independent schools will do in engaging the teachers, their hours of work, their working conditions, their contracts, their length of tenure or anything else. It has nothing to do with

section 3, Mr. Chairman, and it isn't the purpose of the government to include it in

section 3.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : This is not in this section.

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

[ Page 4513 ]

throw red herrings in this debate. We are dealing with

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

'The boy's a fool, ' the master cried,

'Hold out your hand!'

'Oh, no, ' said Patrick, saying:

'Not at your command.' I shan't go on. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Back to

section 3, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. We are not debating the principle of the bill.

Section 3 has to do with....

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

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

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, you are being unduly restrictive, in my view. I am attempting to explain our position under this

section to the minister. I appreciate our Chairman's concern, but I suggest that he be evenhanded in terms of asking the members of this House to abide by the rules. Now the minister has made allegations and I am trying to explain the situation to him. He's a slow learner.

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

HON. MR. McGEER : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to

section 3, which says nothing about hiring and firing teachers?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes.

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

section to discuss decertification, which can come about because of a school firing a teacher.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point of order is well taken except for this point. I would remind the hon. member for Burnaby-North that the committee took it upon itself to make this debate relevant under

section 1. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we debated it under

section 1 and it was deemed to be relevant at that time, then it is irrelevant to

section 3. We cannot debate it twice.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I certainly had no comments to make regarding teacher certification under

section 1. I'm trying to make my remarks relevant to the

section we're dealing with, and I don't know how else I can do that but by reading the section. This

section does deal with teacher certification and the committee structure is provided which can either certify or, presumably, decertify teachers. The only basis upon which decertification would take place would be presumably for some alleged misdemeanour, according to criteria presumably set up by this certification committee.

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

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

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

[ Page 4514 ]

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McGEER : We're debating human rights. It's a different bill, Mr. Chairman. This

section doesn't affect human rights; it appoints a committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation, both as responsible legislators and from a legal constitutional viewpoint, to make sure that law that is passed in this Legislature is not ultra vires regarding other statutes. Certainly that can happen. Therefore I think the point raised which the minister simply refuses to respond to, is a valid one. It's a serious one and the minister should get up and attempt to explain what his position is. Perhaps he hasn't thought about it. If not, he should so indicate.

But just to attempt to dodge around the issue and to show contempt for members of this House who are asking questions in good faith I say is a very shoddy performance, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the minister to show more regard for the House than that.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Okay.

MS. BROWN : Because under

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

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

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

I think that is a valid question.

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

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

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

[ Page 4515 ]

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

HON. MR. McGEER : A point of order, Mr. Chairman, we extensively covered certification and decertification of teachers, and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) insisted upon this yesterday. I thought you were very indulgent in permitting that particular area to be' canvassed under

section 1. But really, it is being canvassed all over again today under

section 3. 1 think you pointed that out, sir, and I would just remind the member that we've really dealt with this question.

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

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

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

HON. MR. McGEER : A point of order. Repeatedly yesterday, when the subject of certification came up, I drew your attention to the fact that

section 3 of the bill existed. The members at that particular time did not wish to pass

section I and ultimately voted against it. But during the course of that, with your indulgence, they extensively canvassed the question of certification and decertification. I think if we are going to permit the members to get ahead of themselves on sections of the bill, as took place for some 71/2 hours yesterday, we can hardly repeat the arguments under subsequent sections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McGEER : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, once more may I draw your attention to the fact that extensive opportunity was given to that member yesterday to transgress

section I and cover the ground in

section 3? It was you, sir, who pointed out to him at the time that by doing that he was covering the matter of certification and decertification. If the member, in the meantime, has happened to bring to mind detailed questions that he couldn't bring to mind yesterday, it nevertheless is covering the ground that was adequately canvassed before the members voted against that section.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : May I speak to the point of

[ Page 4516 ]

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

The Chair cautioned the committee yesterday. We have a beautiful example of what happens when we mutually agree to do something which is against the advice of the Chair. The Chair cautioned the committee yesterday that under the

interpretation and definition

section we did not open for full debate other sections of the bill, or indeed the principle of the bill. But the committee, by general consent, accepted a debate under the word "certified" in the definition section, and indeed, for an extended length of time, debated certification. Just because some argument that could have been brought up at that time did not come to mind at that time is no reason to believe that it could be brought up and open up again the entire debate under another section.

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

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I have two points to bring up. I wish the Chair would explain to the House what might be discussed under

section 3. The reference contained in the explanatory notes says: "Independent schools teacher certification committees." I would appreciate counsel from the Chair in terms of what might be discussed now.

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

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

MR. LEA : Mr. Chairman, if I may explain a little further,

section 3, as I read it, deals only with certification ...

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, certification committees.

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

section 3?

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

MR. COCKE : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention a very important aspect. Right now we're dealing with only one aspect of certification. This is not total certification. We had to debate yesterday at least sections 1 and 2 under certification because that was the only place where you could debate the holding of a valid teacher's certificate and/or having taught in the independent or provincial school system for 10 years. You see, one level of certification is No. 1. One level of certification is No. 2. No. 3 coincides, to some extent, with

section 3. Right now we're only dealing with one small aspect of certification. This is the one that most concerns us today. We were worried yesterday about its ramifications on the other two areas. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) kept asking the question whether or not decertification could take place in the first two categories. We had to put them together. Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with a mixed-up bill and a mixed-up minister - it's just a terrible mix~up.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

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

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

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

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Chairman, I don't recall you ever drawing me to order, except in one instance when I was replying to some of the minister's high-flying remarks about the conduct of the NDP administration some years ago. I don't recall ever being called to order by you. I thought I was paying particular attention to being in order when I was discussing

section 1 and, in particular, certification. I stand to be corrected on that, but I doubt very much that the Blues will show that I was drawn to order on that.

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

section 1, you would not say that all members had,

[ Page 4517 ]

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

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

section or the other, and not some members under one and some members under the other. If we did, then the dilemma would develop into chaos in this House. I would have to rule that since....

Interjection.

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

MR. KING : Yes. On a point of order before you make your ruling, I would ask that you very seriously consider the points made by the member for New Westminster. There is a difference in the certification discussion that took place yesterday and that taking place today. The other point I want to make - and I think it's a valid one - is that members should not forfeit their opportunity to discuss a provision under any particular

section of a bill because liberty was taken with the rules on some previous occasion. I would say that under those circumstances, the rules should have been adhered to in the first instance. Any failure in that respect should not work to the detriment of members who may have not even been present on that occasion.

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

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. This further underscores the decision which was made by the Chair early yesterday that perhaps the

interpretation

section and definition

section is not the place for general debate, particularly when another

section has provided for that kind of debate.

MR. COCKE : On a point of order, I just want to make one point, and that is that there was no room for discussion of the other two aspects of certification in any other part of this bill other than the definition

section regardless, Mr. Chairman, of how you rule. No matter how you rule, Mr. Chairman, that is a fact. My colleagues and I had no alternative but to debate the first two aspects of certification under the definition section, otherwise we would have been forever darned on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Having heard all the points of order, the Chair now has to make a ruling. The ruling is this: the committee now has had an opportunity to discuss matters of certification and decertification at some length. The debate is now definitely becoming repetitious. Therefore the ruling is that matters regarding certification and decertification have now been deemed to have been covered in

section I and

section 3. What's left to be covered under

section 3 are only matters pertaining to the committee.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of the Whole House, a matter of clarification came up regarding certain matters having been discussed under one

section of a bill and determined to be discussed again under a subsequent section. The Chairman made the ruling that the matters had been extensively covered and were becoming repetitious, and so ruled. The ruling was challenged.

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

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

YEAS - 29

Waterland

Kempf

Shelford

Davis

McCarthy

Jordan

McClelland

Phillips

Rogers

Williams

Gardom

Mussallem

Mair

Bennett

Loewen

Bawlf

Wolfe

Veitch

Nielsen

McGeer

Strongman

Vander Zalm

Chabot

Bawtree

Davidson

Curtis

Wallace, G.S.

Kahl

Calder

NAYS - 15

Gibson

Lauk

Nicolson

[ Page 4518 ]

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

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

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

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

section 3 - continued.

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

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

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

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 29

Waterland

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Kahl

Kempf

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

NAYS - 14

Lauk

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

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

section 4.

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

section 4, which is the Doomsday

section of the bill.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

Section 4 spells the end to any independence for independent schools.

Section 4 is the

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

Now this is the external evaluation committee of the independent school. There can be no further independence under those circumstances. The inspector rules the roost, totally and completely. This is the

section that I consider to be the turn-on-the-tap, turn-off-the-tap section. This is the kind of

section that precludes any possibility of this bill being named the Independent Schools Support Act. Why was it named that? Because it's a total misnomer under the circumstances of

section 4.

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

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

Now I'd asked the minister on the basis of this particular

section why it was that he vested all this power in one person. Even the minister isn't involved

[ Page 4519 ]

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

HON. MR. McGEER : Once more, we went over the types of people who would be assisting with the inspection of the schools, which, of course, is what

section 4 does. So again, there's repetition here, but the general purpose is to assist the inspector in evaluating the independent schools and deciding whether they're Group 1 or Group 2. Of course, the inspector really only needs to make that broad decision, because once that decision is made to approve or disapprove an application, then the amount of funding derives automatically according to how many students are enrolled in the school.

So it's hardly appropriate to suggest all this control that would exist as a result of assistance the minister may choose to receive by the committees he appoints under

section 4. But certainly, in the initial phases of examining the physical facilities of schools and checking on their programme by such external review committees ... I think it was the member for Nanaimo who asked: would there be local inspectors, because they wanted to be able to compare with the local schools? The answer is, undoubtedly, yes, and the purpose of the committees under

section 4 are self-evident.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to be repetitive but I do feel that it is important in committee debate that I register my concern over the apparent total authority given to the inspector in this

section to constitute the committees, to name the persons who shall be members of the committee and to prescribe the duties of the committee. Now yesterday, and again today, the minister has tried to soften the impact of the

section by saying that, of course, while one person is named, namely the inspector, he will be subject to a great deal of advice and assistance from others. I just wonder if, under this

section and at this point in the debate, the minister could tell the committee what kind of procedure he envisages in relation to the work of the inspector in carrying out his responsibilities under the section. In other words, at what level within the ministry and how many individuals or how many subgroups or subcommittees does the minister visualize as being involved in advising the inspector?

The reason the opposition has concerns and the reason that I have some concerns about this

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

Now that's the sense I've derived from the minister's various statements relating to this fundamental criticism on this bill, namely the fact that there is an excess of power granted to one person. The minister has repeatedly said that, of course, it's not quite the way it appears. The inspector who would make the final decision will do so on the basis of involvement and advice and suggestion from many other people in his ministry.

I wonder if this wouldn't be the appropriate time to at least give the House some general outline of who else would be involved and the whole question of any appeal by a school if the members of that independent school feel they have been judged unfairly by the external evaluation committee.

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

Thirdly, could I ask the minister if, in fact, it'is implied or not implied within the

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

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, the appeals are contained in

section 13, and we can discuss ... they apply both to teachers and to schools. Two important processes have to take place.

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

You're going to have to judge whether or not the independent school, if it's applying for Group 2, is reaching the curriculum standards which are specified under

section 6.

If they are only going for the kind of physical support that is implied in

section S, then you're really doing a routine inspection of physical facilities and again judging those for their adequacy according to

[ Page 4520 ]

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

MR. WALLACE : Who will they be?

HON. MR. McGEER : Oh, we'll probably use local superintendents, senior people, district supervisors of instruction and so on, plus some people from the independent school system. At the present time, as the member may know, there are many evaluation teams which exist now in the public school system. We're sending evaluation teams around the province continually to look at individual schools, and programmes in individual schools. There is certainly nothing new about this process of evaluation teams in the public school system.

If the superintendent, or the team that does the evaluation, is questioned by those being evaluated, they appeal to the minister now. I'm talking now about teachers or schools in the public school system. What you do is you establish appeal teams, look at it, and make recommendations as to whether they concur or disagree.

What takes place here under

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

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

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

HON. MR. McGEER : Yes, Mr. Member, of course they will. I think while the school trustees have taken an official position against support, and the Teachers Federation have taken an official position against support, it's straight belief that there will be competition for dollars, ~ and no amount of reassurance from the government will dispel that insistent fear. Despite that, there is tremendously good rapport at the professional level between the independent schools and the public schools.

There's mutual respect and exchange of professional information, and I really think that the professionals who are working at the district superintendent and supervisor of instruction level are not worried about the kinds of jealousies that result in these official positions being taken. I have every confidence in the objectivity and competency of those in the public school system. In addition, I have similar respect for those in the independent school system. I'm quite confident that the thing will work well and fairly.

MR. MACDONALD : The minister has told us very quietly that there is nothing particularly new about this system in

section 4, that you have evaluation committees in the public school system. Surely it is totally different here. Would they stand for this for one moment in the public school system? The committee could go into a public secondary or elementary school, evaluate all of these things spelled out in

section 6, including assessing programmes -not just physical facilities, as the minister said, but the curriculum, the programmes, their teacher certification, the whole thing - and then say to them: "On the basis of what we found, you don't get any funds, but you've got an appeal. You can appeal to the minister, who is an elected, political minister of the government." To allow that to encroach on the public school system would not be tolerated for a minute. They would say: "That's political tyranny." We have developed a system of elected school boards.

Of course, you can have an evaluation committee that makes a report to the school board and the Ministry of Education, but the schools are under~ the elected school boards. That is their charter of independence.

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

[ Page 4521 ]

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

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

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

MR. MACDONALD : I'll tell you what sid