1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1975 ]

CONTENTS

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 27). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 1993

Mrs. Boone –– 1994

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 1994

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 29: minister's office –– 1994

Mr. Lovick

Hon. B.R. Smith

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Guno

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Vant

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Dirks

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a couple of

introductions. First, in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a group of

golden-agers from Prince George. The leader is Anne Orton. The group

also includes my mother, Callie Strachan. Would the House please

welcome these seniors.

As well, I'd like the House to welcome Tony and Trudy Kos, who

are also visiting from Prince George. They're in the Hansard gallery,

MS. EDWARDS: It's certainly my pleasure

today to welcome back to the House another golden-ager. Leo Nimsick

toiled in this metaphorical coal-mine for more than a quarter of a

century and was the Mines minister in the '72-75 government. I ask the

House to join me in welcoming Leo Nimsick. I would also like to

introduce Mrs. Nimsick, who is in the Hansard gallery. We welcome her.

too.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's my pleasure this

afternoon to introduce to the House my niece Dina McConnell from

Langley and her friend Judy Martens. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf. Mr. Speaker. I

would like to introduce Dr. and Mrs. Peter Rodenkirchen and their

daughter Bettina. The Rodenkirchens celebrated their fortieth wedding

anniversary just yesterday, and I would like the House to welcome them

and wish them all the best.

MR. HUBERTS: I'd like to introduce my

cousin Marie Huttema from Surrey, and her friend Geraldine Hamoen from

Alberta. Would the House give them a welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker. In your

gallery this afternoon are two very hard-working community ladies. I

would ask the House to please make welcome Morag Bennett and Lucille

Courchene from Surrey.

MR. REE: In the gallery today, we have a

couple that have driven 6,500 miles to be with us today, from

Havertown. Pennsylvania. They are going back to Vancouver and then

traveling across Canada on their way home. I would ask the, House to

welcome Aaron and Clara Manove.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker. I would like to

bring the Legislature up to date on the latest triumph of the members.

We extracted an ounce of revenge on behalf of all 69 of us here, when

today at noon we thrashed the "scrum of the earth" in a game of

hard-fought basketball. We whipped them 21-10.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE

OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' LANGUAGES

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled

An Act to Establish

an Institute of Indigenous Peoples' Languages for British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in making a few

remarks on this bill, this is the sixth occasion that I have introduced

it in this House. The first time was 1980. I am very sorry to report

that in the interval since 1980 somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of

the speakership — the elders who are fluent in the language — have

passed away.

I talked to an eminent linguist just yesterday. He indicated

to me that when he started to work with the Skidegate Haida in 1972,

there were between 40 and 50 individuals. Now he is working with only a

couple left.

The members of the House know that British Columbia is one of

the most linguistically diverse areas on earth, with 28 Indian

languages that still exist, but all that is keeping them from

extinction or what linguists call a "language death" is just a very few

remaining elders. Some of the languages are in better shape than

others, but the coastal ones such as Skidegate Haida, Sechelt, Kwakwala

and some of the others are really facing a decline.

I was pleased to see a reference in the throne speech that

something could be done. I think it is time that an institute be

established and that full recognition be given. Members on both sides

of the House who come from European or other ancestry know that their

first language at some time is alive and well somewhere on this planet.

This is not the case here, because these languages exist only within

our province. Something has got to be done, and I ask that the House

consider that the time has come.

Bill M204 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.

Oral Questions

SMALL FORESTRY COMPANIES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier: yesterday the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) indicated as a result of his

experience — much of it with Westar, one of the most wasteful

corporations in the province — that the smaller firms were less

efficient and more wasteful. Could the Premier advise the House whether

he concurs with his minister, and whether he's asking his minister to

make that presentation when you meet with the truck loggers tomorrow

night?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. I

certainly have received a copy of the newspaper article. I've not had

an opportunity to discuss it, so I have no comment on that at this time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Premier: will

your next meeting with the Minister of Forests be in the woodshed, Mr.

Premier'?

FUNDING FOR DAWSON CREEK ETHANOL PLANT

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier: I

have here a May newsletter from the federal parliamentary Standing

Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, which states that the B.C.

government will be providing $50 million in funding for the Dawson

Creek ethanol plant. Can the Premier confirm that participation?

[ Page 1976 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. I don't believe

that's the figure at all. I don't know just exactly what the sharing or

the participation will be, but any assistance provided would be to the

farmers supplying the product, and I will be able to.... I'll take the

question on notice, and provide the details at a later time.

MR. CLARK: A new question. The Agrifuels

proposal was rejected seven times by the B.C. Development Corporation

and once by the Partners in Enterprise program. It has been rejected

eight times in all. Can the Premier confirm reports that it was his

office which directed that funding for the project be reconsidered by

the Ministry of Agriculture after those rejections?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can

confirm that we definitely took some initiatives to assure that

discussions were continuing. We are looking for a way to assure that

the grain that is grown in the Peace River country is used to the

greatest potential in order to ensure that the largest number of jobs

are made available in the Peace River country. We certainly have

attempted to provide various initiatives in the Peace River area in

order to provide job opportunities and diversification. This Agrifuels

plant will certainly provide that diversification. and will provide a

use for wheat which otherwise would perhaps go to waste.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier.

I take that as assurance that it's the Ministry of Agriculture that's

looking at it. The budget speech states, on page 14, "No new initiatives

will be funded under the Farm Product Industry Act," yet this loan is

ten to twenty times as large as the average loan guarantee made under

that program in the history of British Columbia. Would the Premier

confirm that that statement in the budget is no longer operative in

light of the Agrifuels proposal and the loan guarantee that's being

negotiated by the Ministry of Agriculture?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I said a little

earlier, I'll provide the details with respect to the funding of the

program or the assistance to the farmers in order to make sure that

this program gets off the ground. Let me say that we certainly are also

committed to the agricultural community, and we'll do whatever we can

to assist that community to provide diversification in the selling or

the use of its products.

MR. CLARK: Will the Premier confirm. then,

that any funding from the government or any loan guarantee will be to

the farmers and not to Agrifuels, the company involved?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I mentioned when I

took the question earlier. I will provide the details at another time.

but the assistance in total is to the farm community.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary to the same

question. Is the Premier aware that the EEC subsidy to wheat is over $3

a bushel, the American is $2.65 and our own is 85 cents? Does the

minister really think the farmers can survive on this kind of a fuel

system, no matter how much we want to have greater markets? Farm

foreclosures are at an all-time high in that area.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I agree that grain

growers in Canada are having a difficult time competing with the United States and the European common market countries, in

that the subsidy programs in those places are such that we can't match

these. This is why a project like Agrifuels' can be a tremendous help

in a relatively small area, when compared to the whole of the

wheat-growing area in Canada, such as the Peace River. So we see

Agrifuels certainly as a tremendous opportunity to at least provide

assistance to a good number of farmers, because the project when fully

operational will use a very large portion of all of the grain produced

in the Peace River country.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the Premier could

enlighten us on the kind of prices that he's prepared to pay these

farmers, so that they don't go under. Certainly the market price in

Canada or our export price will never do that. I wouldn't want these

people to be fooled into thinking that some sort of progress was going

to come out of something that may not. Somebody said one time: you

know, there's no fuel like an oil fuel.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the

price proposed in the Agrifuels' project is as good as, or better than,

the price set by the Canadian Wheat Board.

CANASPEN CHOPSTICKS FACTORY LOAN

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Premier.

The Canaspen chopsticks factory in Prince George has been put into

receivership by BCDC. What steps has the government taken to recover

the $500,000 interest-free loan that was given to this company?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer the

question to the Minister of Economic Development.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I can get

the details as to the amount of the loan. I think it was around

$300,000, and I believe it was on the commercial or the prime-plus-2

rate of BCDC. It has gone into receivership. BCDC is negotiating to

make sure that that company will be restarted under different

management. They're negotiating, if that isn't possible, to get their

money back. They have very high security on that loan, inasmuch as the

equipment in that factory or that plant, even on a disposal price, far

exceeds the amount of the loan.

MRS. BOONE: It was our understanding that

the machinery could be sold for about $50,000. There's $97,000 owing to

the federal government, $330,000 owing to Royal Trust. and considerable

money owing to various other people in the community. My question to

the minister in this case is: before investing any money in this

company, what investigation did the government do on the background of

the proponents and on the market for the products"

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the

first part of your question, your understanding is incorrect. However.

I will be able to get you the details of that.

Secondly, in all loans that are made through the B.C.

Development Corporation and that have been made in the past under the

new structure of the B.C. Development Corporation, a very extensive

investigation is done. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker. that if it

hadn't been for B.C. Development Corporation being in the field during

the recession, there would have been many businesses that would have

had to

[ Page 1977 ]

close down, and their employees would have been out of work.

So the instrument that was in place during the recession when this

particular loan was put forward was, along with other decisions, good.

There are going to be some failures, and when those failures occur,

there are instruments to recover the dollars, as I've said before.

I'd be very pleased to get the proper figures for you and

report them to you.

MEAT-PROCESSING PLANT

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. On

the weekend on BCTV. the Premier was again only able to cite the

mysterious northern meat-packing plant when he was asked what economic

development projects this government is working on. Can the Premier

today provide us — and your member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) — any information on the status of this project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. the

Ministry of Economic Development is working on diversification, We're

looking at opportunities in all areas, and especially in places like

Prince George, where economic diversification is so important. Yes, we

are continuing: and yes, there are still talks going on. It certainly

is the type of undertaking that would require a lot of preliminary

discussion, because we are competing with Alberta. Again, as was

mentioned a little earlier, there are subsidies in place in Alberta

that in many instances are difficult to match. But we would like to see

a meat industry established we would like to see meat-processing in the

Prince George area.

Yes, I will continue to pursue that. If it takes another year

or two, or however long it takes, I will continue to fight for that.

It's important.

GREENHILLS MINE WASTE DUMP

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the Minister of Environment. The Environment and Land Use Committee has

approved the plan of Westar's Greenhills mine to dump waste within

sight and sound of the village of Elkford, despite the continuing

opposition of the Elkford protection group, the Elkford district

council, and the Regional District of East Kootenay. What information

not available to the other levels of government led the provincial

government to allow dumping opposed by so many locally elected

officials'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, there was

extensive evidence obtained from the Ministry of Energy. Mines and

Petroleum Resources that indicated to our committee that this

dumping.... And I must admit the original application was modified and

lessened to a considerable degree. With the subsequent application, we

agreed as a committee of cabinet that that process should go ahead

otherwise there would be severe economic risk.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary. As I said. even

after the modifications, the other elected officials objected to the

application. My question is: what additional information did the

provincial government have that made it go against the decision of the

other elected officials'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to take

that question on notice for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

MS. EDWARDS: Another question. How has the

government decided to deal with such problems as the black water

flowing into the Elk River. which was clearly shown in the photographs

that were presented to the Environment and Land Use Committee'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Proper procedures for

that type of discharge will be put in place, to monitor and to mitigate

that type of discharge.

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Premier. Three times yesterday I asked the Premier three pretty basic

questions about the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and he took them on

notice. He didn't know if the company was registered, if it was doing

business or if there were director disclosures. We're wondering on this

side who's really in charge here. Hundreds of millions of dollars are

at stake. What kind of free rein does the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) have for hundreds of millions of

dollars, when every other minister is reporting through your office for

contracts over $500, Mr. Premier? There's an issue here. Who's in

charge'!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker.

obviously the cabinet is in charge. fortunately, and we deal with these

issues on a daily basis.

With respect to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. It is

presently being dealt with through BCDC and B.C. Place, and they're

making great progress. I'm happy with all the progress being made

through these corporations. These people are doing a wonderful job on

behalf of British Columbians, and the future looks extremely bright for

our province.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask leave to answer questions that were taken on notice

yesterday.

Leave granted.

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the

Premier took as notice some questions yesterday dealing with some

responsibilities under the Ministry of Economic Development.

The first question from the second member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Ms. Marzari) was: "Is the company called B.C. Enterprise

Corporation incorporated?" To answer the member, there will not be a

new company incorporated called the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. The

corporation exists at the present time, but it comes under the British

Columbia Place Act. The British Columbia Place Act will be renamed by

legislation the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act.

[ Page 1978 ]

Technically, therefore, the company is incorporated and it

would be wrong to say no, the company is not yet incorporated. It is

incorporated, and the change under the act in which it is incorporated

will change the name of the act.

The next question, Mr. Speaker, was: "Is the British Columbia

Enterprise Corporation actively doing business at this point in time?"

Both B.C. Development Corporation and British Columbia Place Ltd. are

continuing to carry on business pursuant to their existing corporate

structures under a common board of directors until legislation is

passed concerning British Columbia Enterprise Corporation.

The next question, Mr. Speaker. was: "Have the directors of

the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation made disclosures thus far.

The answer is: the directors have made the disclosures required by the

Company Act.

The next question: who is doing business on lands; who is

conducting the business at this moment? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is:

further to my earlier answer, British Columbia Place Ltd. and British

Columbia Development Corporation are continuing to carry on business,

and all of the responsibilities that they had before under the two

separate organizations continue. They will continue under that board of

directors as two separate entities until legislation makes them one,

under the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call

second reading of Bill 24, in the charge of the Provincial Secretary

and Minister of Government Services.

PENSION (TEACHERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. VEITCH: In moving second reading,

I'm pleased to introduce this bill, which will establish the early

retirement program for teachers in British Columbia, announced earlier

by my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

This program is being established after extensive consultation

with representatives of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, the

British Columbia School Trustees' Association, the Association of

British Columbia School Superintendents and the association of

secretary-treasurers. They are to be complimented for the very valuable

assistance they have provided in helping the government formulate the

details of this early retirement plan.

The plan proposed in this bill contains two distinct phases.

The first phase, which is temporary and available only to teachers who

retire prior to June 30, 1989, is called the 55-and-out option, while

the second phase is the permanent addition of a phased early retirement

program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal first with the temporary phase of

the program, the phase which we call the 55-and-out option. The Pension

(Teachers) Act presently provides for a reduction in the pension

benefit formula of 5 percent for each year under age 60, if a teacher

has more than ten years of contributions in the plan but less than 35.

This reduction tends to discourage retirements between the ages of 55

and 60, since the reduction can be as much as 25 percent of the formula

pension benefit.

Mr. Speaker. In order to provide an immediate opportunity to

revitalize the education system through the hiring of young, unemployed

teachers and new graduates from our universities, teachers with at

least ten years' experience must be encouraged to retire. Accordingly,

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the early retirement provisions of the

Pension (Teachers) Act as follows:

One, during the period from April 1, 1987, to June 30, 1989,

an eligible teacher may retire between ages 55 and 60 with less than 35

years of contributory service without reduction in the formula pension

benefit. Two, any payments for annual cost-of-living adjustments will

be delayed until age 60, when there will be a catch-up of the

percentages missed from date of retirement. Three, the funding of this

program will be from special contributions provided from school

district salary savings.

Because of the unique structure of the incremental pay scale

for teachers. the funding for this program can be accomplished through

the savings that will occur as a result of replacement of experienced

teachers at the maximum salary level by younger teachers at the minimum

base salary. As a result of this initiative, those teachers who wish to

retire may do so on substantially improved pension benefits, thus

enabling the creation of job opportunities for enthusiastic young

people who are ready and able to commence a teaching career. I want

also to emphasize that this program is entirely optional and will be

provided only to those teachers who wish to take advantage of it.

Teachers who wish to remain in the profession will be encouraged to do

so.

The second phase of the program proposes the establishment of

a phased early retirement plan. While this plan will not be available

to teachers until the school year commencing 1988, it will at that time

provide teachers with an alternative opportunity to ease into

retirement. In this new program. an eligible teacher may arrange with

the school board to work on a reduced teaching assignment at something

less than full time. During the phased early retirement period, the

teacher would receive a salary for the part of time worked and the

pension for the time not at work — that is, the portion representing

retirement. At the end of the phased early retirement period — that is,

when the teacher is fully retired — the pension would be recalculated,

taking into consideration actual pensionable service and salaries, and

would be adjusted downward in respect of the amount of pension already

received. Accordingly, there are no additional costs for this program.

This program is also optional and will require the mutual agreement of

the teacher and the school board as to a satisfactory phasing schedule.

It is therefore my pleasure to introduce this bill to

establish this program, which will be very important in revitalizing

the teaching profession and thereby will become a positive

encouragement to those young, enthusiastic, eager and qualified

teachers who wish to enter the teaching force. I take great pleasure in

moving second reading of this bill.

MR. JONES: It's in my nature to look on the

positive side of things and to look for good in people and in

governments. It's tremendous that this is one of the rare occasions

when I get an opportunity to compliment the government on what I

consider an excellent piece of legislation that resulted from a very

positive process.

If I could just outline a little of the history of that

process, it began in Manitoba with legislation that was borrowed by New

Democrats as part of their platform in the last election. The

government has wisely seen fit to bring forward this kind of proposal.

In true New Democrat style, the process was a model of consultation

that involved all of the parties and the constituent members of the

education community affected by

[ Page 1979 ]

this legislation. The Provincial Secretary mentioned the BCTE

the BCSTA, the superintendents and the secretary treasurer. There was

also the Superannuation Commission and ministry people who held a

series of meetings. I think there was a good deal of give and take.

Proposals were worked and reworked, and cooperation was. I think, an

integral part of this process. The product arrived at certainly wasn't

exactly what everybody wanted, and that's to be expected in dealings

with parties. But the product is one that I think people are happy with

and satisfied with, and it's a good example of negotiation. It is a

product that is fiscally sound. educationally sound and

administratively sound.

I think the major feature of this legislation is the element

of the renewal of the teaching profession. It is so important in

British Columbia at this time, because of the severe cutbacks by the

previous Socred administration, which did two very destructive things.

In my view. It hurt the profession, and it hurt a large number of

people who were aspiring to enter the teaching profession. It hurt the

profession by robbing them of those vital, dynamic, young, energetic,

fresh teachers who are out of universities and who bring to the

teaching profession new ideas that benefit the entire profession.

As well, I think those cutbacks created a tremendous loss of

resource to this province. Several thousand teachers ended up in the

unemployment ranks as a result of those cutbacks, and it is estimated

that there are still something like 8,000 unemployed teachers at this

time. The replacement that took my position when I left teaching after

the provincial election had been on the substitute list for eight years

and was an excellent teacher one who had been knocking on the door all

that time, who was working with a very low income, who was very

dedicated to teaching and who finally. as a result of my leaving the

profession, got a teaching position.

So I am very pleased to see this, because there is such a

shortage of young people within our teaching ranks right now. I believe

that there were 21,196 in 1980 who were 25 or under. That has

decreased 83 percent, to the point where in 1985 there were only 377

teachers in the province who were 25 or under. As a result, we probably

have the oldest teaching profession in this country. Fortunately, they

are also one of the best educated.

So by allowing the legislation that the Provincial Secretary

has introduced at this time, we are allowing people between 50 and 59

to retire early without the kind of penalty that was formerly there. It

is going to allow the infusion of new blood into the teaching

profession, and I am very pleased about that.

As the Provincial Secretary mentioned, it is also fiscally

responsible. For example, if one of the retiring teachers was earning

$40,000 per year and was replaced by a $25,000-per-year teacher, then

the school board would have $15,000 available that they could

contribute to the Superannuation Commission. I believe this has been

accommodated within the fiscal framework, so it is administratively and

fiscally going to work very well.

I think it is a symbol of the kind of thing that can be

achieved, and it is very different than what we saw in the last few

months in this Legislature, It is very different than what we saw in

the Vancouver Sun on May 4,

where the Premier indicated that teachers are perennially a problem. He

mentioned that — "W.A.C. Bennett had a problem with them and Dave

Barrett had a problem with them. Bill Bennett's biggest problem with

them was trying to fight off the BCTF every time there was a suggestion

with respect to change with teachers." The Premier went on to say that

he has problems with the BCTF leadership. and issued a warning: "They

have to make up their minds, Either get out of teaching and into

politics, or out of politics and into teaching. You can't have it both

ways."

[2:45]

I think this legislation proves that cooperation and

negotiations and consultation can take place, and that a good product

and good legislation can be arrived at by this process. I am very

pleased to offer my support to the government for this piece of

legislation today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I too, would

like to support the legislation and say that it is very easy to achieve

full cooperation from consultation when everyone agrees that it is to

the benefit of all concerned. It is not always easy to get that

agreement.

But I just want to add my support and thank the people who

worked for my ministry and the other groups involved. They spent a lot

of time in thrashing out the details and that sort of thing.

One thing that I did want to put on the record is that there

may be some credit due to some of the rest of us and to the people on

this side of government. I got somewhat the impression from the member

that this was an NDP initiative that resulted because of the wrongs of

the Social Credit government, so I would like to suggest that we also

took some initiative on this. We didn't borrow it from the Manitoba

legislation, nor did I do it because of something that W.A.C. Bennett

may have done years ago. It was right at this time. So I simply want to

say that we'd like to take a little bit of the credit for this, rather

than the blame that seemed to be implicit in the member's statement. I

know he's supportive of the results, and wouldn't it be nice if,

whenever the results are good, we can support it without worrying about

the politics.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I've been

called a lot of things — to the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mr.

Jones) — but never a true New Democrat. That's a first, I can assure

you. So maybe we've done something wrong here.

MR. ROSE: Get up on a question of privilege.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't know whose

privilege is being offended here.

MR. ROSE: Keep up the fair work.

HON. MR. VEITCH: So I'm a fair New Democrat

— not even that!

Mr. Speaker, I see this as a very positive mood, and as

pointed out by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Education, and by the

hon. member for Burnaby North, the process throughout the structuring

of this bill has been one of consultation. It hasn't been an easy

process, but it has been one that has worked very well, and when you

work together, realizing that there is a common good at stake, it's

amazing how much can be accomplished by both sides of this House and

indeed by all of the people of British Columbia.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to congratulate

the staff from the Ministry of Education and the staff from the pension

administration branch. under Mr. Cook in my department, who worked so

very hard in putting this legislation together.

[ Page 1980 ]

Renewal is important, as the hon. member for Burnaby North

pointed out, in any situation. Renewal is important. as we've noticed,

even in this place over the last few years. and it has brought about a

change of tone and certainly a change of atmosphere in this place. But

if education is the bulwark of society, then renewal is doubly

important in that area. That's what this legislation brings about.

We're in a new economy. We're in a whole new economic world, not only

in British Columbia but in Canada, and indeed throughout the whole

world. If we are in that new economy, then it goes without saying that

we must bring into that process new blood, to educate those people who

will be the leaders of future generations: our children and of course

those who follow after them.

We have a tremendous legacy to pass on in this province, but

the legacy that is given to us has always been that of taking whatever

we have and value-adding to that and passing it on. and that's doubly

true of education. This provides for a mix in the education field — in

the teaching field — of that experience that's gained from those

teachers who are somewhat long in the tooth, like maybe the hon. member

for Burnaby North and some of the other educators we have here in our

midst, and also those new people, the bright new brains who are

entering the fray.

Mr. Speaker, I say this is a very positive move. It's a win-win situation for all concerned. That's the way things should be in

British Columbia. I am very pleased to move second reading of this very

important piece of legislation.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill

31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1987

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have great pleasure in

rising to speak on second reading of this bill, which has a common

theme, which is no theme. The House Leader suggested to me that it was

a bill without principle, but the truth is that it has too many

principles. It is a bill that does a number of needed reforms. It

accomplishes a broad range of improvements in the administration of

justice in the field of commercial law, family law, health care and

some of the professions. The amendments are too numerous to address

individually at this time, and of course will be highlighted in

committee.

A number of amendments to the Financial Administration Act

also improve liability management and the government's investment

management and expenditure control. The bill contains amendments to

several statutes dealing with adoption, marriage, divorce and

guardianship, and amendments to the Mental Health Act alter the length

of time that a person may be involuntarily detained. Amendments to the

Securities Act update the statute to reflect current industry practices.

A number of amendments are designed to improve the efficiency

of the operation of the courts. Amendments, for example, provide for

the appointment of a Chief Judge of the county court, a position which

is now held de facto but which is given authority. They limit vexatious

appeals in the court of appeal, a court which is probably one of the

most efficient in Canada. They improve record storage and enable

charging fees for bulk searches of public court records.

Several significant areas of law reform are also addressed.

These are reforms recommended by the Law Reform Commission of British

Columbia; we are trying each year to bring in some of those reforms and

enact them. One of those reforms will provide a standard short-form

power of attorney, created through these amendments — something that is

long overdue — as well as a significant amendment to the Law and Equity

Act which will enable a contractor to complete a project under protest

without jeopardizing future claims for compensation. That will erase a

decision of the courts which impeded that kind of sensible performance

under protest: that was the case of Peter Kiewit Sons as decided in the

1960s.

Mr. Speaker, this gives only the briefest introduction of some

of these amendments, but I would be very pleased to explain them in

detail during the review by committee. I commend this bill for your

consideration and urge its speedy passage.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for some

direction from the Chair before I say anything at all? How does one

deal with the general principle of miscellaneous statutes, given that

there is this incredible list of material here? I'm not sure what the

procedure might properly be.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Member, you've got 30

minutes to speak. I've never known you to have trouble before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, let me rise

on a point of order so I don't take away from the member's time. He

will be allowed, I am sure, to continue second reading debate if he

wishes to.

A miscellaneous statutes amendment bill is considered a bill

without principle. You can take that any way you want to perceive it.

Therefore the majority of the debate, the real debate, is carried on in

the committee stage, and principle is allowed to be discussed in the

committee stage.

But you've still got 30 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: For the member, in committee

on this type of bill the Chair has always allowed great latitude on

every section.

MR. LOVICK: Certainly I don't propose to

speak for half an hour. What I would like to do, however, is ask a

question to the Attorney-General if I could. One of the things that

perplex my colleagues and me is the fact that we have in the first part

of the miscellaneous statutes provision an amendment to the Adoption

Act, yet on the order paper we also have Bill 26, I believe, which is

the Adoption Act. I'm wondering why there is that overlap. Is there

some reason I'm missing'?

MR. SPEAKER: We're not in committee stage,

hon. member. If you want to close out your second reading speech, the

minister may want to answer that question in closing of debate.

MR. LOVICK: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, my error. I

had forgotten that this is indeed second-reading stage.

[ Page 1981 ]

Let me simply make the statement that we are concerned that we

are apparently going to be taking two hits at the Adoption Act, for

reasons that are not clear to us, and we're a little chagrined by the

fact that we have this rather complex omnibus bill before us that we're

trying to make sense of right now, yet at the same time we're also

supposed to be preparing for another bill called the Adoption Act. I'm

not sure what the explanation for that is; I hope there is a good and

rational one,

The only other point I would make regarding Bill 31. the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987, is that it seems to

me there are a number of items here that are perhaps contentious, or at

least worthy of some questioning. and certainly my colleagues and I

shall look forward to doing just that kind of thing in committee stage.

MR. CASHORE: Following up on the point that

my colleague the second member for Nanaimo has just made — and perhaps

this again reflects my inexperience — I think it would be very helpful,

in particular with regard to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

and the Adoption Act amendment, if those two matters could be dealt

with close together, and if we could be given very adequate forewarning

as to when these two items would be dealt with so that we could be well

prepared.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders. I

advise the House that the Attorney-General closes debate,

HON. B.R. SMITH: In closing debate, I would

just note that the sections dealing with the Adoption Act here are ones

that really reform the working of the act as it now is: first, to bring

the administration of the act into compliance with the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, arising out of a court challenge; and also some

other amendments which deal with and clarify the role of the

superintendent. None of those affected by the adoption registry

concept, which came forward in a separate bill and will be dealt with

in the separate bill.... While I agree that to have them dealt with in

some proximity of time would be very convenient, and we probably will

do that, I don't think that there's a great problem with this, because

you're talking on adoption registry on a point of principle, I guess,

and the Adoption Act amendments, I think, are quite straightforward.

But it would be much better if you had the time in the scheme of things

to have them all in one act, there's no question about that.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call

second reading of Bill 35.

[3:00]

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm the minister

introducing this, although I'm just one minor player in the board. I

advise the House that sitting on the board is my hon. colleague the

opposition House Leader; the chairman of the opposition caucus, the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams); the chairman of the

government caucus, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat); the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch); and yours truly.

Also you, Your Honour, are mentioned in this act as being an essential

ingredient of the board.

This legislation is similar to legislation in many other

jurisdictions whereby it states that members of the Legislative

Assembly shall have a board to which they can turn to resolve matters

which affect them, such as operation of the precincts, services and

facilities, and formulating policies with respect to the

administration, appoint and fix the terms of appointment of staff to

carry out the mandate of the board, and generally to supervise and

manage its staff. The board may determine its own procedures. The board

shall speak by minute duly adopted by the board. and has the power to

appoint, as I believe. subcommittees of itself.

This is truly a landmark bill in terms of British Columbia

history. Members will recall the Members' Services Committee of 1985,

of which my good friend the opposition House Leader and I were

fortunate to be members, We spent some time deliberating. We had a

massive change of the rules, I think all to the benefit of the

Legislative Assembly and to members. From that committee of 1984-85. we

agreed that there would be a Board of Internal Economy.

It was further mentioned in the throne speech by the Premier,

and I'm very happy today to see this come to fruition, I think it will

help us resolve many issues that face all Members of the Legislative

Assembly. It's truly an all-party board that will deal with any of the

problems that face us. It's a good bill. I commend it to all members,

and accordingly I move second reading.

MR. ROSE: Speaking on behalf of the

opposition, I join in the congratulations to you, sir, and to others,

and pay tribute to the work done to produce this legislation, noting as

well that it flows from the parliamentary reform committee of 1984.

Some of the rules, I think, have improved our procedures; some I

regret, especially today. I'd like to name rule 16(4). I find it a bit

nettlesome today; it permits us to meet tonight and not vote, which was

a rather interesting use of the rule I hadn't anticipated, so we'll

leave that out.

Seriously, I really would like to pay tribute not only to you,

Mr. Speaker, and the other members that formed the subcommittee but

also to the Premier. What the Premier did was show us that he had

enough personal security to give up certain powers. For the king or the

Crown to give up powers voluntarily to the Legislature is a landmark

decision. I don't say the word "king" in any sense of punning; I mean

from the Crown in the sense of the state. It's a maturation process

that has gone through this Legislature in this last year, and I must

pay tribute to the Premier for this.

This allows the Legislature, and members thereof, under you,

sir, to took after their own business without interference from the

Crown. It is really

an act of independence, and it didn't require a

revolution. It required someone to give up certain powers. I think it

will help us a great deal to prevent, for instance, the overlap between

the authority of the Provincial Secretary and you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we've had some problems around here recently that

some people might remember, such as the near violence and the tents on

the lawn. Whose jurisdiction was it? Who could make rules? There have

been problems within

[ Page 1982 ]

constituency offices. What is appropriate spending? What is

appropriate behaviour for MLAs? You, sir, along with your board can be

the guardians of parliamentary privileges, our rights and privileges,

because as MLAs, in terms of our privileges, you are our sole protector

when it comes to the sanctity of our offices, the freedom from

harassment by any authority, including the police. Under certain

circumstances, I think this matter has been clarified. I'm very pleased

that we've been able to be part of this whole thing. It increases the

arm's-length relationship between the Crown and the Legislature.

I'd like to thank both the opposition and the government

represented on the board. The government, of course, has the majority,

and that's fair enough. I know when this party becomes government we'll

appreciate having that majority on the board. I think that will be very

helpful to us. But at the same time, as a check, no business can be

carried on unless both parties are represented there, and I think

that's a good thing as well.

I guess my good friend for Vancouver East, who is also a

member of the board and who suggested this and brought it to the

Premier initially to give him some information about our thinking on

the subject, would probably say that there is a Board of Internal

Economy but there's a smaller board of administrators, and there are

far too many bureaucrats on it and not enough legislators. I'm sure the

Clerk-Assistant would want that in the minutes as well, because the

member from Vancouver East expressed himself volubly on that very

subject, so I know he would want me to put that in.

In closing, I'd like to say that we're one of the last

legislatures to have such a board. I don't know of any board, though,

that has as much autonomy as this one does, and I think that's a good

thing. Just in case anyone is worried that the inmates are in charge of

the institution, accountable to no one, that is not so. We are

accountable to the auditor-general and to the ombudsman, but we are not

accountable to the government. That, I think, is first-rate.

I think this is an excellent model. I'm sure that other

jurisdictions, if this works out well, will be pleased to copy this

model. I thank the bureaucrats and the Clerks for their assistance in

helping us draft the legislation. I'm really anxious that it get

working for the benefit of all MLAs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think there's

much more to say at this point, except to acknowledge the remarks made

by the hon. member opposite with respect to the Premier. On behalf of

the Premier, thank you, sir, for the comments you made. I also

acknowledge the good works done by the officers at the table, who were

most helpful in assisting us to coalesce our thoughts and draw this

bill together.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read

a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're a little short of

people here. On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) I'm

going to call second reading of Bill 15 and make a few comments with

respect to that bill, and advise the House that speaking on behalf of

the government will be the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier).

ACCOUNTANTS (CHARI'ERED)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bill 15 expands the

object of the Institute of Chartered Accountants to encompass students

as well as members and to provide for the establishment and enforcement

of standards. It removes the ceiling on the number of members of the

council, and provides for an executive director to be appointed by the

council and for the appointment and election of officers to be dealt

with by bylaw. It expands the council's bylaw-making powers and adds

the designation "CA" to titles. It deletes references to incorporated

accountants and repeals offence provisions consequential to the new

section of the act. It does a variety of good things, Mr. Speaker.

With that said, I commend this act to all members of the House

and accordingly move second reading.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour

to move second reading of Bill 15, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment

Act, 1987.

The purpose of these amendments is to update existing

legislation in order to ensure that the Institute of Chartered

Accountants has the necessary authority to regulate the activities of

its members and students. The institute is a corporation responsible

for regulating the practice of chartered accountancy in British

Columbia.

I would like to take a few minutes to summarize the main

features of this bill. These relate to internal bylaws and

administrative matters and to new authority to do all of the following:

investigate complaints, ensure high standards of practice, and

discipline members.

Internal bylaw and administrative matters that are referred

to.... A number of the proposed amendments are specifically intended to

improve the efficiency and flexibility of the institute's internal

operations. The institute is given the powers of a natural person to

provide greater independence in executing its own business affairs.

Clear statutory authority is granted for the institute to make bylaws.

Administrative aspects of annual meetings and composition of the

executive are also improved. Students are more clearly shown to be

responsibilities of the institute.

Under the amendments within this bill, complaints against

members or former members may be cause for the initiation of an

investigation by the institute. A court order for the production of

documents is possible, and confidentiality of information must be

maintained.

With respect to ensuring high standards of practice, the

amendments provide the institute with clear statutory authority to set

appropriate standards for members. By means of periodic practice

reviews, the institute will be able to ensure that these standards are

met and maintained. Practice review is currently undertaken by bylaw,

with the consent and support of members, but with these amendments it

would provide explicit statutory authority.

With respect to discipline matters, authority for discipline

of members is improved and clarified through these amendments. As well

as suspension or reprimand, there is authority to impose practice

conditions upon a member or a

[ Page 1983 ]

student. Council and its committees have the authority to

summon witnesses and to compel witnesses to give evidence and produce

records. Where a witness refuses, he is liable, on application to the

Supreme Court, for committal for contempt.

In exceptional circumstances, it is necessary for the

institute to act quickly to prevent further harm arising from the

conduct of a member. Authority is provided for an extraordinary power

of suspension without notice, pending an inquiry. The member must be

advised in writing, and he has recourse to apply to the Supreme Court

for removal of the suspension or any other order the court considers

appropriate. Appeal from disciplinary decisions of council may be made

to the Supreme Court.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, these amendments provide

significantly improved authority for the Institute of Chartered

Accountants to conduct its business affairs and to ensure that the

public is protected and well served by highly qualified practising

chartered accountants.

I declare that I am a chartered accountant and have an

interest in the bill, and I would commend these provisions to the House

and move second reading.

[3:15]

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support

this bill. Very briefly, it is something that the Institute of

Chartered Accountants have been trying to get through for some period

of time. To them, it's been the highest priority in the whole province,

but to the Legislature it has had a rather low priority, in that they

have tried year after year to get it brought forward and have never

succeeded. However, they have finally done it.

I won't add anything to the explanation given by the hon.

member preceding me, other than to say that what it is really doing is

making legal the bylaws under which the chartered accountants have been

governing themselves in the province of British Columbia for some years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Everything that was said

was quite remarkable and I totally agree with it. How are your

comments, Mr. Member for Nanaimo? I'm sure they were superb. Were they?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They were superb: let me

put that on the record. I really enjoyed the comments from the first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and also the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier); and again I say this is a remarkable

piece of legislation for the association, and for the members, and for

students entering into that noble profession,

I now call second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 15. Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of

Bill 33. Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SUPPORT (INDEPENDENT)

AMENDMENT ACT. 1987

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The bill is in the hands

of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). who is arriving soon.

Like the Leader of the Opposition during the basketball game,

I would say that the Minister of Education is traveling; that's a

basketball term.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's on his way.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has arrived!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps the House could

welcome the member for North Peace River and the hon. Minister of

Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'm

delighted to be able to proceed with this bill, the School Support

(Independent) Amendment Act. I think the bill is quite straightforward.

What we're really doing in the bill is making a few of the changes

legal — the policy directions that were announced in the throne speech

debate.

The bill does change the qualifications of pupils somewhat to

include for the first time that pupils can qualify at an independent

school that gets provincial funding if they are members of the

diplomatic corps. Also it reduces the timeframe that independent

schools are required to operate before they receive funding. We did

quite a bit of looking at that in other provinces as well and we found

that if schools were operating appropriately, that could be established

in one year and it could be monitored in future years.

What has happened is that for three years these independent

schools had to pick up the cost entirely without any assistance; now

the waiting-period will simply be one year and that will, I think,

allow those parents who also pay provincial taxes to benefit somewhat

by the 35 percent assistance that is provided to the group 2 funded

schools, rather than have to pay the entire cost for the three years.

The indications are that in other provinces the shorter

qualifying period has not resulted in a proliferation of independent

schools. There seems to be a percentage of students and parents who

like to exercise that choice, and that percentage remains fairly

constant.

One of the changes that has been made is accreditation for

non-funded schools. We have had started in British Columbia, as in

other provinces. some schools known as the visa schools. And we've been

very concerned in that a visa school could simply advertise and attract

people from out of the province, and then when these students came

here. they were in a very tenuous position: they could hardly protest

the curriculum that was offered; they could hardly have any recourse,

should the school not continue; there was no way that they could be

assured their fees would be returned if the school went into bankruptcy

— those sorts of things.

So there appeared to be quite an interest from offshore,

particular in the Pacific Rim countries, to send students here to

British Columbia — not at the expense of our taxpayers; they were quite

willing to pay the entire cost, but they wanted some assurance of what

was being offered. Similarly, some of the unfunded schools wanted

to be able to say: "What we are

[ Page 1984 ]

advertising is in fact correct. We are committed to delivering

what our advertisements say." These schools were not trying to take

advantage of immigrants; they were simply wanting to say: "We want some

way that we can have assurance."

The answer was that we felt that we didn't want to get into

controlling these schools and ipso facto into some funding which would

flow from that. We wanted them to operate as such, but we felt that our

British Columbia reputation depended on the reliability of these

schools. So what we've done in this legislation is provide for

voluntary accreditation. The request must come from the school. The

school must be prepared to pay the entire cost of that accreditation

process, and they must be willing to go through that process of

accreditation. What we would do is provide either qualified people from

the ministry or, more likely, retired superintendents or

secretary-treasurers. There are two things really involved: the

educational curriculum and the funding aspects. So that's why we

thought we could have people hired. For a fee, they would go in and

accredit these schools, under the direction of our inspector of

independent schools, who would oversee this operation.

From that, of course, flows what is required, and, basically,

the requirements would be bonding, so that people could be assured of

their money back if the school went into receivership or bankruptcy or

was unable to continue for financial reasons. The other side of it

would be the curriculum. They would have to indicate what they were

offering and how they were going to evaluate that. For instance, if

they were going to say that when the students leave the school they

would be qualified to enter, say, a post-secondary institution — in

other words. have the grade 12 equivalency — they would have to show us

how that would be determined; and that could well be by accepting the

provincial examinations. In other words, they would have to look at the

provincial assessment program before they could say that they can give

a grade 12 or grade 11 or grade 10 equivalent. So I think that is going

to give some assurance to the people who send their students here.

To implement that, of course, you have to have a penalty. It's

against the law for anyone to say,"We are an accredited school," unless

they have in fact gone through this process.

Some of the actual accreditation process and the terms and

conditions that they have to meet would be established in regulations:

a policy statement wherein they would have to agree that these are the

steps that the superintendents, or the qualifiers. If you like — the

accreditation team — would go through. In other words, there would be a

check-list of requirements that they must meet before they can be

accredited. I've given you some of them. Some of them need to be more

clearly defined. But we have worked those out in a statement so there

would be some guidelines for those doing the accreditation.

So with that, those are the major changes that this act makes.

There are some consequential amendments, references to the

certification or qualification that no longer apply. Some of them are

consequential because of the Teaching Profession Act. But those are

consequential amendments.

I might point out also at this time the new percentage rate

for independent schools. Group 1 schools moving from 9 percent to 10

percent, and group 2 schools moving from 30 percent to 35 percent, are

not in this legislation because they are, by the legislation, set by

order-in-council. and that has been done.

So with that, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 33.

[3:30]

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

opportunity to speak on this bill because I think it is an important

one. I think it is important to look at our history and the kind of

changes that are taking place with respect to the independent schools

in this province,

This province moved from a very long-standing policy in 1977,

the policy of the former Premier W.A.C. Bennett, who very adamantly

said that public money was for public schools and private money was for

private schools, and that any change in that would really amount to

double taxation. In 1977 that was changed, and at that time regulations

were implemented that suggested it required five years to set up a new

independent school. It has been a policy that has been in existence ten

years now. Those schools have had that funding. That is the status quo,

and that is accepted by a fair percentage of the population of this

province.

However, I think what we see in this bill is going much

further than that. In this bill I see a much more active role played by

the government, much more active than just saying: "We have these

independent schools here. They are short of funds; we should help them

out a little bit." Tie that to the public school system and hence they

would get increases if the public school system got increases.

What I see in this bill is that we are moving much more

aggressively and much more strongly to promote, advertise and encourage

the privatization of our school system. We like to avoid the idea that

the independent schools and the public schools are in competition, and

I think it's important that that be played down. Nevertheless, I think

that is the fact.

So whenever we see government make changes in legislation

affecting independent schools, we have to ask ourselves what direction

we are moving in. I think the move from saying that the schools are

here and that we move from the policy of non-funding to some funding is

much different from the kind of thing that we see in this legislation.

We had a five-year waiting-period to set up an independent

school in this province that was changed to a three-year period. In

that time we've seen a fairly rapid increase in the number of

independent schools being set up, even with a three-year

waiting-period. This legislation suggests that that waiting-period

should now be one year. The minister quotes two other jurisdictions in

Canada. I would assume that if the minister had really canvassed the

entire country — I am not suggesting he hadn't, but if there had been

arguments from other provinces to support his position — then he would

have quoted more than two provinces. He would have said eight out of

ten provinces have no more than a one-year waiting period, or something

to that effect. Instead, he suggests that Quebec has a zero

waiting-period and Alberta has a one-year waiting-period. Perhaps the

minister does have other figures and he would like to enlighten us, but

my guess would be that there are longer waiting-periods for these kinds

of things in other provinces.

I see, too, a tie-in with the encouragement with the Bill 19

situation, where we have independent schools in this province that

could be categorized as non-union schools. Although some schools in the

independent sector are seeking to form unions, these schools operate at

salary levels that I think everybody agrees are much lower than those

in the

[ Page 1985 ]

public school because of the organization of teachers in the

public school system.

What we're doing by what we saw in the budget and by what we

see in this legislation is going far beyond just supporting existing

funding to schools and trying to make a growth industry out of this. If

we look at the number of students in the independent school system in

1977 compared to those in 1984, we see a 300 percent increase. That was

with a five-year and a three-year waiting-period. and now we're moving

to a one-year waiting-period. That kind of growth is a natural growth,

and going to a one-year system is unnecessary at this time.

I have to speculate about the reasons for this. I'm not sure

whether it's sort of a doctrinaire position; I know the second member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) characterized the independent

schools as free enterprise schools in the Bill 20 discussions. Maybe

that's part of it.

But my guess is it's more likely the bottom-line mentality

that I think so often permeates the government, and that is.... It's

appended to this legislation that there is an $81 million saving in

1987-88 by having these students in the independent school system. I

think the government is very interested over the years in increasing

the size of that saving to well beyond that $81 million.

Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to get into comparisons

between the public system and the private system. I think the

government forces this kind of comparison when they encourage one

sector of our school system and do very little to see the other system

flourish. It's divisive, but I think the government forces this kind of

division.

One of the mistakes that I think we all make when we're

viewing independent schools is to view them as a broad mass. Certainly

that's not true. There's a wide range of schools within the

independent school movement. There's a school in my community of

Burnaby that deals only with dyslexic students; it does an excellent

job with them, an admirable job. It's a job that can only be done when

there are a lot of adults working with each individual student. It's

the kind of program that I expect that the minister doesn't want to

fund, won't provide the appropriate kind of funding for those dyslexic

students. They're encouraged to go outside the public school system.

The area I have the greatest concern about in the independent

school system relates to funding. One dozen or so schools receive

approximately 10 percent of the entire budget for the independent

school system. These are schools that charge exorbitant fees. In the

range of $5,000., and get a government grant on top of that. These

schools I think are excellent. They're excellent because they have

small classes and they're able to select their students, and they do a

very good job of selecting those students. What we see in these

schools, because of the cost factors involved, are bastions of the

privileged. I have to ask myself why, and I have to ask the minister

why, when these schools are so well funded by the parents of these

families, the minister sees the necessity of giving extra money to

these schools.

I have an application form for one of these schools, and I

find it quite amazing. There are a number of steps that the parents

have to go through in order to apply to these kinds of schools. There's

a $15 wait-list fee just for the application. That's step one. That

application asks whether the student comes from a stable home, whether

the student is living with both parents. Following step one we get into

the testing area, and there's a $40 fee to write those tests. Then we

get into interviews, and we're down to step five. After the interview

it says: "If that doesn't change the candidate's mind about

entering...." Again: "if space allows, a place may be offered." At that

point the parent contributes a non-refundable deposit of $300.

Standards for admission to this particular independent school indicate

that the candidate ought to rank at least eightieth or preferably,

eighty-fifth percentile across the board. It suggests that 37 percent

of the students that entered played one or more musical instruments, 37

percent sang in a choir and 34 percent were above-average athletes.

I'm not particularly suggesting anything derogatory about

these schools, except that I think they're doing very well, thank you.

I really have to ask the minister why he sees the necessity of funding

those particular kinds of schools. Decisions that parents make with

respect to choice of school.... I think choices are important.

Unfortunately, I think parents are often making decisions in a vacuum

about the kinds of schools they're sending their children to. There's

very little data available that can assist parents in making these

kinds of decisions.

These dozen or so independent schools that I have particular

concern about have meetings that decide, I guess, where these public

funds are to be spent — meetings that are not open to the public.

There's very little accountability in terms of how these public funds

are spent. I understand that they must file an audited report under the

Society Act. I doubt that those are open to public scrutiny. I have

some concerns about where these funds are being spent. I've seen

television advertising for these schools, and I suppose a portion of

those ads were paid for by public money. They can advertise small

classes.

A recent ad for an independent school which was mentioned in

the newspaper was trying to attract students and did so publicly by

portraying public schools as rife with overcrowding, drugs, alcohol,

dropouts and disciplinary problems. That independent school is using

public money, I expect, to help pay for that advertisement. That ad is

talking about the school system that was built up by Social Credit

governments virtually all of my adult life, except for three short

years. I wonder how the minister feels about public money being

spent for advertisements that clearly attack the public school system

in an unfair and unjust way. I expect that a part of these public funds

is also being used to send delegates to conferences in which there are

workshops on neo-Marxist influence in North American education. I have

concerns about these kinds of schools that are charging exorbitant

fees, that are receiving public money and are using those public moneys

in, I think, an unfair and unreasonable way.

[3:45]

I think we do want to support alternatives, and I would urge

the minister to encourage alternative schools, alternative programs

within the public school system. The district that I'm most

knowledgeable about is the Burnaby School District, where I served on

the school board for some nine years. What happened over that period in

the secondary schools was an increase of 80 percent in compulsory

courses. During that same period we saw a concomitant decrease in staff

of 40 percent. So what we see in the public school system is a

narrowing and a narrowing and a narrowing, with much less flexibility

to meet the variety of needs that our students have in the school

system today, which again encourages this proliferation of independent

schools. I have serious concerns about the direction of this government

in so doing, and I suggest again that their reason for doing that is

that for every

[ Page 1986 ]

student who leaves the public school system and enters the

independent school system, there is a considerable savings in dollars

to the government.

I'd like to raise the question of visa schools as well. I wish

I'd done this a long time ago, because I don't know if we're that far

apart on this particular aspect. It seems to me that there are a number

of independent schools in this province that are meeting the needs of

foreign students, who are our partners in the Pacific Rim and whom we

want to encourage to become aware of our culture and our education

system, so that we're building future markets in that Pacific Rim.

These schools advertise abroad and charge very high fees for students

to come to British Columbia to be taught by people who have been

trained in our school system at great public expense, and these large

profits are going to people who are able to set up these kinds of

schools. So there's a big market there and, I think, a large source of

revenue.

Had I had the opportunity, I would have suggested to the

minister that this large source of revenue could be used by the public

school system, which is in desperate need of funds, and has been since

the early eighties. It would have been a natural mix of providing

opportunities for these foreign students, solving our unemployment

problem. and enhancing our relationship with Pacific Rim countries.

The beauty of this system, as I see it, is that the major

motivations for these students to come to Canada is to appreciate

Canadians. to appreciate our culture and to enhance their skills in the

Japanese students go to school with Japanese students in those schools,

and Hong Kong students go to school with Hong Kong students. There are

very few Canadian students in any of those schools. I think there is an

important need there, an important market there — a market that could

have been tapped by an imaginative government — to bring resources to

the public school system, which is in such desperate need of those

resources.

I'm sad to see that the government is not going in this

direction. I support the minister's suggestion of accreditation for

these schools. I think it's good that every student being served in

whatever school in this province have some safeguards, to ensure that

the kind of instruction that we want to be proud of in this province is

being carried out. But I think the motive of creating profit for the

individuals who run these schools is wrong, and that's what I see in

this. There was an alternative that the government should have looked

at.

I think. too. If we go back in history, we see that there were

very strong reasons for the setting up of a public school system. There

wasn't always a public school system. Ryerson, who was one of the

leaders of the development of the public school system, pointed out in

1841 that historically public schools had one strong mission: to make

graduates who were good members of a universal society. He wanted to

encourage schools that were free, and were also compulsory. The reason

that he wanted to do that was the tremendous fear of the forces of

division — division in terms of wealth, class and race.

In order to be good members of a universal society, and as a

Legislature that wants to encourage that, we should be doing everything

we can to encourage the public school system — the publicly accountable

school system, the school system that's accountable at the local level

to people who are elected for one purpose, to govern education at the

local district. and to the Legislature. a tremendous system of

accountability.

I see every move that we make away from this as a tremendous

loss to our society, a loss of the kind of social cohesion that I think

we need. We have to be aware that we shouldn't be encouraging

fracturing of society on any kinds of grounds — philosophical,

religious or ethnic. We want a cohesive society; we want people to work

together. We talked in an earlier bill about the importance of working

together and cooperation. I think the more we're divided, the less we

do that.

I suggested that the choice be within the public school

system, and people can make choices, and that's good, too. But I think

to move — as I see in this legislation — strongly in a direction of

division, of encouraging separation rather than cohesion, is one that I

have very strong concerns about. I would like to leave it there. I have

raised some questions, and I see the minister making notes. I think

some of my colleagues also want to comment on this bill. I have serious

reservations about the directions of this legislation: moving away from

cohesion and toward separation.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that

there would be some other voices raised in this debate, that those who

obviously advocate and endorse the concept of private schools or

independent schools would elucidate their case. We on this side have

some difficulty. As ardent egalitarians and democrats, we wonder how

you deal with the whole concept of private schools and independent

schools. I say that because I have struggled for years with precisely

that problem. On the one hand we believe in a free society, and we

accept, of course, that individuals who, for their own reasons, want to

have their own separate system of education. have indeed every right to

do so on the other hand, we recognize that if we encourage that

alternate system, we are challenging the pressures to produce an

excellent public. universal. generally accessible school system.

If I might. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to try to explain why that's

the case. I think anybody who has much sense of a history of education

— especially what's called mass education or popular education —

recognizes that what we in North America did, and part of the new

world, part of the democratic revolution, was an effort to make all the

people privileged, to make everybody literate, to make everybody a

full-time participant in the society and in the economy.

What we argued as the primary justification for a public

education system — a universally accessible system of education — was

that it would provide the absolute necessary thing to justify an

equality in the society, namely equality of opportunity. That was the

defence of a popular mass public education system from the beginning.

It provided children from whatever lifestyle and whatever family

environment an opportunity to improve their lives and condition. That

was the great hope of democratic North American society, and it is thus

no accident that we had universally accessible, free education for

students in this world long before European society even dreamed of it.

We were the pioneers.

I'm suggesting that we look upon private facilities,

alternative systems, independent schools, as a threat, as a challenge.

to that system and to the ends achieved by that system. The reason is

that historically what has happened is that private schools have been

the bastion of privilege. That is simply a demonstrable fact that we

can show all the way from ancient Greece through to nineteenth century

England, through to twentieth century United States of America. It has

always been the case that private entities, those individuals

[ Page 1987 ]

fortunate enough to have the wherewithal and the financial

means to set up their own school system. have been able to produce

something better, simply for the kinds of reasons that my colleague the

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) introduced. If in fact you have

smaller classes, if in fact you have an opportunity to preselect, if in

fact you have an opportunity to choose students who tend to be already

well socialized and well adjusted, without second-language

difficulties, without behavioural problems, without any learning

disorders, inevitably you can do something that is more intellectually

rigorous. It's thus been the case. as I say, that private schools have

traditionally been able to do very well, but have done so because they

are, in effect. bastions of privilege. That's the predicament.

We recognize, to be sure. that there is also a very long

history within our country, certainly more so than in the United

States, of denominational schools, or parochial schools as understood

in Ontario and Quebec — largely done for reasons of religion, language

and culture. I think it is precisely because of the reality of Canadian

society having produced that kind of system that we are therefore not

about to make any kind of unqualified, all-inclusive statements that

all private education is bad, or some such thing.

I'm suggesting, however. that we're concerned that the

encouragement by government of private education, of private schools,

is in effect taking away the pressure on the public system to perform

well. If indeed it is the case that the articulate middle class within

society, and those even more comfortable than the middle class, have

the wherewithal to send their children to private school, who then

speaks for the not so articulate? Who then protects the interests of

those individuals who are literally left to maintain and support the

public school system?

[4:00]

I know there is a delicate and difficult balance to be found

here, which I think democratic governments throughout North American

society have had to struggle to find — and I'm sure the minister is

trying to find that balance. Our concern. however, as pointed out by my

colleague for Burnaby North. Is that this change to the independent

schools act seems to us to be encouraging an expansion of the — may I

use the term — private sector with regard to education. I guess I can

say fairly safely and with some confidence that we are convinced that

this is the wrong time to be given that kind of encouragement. The

status quo was perhaps in itself not entirely satisfactory, because

again, as has been pointed out, private schools have been proliferating

— they've been growing. One of the reasons they've been growing Mr. Speaker, is that we are going through some social turmoil,

tension and dislocation. the pressure of which is manifested in the

public school system. We have problems in the public school system that

we don't have easy solutions to. Therefore those in a comfortable

middle-class position are quite prepared and eager to take young Jane

and Johnny out of that system and put them into the other one — that's

happening already.

I 'm suggesting to the minister that what happens almost

inevitably and necessarily as a result of this is that the pressure to

improve the public school system is thereby decreased. and that's a

problem. We therefore. as I say, have difficulty in general terms, in

terms of, literally, the principle of public education. We have trouble

dealing with private or independent schools, albeit that they have

functioned for a very long time in our society, and certainly will

continue to, and albeit that individuals obviously in a free society

have the right to those kinds of schools.

Our concern, however — let me close with this observation — is

that the state, the government, appears on the face of it to be giving

encouragement to those schools and thereby undermining, we think. the

integrity of the public school system.

MR. DE JONG: I would just like to make a

few brief comments on what has been said earlier today about this

matter. I think that the independent schools do serve a useful purpose,

and for more than one reason. As has been mentioned, there is a

financial benefit to the province by having a number of independent

schools in the province, because there is indeed a saving to the

province as such, and the saving is substantial.

But aside from the financial aspect — and of course this bill

deals with further assistance to the independent schools — there are

other reasons why independent schools were started. The members of the

opposition may well know there are certain religious reasons. I believe

that as Canadians we are living in a free country. We are living in a

Christian country built on Christian principles, and I think we should

have the opportunity as individuals, as parents, also to further those

beliefs on to our children through the education system.

I know that not every independent school is perhaps based

because of a Christian principle as such. However, I believe many of

them are. As was said, in some independent schools the rates are as

high as $5,000 per student. Now I'm not aware of any independent school

where the cost of tuition is $5,000, but I do know that in many of the

schools in the lower mainland the average cost runs between $2,000 and

$2,500, and the teachers are certainly not underpaid. They may not be

paid as much as in the public school system, but they're certainly not

being underpaid. They're well paid for the services they render, and

they are a committed type of people, committed to teaching.

I would also like to commend the Minister of Education not

only for bringing this bill forward, but also for the wide variety he's

providing through the public school system to the public schools in

terms of educational needs and privileges. I think we're doing a great

job in education — nothing to be ashamed of. I commend the minister for

this bill as well as for the other initiatives that he has taken, and

is still undertaking. In making our education system better.

MR. ROSE: Well, I wasn't going to speak on

this, but the member from Fraser Valley always provokes me. I don't know

why that is; he's a very mild-mannered man but he tends to provoke me

all the time. I think that what we need to make really clear here is

that we on this side of the House have never questioned the dependent

schools — I was going to call them independent schools, but they're

dependent schools. We should call them what they are. They are

dependent upon the public purse; that's what they are. And they're

private schools. Don't call them independent schools.

I have no quarrel with their right to exist — none at all.

What we are concerned about is the increasing amount of the public

treasury which they consume, and we think at the expense of the public

schools. But as an individual I feel, as many individuals do, that I

have a right to pass on my values to my children; and that's why many

of these schools are in existence, whether they’re Christian Reformed,

[ Page 1988 ]

Catholic schools, Jewish schools, or whatever. I have no

quarrel with that either. I think I as a parent have a greater right

than the state to determine the values of my children. I have no

difficulty with that one either.

Where we have the difficulty is that we have the minister

really now serving two systems: a union system and a nonunion system.

If he were a contractor, it would be called double-breasting. That's

what's happening. Frequently the problem is that those people who are

affluent enough squeal like stuck pigs if they have $400 or $500 added

to their taxes, but quite easily and acceptably would spend $4,000 or

$5,000 to send their child to some snob school, paid for by the public

purse.

That is the argument. It is not about whether or not the

schools have a right to exist or whether they do good work. Nobody

quarrels with that. But they are schools on the cheap, because the

government not only pleases its constituents, many of whom go to these

schools, but they get teachers on the cheap, many of them not

qualified, while at the same time our teachers are looking for jobs in

California, and some of them are working there.

This afternoon we had the interesting spectacle of a very

progressive bill retiring teachers voluntarily, if they wish, at age

55. Why do they need to retire teachers at age 55? Quite frankly,

because there are too many of them, because the number of jobs and

places available in the public schools has been dropping. That's what

our concern is. Certainly it's not whether the member from the Fraser

Valley has the right to send his children to a Christian Reformed

school or to the Mennonite Educational Institute or to any other

particular private school. That's not the problem.

What we are concerned about is that as the proliferation of

these schools increases, with their selective registration, whether

it's on religious grounds or on some other grounds, our public schools

become dumping grounds for those who either cannot afford to go or are

incompetent to go to some sort of private school. That is our main

concern on this whole matter.

First of all, we did not always have public education. It was

kind of an American invention; it came to Canada relatively later. We

had a class-ridden society. The views of the Americans were that if you

had a public school system, people would learn to read — maybe even the

Bible. But they would all at least have an equal chance. They did not

believe in a class society. They believed thoroughly in a classless

society in the Jeffersonian democracy, and the way to achieve that,

thought the Americans, was the public school system, because it unified

people and it made Americans out of people who came from all over the

world. They didn't have educational ghettos; they had the public system.

Again let me say — for the fifteenth or the umpteenth time —

that I'm not opposed to having the private system. But I am opposed to

having it eat more and more into the public purse, while our public

system is allowed to decline; to having teachers retire early because

there aren't places for them in our system; to having teachers forced

to go to California to get jobs because there aren't....

Do we need more teachers in our schools for dyslexic children

or children who have certain kinds of learning difficulties or children

who need language training? We need thousands of them. But what are we

doing? We aren't spending the money there; we're cutting back, and we

have been since '83 — nearly 500 million bucks out of the public

system. What are we doing with the private system? We're increasing

the spending.

It has two obvious advantages: it serves the corporate elite

and that kind of network who don't want their kids in the public school

anyway, and it also serves those people who for religious or cultural

reasons would like their values passed on. Good and sufficient reasons

— no quarrel with that at all. But, Mr. Speaker, what bothers me is

that somehow in our society, or in that sort of business ethic that I

see across there, by definition all private spending is good, even if

it's spent on underarm deodorants, and public spending is bad. By

definition, the extension of that is somehow that private education is

good and public education is bad. And I don't want....

The first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) is

about to rise, I see — to levitate.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He's the defrocked Education

minister, a former Education minister. I'll let him have his turn.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I think that the

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has made the point that we have

had a balance with regard to independent schools and public schools

that has been maintained in a way, over a number of years, that was

consistent. There was a kind of consistency that we were able to live

with. We were able to honour the feelings of those people who, often

from a particular religious persuasion, felt that it was necessary for

them to be able to have their children in their own schools. It seems

to me that that system has worked.

But I do have a bit of difficulty with the comment of the

second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) when he says that

we live in a Christian society. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we can

really say that any more about the national fabric of the country

called Canada and of the province called British Columbia. It may be

that there are ways, given some very broad

definitions, that one might

be able to make that statement. It seems to me that it's also possible

to just as strongly make the point that we are a multicultural society,

a mosaic and a gathering place of people of many nations, many

traditions and many faith perspectives.

Indeed, within the one entity, the Christian faith, the number

of faith perspectives are very great. It seems to me that if the point

is going to be made that we need to facilitate independent schools

because we are after all a Christian country, then — in fairness and

since we would believe that there are principles of justice that are

part and parcel of the Christian tradition that point could also be

made in relation to people of all ethnic backgrounds and all religious

perspectives, including all of the non-Christian religions.

[4:15]

We must ask ourselves what we would be getting our country

into if we were to go that route. I do recognize and appreciate the

importance that we not look upon ourselves as strictly a melting-pot. I

think it is very important that we do those things within our society

that make it possible for people from different backgrounds to continue

to maintain and appreciate and celebrate their traditions and to bring

those traditions into the total Canadian-British Columbian experience.

On the other hand, if we go the route of saying,"Well, after all, we

are a Christian country; therefore we need Christian schools for the

different types of Christian entities we find," and then we have to go

the step further, in

[ Page 1989 ]

fairness, and say there should also be made available public

support for other kinds of schools for people from other backgrounds,

we lose the opportunity for the classroom and the school to be a

microcosm of the backgrounds and faiths and ethnic identities of who we

are as a people.

I have to ask the question: how do we become a people if we

insist on living our lives in ways that separate us from one another?

How do we go about becoming a people where we can share our rich

traditions and the values of the various kinds of heritage that we

bring together in this life if we seek to find ways to separate us and

set us apart when we are going through that time of education?

The concern that is being expressed on this side of the House

is not that there should not be independent schools. I do not think

that point is being made. But I think the concern is very definitely

that we must be vigilant if we see a drift taking place within our

society that could be leading us to a point whereby, because of

bottom-line considerations — and the second member for Central Fraser

Valley mentioned that this is saving money — and because of

considerations of economies of scale, we deprive our youth, our hope

for tomorrow, of the education they so much need in order to be able to

fulfil their responsibility within this land.

If we are basing that type of decision on that type of value,

I suggest we must be very vigilant and very wary so that we know just

what it is that we might lose or what the cost might be to the kind of

Canadian identity, the kind of social fabric, that celebrates and

appreciates the many facets of our background.

I just want to go on with one other aspect of this. Given the

cutbacks that have been experienced by the public school system, I have

recently observed the painful process within School District 43 of

having to decide whether or not to close schools. In some cases. the

possibility would be to mothball the school; in other cases, it would

be to sell the school. Neighbourhoods would become very concerned when

they saw the school in their neighbourhood possibly being lost because

of the cutbacks and because the local trustees could not find a way to

make ends meet. This would result in the recommendation to close a

school. People would then gather at community meetings, and they would

point out that when they bought their property in that neighbourhood

they bought it there because they believed the school would be there.

They would point out that the school was a focal point that brought the

community together. They would point out many things of importance for

maintaining that school.

In communities all over British Columbia, when the decision

does come that the school must be sold, another process then often

falls into place; there is a domino effect. And what often happens is

that an independent school that is coming into being finds that there

are school trustees who are desperate to raise funds and that there is,

therefore, an opportunity for the independent school to purchase what

was formerly a public school. This then happens, and then those parents

in that community that are concerned about their children having to go

down the street and into another neighbourhood, through dangerous

intersections, are faced with the decision of whether to pay the costs

of enrolling their children in the independent school so they can

continue in their neighbourhood.

Mr. Speaker, poor parents don't have that option. Poor parents

are left only with the option of their children having to experience,

day by day, the new danger in their lives of having to go through that

intersection into another neighbourhood and to another school: a

separation resulting from this type of drift, which again means there's

one set of circumstances for the poor and one for those who can afford

to go to the independent school in the area if they choose.

It is a very significant point. If we are involved in a

process as a result of this legislation, and other legislation that

might be anticipated, a process of drift where we lose our public

school system, where we lose the system in which children with special

needs have access to that type of teaching that they very much need,

where we a lose a system where children with behaviour problems have

access to the benefit of the public system that they so much need, we

must be very cautious and vigilant and ask ourselves if it is worth the

price.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like

to indicate that I support this legislation. I have looked forward to

this for years. I think it brings about a degree of equity that a lot

of people in this province will support.

It's been said that public funding should go to public schools

and private funding to private schools. There is no such thing as

public funds. There's only one taxpayer, and the same taxpayer, the

same parents and the same community.... The same dollar supports

education, period. We have to recognize that the parents who choose

private schools are also taxpayers and have dollars going into the

public purse. What we're doing under this legislation, by making it

perhaps a little easier for these schools to exist, is allowing parents

who so choose to have some of their own private dollars diverted to the

school of their choice.

The charge was made that somehow private schools have drawn

dollars away from the public schools in a certain district. I don't

believe that it is the case at all. I've never seen evidence of private

schools drawing dollars away from the public schools in any particular

district. I don't see how that follows at all.

Underlying the entire bill is a philosophy: a philosophy of

freedom, a philosophy of choice, of saying we should allow diversity to

exist in our communities, allow people to make their own unique

contributions to society, and allow parents with different points of

view to exercise that right. Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that

that strengthens our community. In many instances, competition brings

out the best in all of us. Rather than having one monolithic,

oppressive, state-run system, we should welcome the diversity that is

possible when different sectors of the community are allowed to have

their input. I know from experience that it's simply not true that

somehow this favours the rich at the expense of the poor. Many of the

parochial schools draw children from all income levels and cross

boundaries that might be surprising to the member opposite. It also

allows people — parents and concerned citizens — a great deal of input

into the education of their children, and we ought to welcome that. We

see throughout society a great diversity and a greater do-it-yourself

approach. This is simply one indication in that direction.

I look forward to the day, when teachers can be truly

professional, in the sense that they might band together around a

certain philosophy, a certain approach to education, such as the

Montessori approach, and hang out their shingle and say,"This is the

type of methodology that we favour," whether it is traditional or

perhaps a more open, less traditional approach to education: whether it

puts emphasis on discipline or the opposite. Perhaps we will see the

day when

[ Page 1990 ]

teachers, as professionals. can band together, hang out their

shingle, proclaim what it is they have to offer, and then be funded to

the extent that they draw students to them. I think that would be a

great thing for the teaching profession, because they would indeed

become professionals and there would be a diversity. We all know that

within the educational community there are diverse approaches to the

whole question of education, and we should not hesitate to promote

that. We should welcome that, because it is through freely allowing

competing ideas to exist and express themselves that we can mould and

shape the finest kind of society that all of us wish for.

In brief, I support it for philosophical reasons; I support it

for practical reasons. It's a good piece of legislation which a lot of

people will welcome, and I hope that in future years we can build on

the foundations being laid here.

MR. MILLER: I'll attempt to be very brief

and express just a few reservations or concerns about this bill. We

really have strayed into a fairly philosophical area in terms of some

of the debate that I've heard. In fact, that is what hastened me to

this chamber.

I don't want to cover a lot of ground that has been covered

already in terms of the responsibility that we have in this province to

provide an excellent public school system. That's a well-accepted

principle that goes back a long time. Certainly I would hope that most

members would agree that one of our prime responsibilities as a

government in this province is to provide that school system and to

ensure, as much as we can, that it's the best system we can possibly

devise.

As government, we have taken various positions over the years

with respect to our public school system. For example, the previous

speaker mentioned discipline. There has been no move to go back to the

previous system with respect to corporal punishment in British

Columbia, yet on the weekend I was told a story that quite shocked me.

I'm going to relay it, because it does relate to this whole debate

about funding of independent schools. It's the approach taken by a

particular school. I'm not going to name the community the school is

in, or its denomination or anything else: I'll simply relate that the

system of discipline put in place was particularly abhorrent. The

mother who relayed the information to me has decided to remove her

child from that school upon the completion of this school year.

[4:30]

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

This child — I'm talking about a grade 5 student — received a

form of corporal punishment 27 times and at various times came home

with the marks of that discipline on his body. The final outrage for

this mother was learning that they had developed a unique form of

discipline in that the children were on a demerit system, and if they

accumulated a sufficient number of demerits, then they were liable for

some type of discipline. That took the form of the children who had not

received demerits being issued ping-pong paddles, and the children who

had demerits being forced to run a gauntlet and be struck by these

other students with ping-pong paddles. I see that the members opposite

are laughing uproariously at this situation that I'm describing.

MR. SERWA: What's the point of the example? Is there any point you're making?

MR. MILLER: Yes, I think there is a point

to this example. It might be the only example, but if it is the only

example, it's worth bringing to this chamber, because we're talking

about the province of British Columbia using taxpayers' money to fund

independent schools. My question relates to the kind of system that

some of those schools might have. Do we feel a responsibility to

monitor that as well? It's a very serious matter, Mr. Member, and if

you want to get to your feet after I've finished speaking, you're quite

welcome to. Madam Speaker, you can inform that member just as well as I

can. If the example I'm using causes some reaction, I'm glad it does.

In any event, very briefly, without wanting to prolong the

debate, that's one of my concerns, along with the general concern that

by having less of a commitment to the public school system, we might

indeed be doing a disservice to the vast majority of children in this

province who will continue to go to public schools. I think that

commitment to excellence must be maintained. We always have to try to

improve those schools and the teaching quality, the quality of the

education that those children are getting. It's not an easy job. Nobody

is suggesting that it is an easy job. But there are some downsides to

the simple ideological approach that somehow it's important to fund

independent schools.

MR. HEWITT: I'm pleased to rise on debate

of Bill 33. I just want to add my view as a person who supports the

public school system, but who also over the years has come to

understand the rationale that some people have to send their children

to independent schools — or private schools, if you want to call them

that. I think it's nice that parents in this province have that freedom

of choice. I certainly respect their freedom of choice. I think

parents, in determining how their children shall be brought up and

educated....

As the member on the other side of the House said, they have

their values, and they want their values passed on to their children. I

think that's important. Christian religious schools.... I don't say

this in a derogatory sense, or complaining about our public school

system, but I have a great deal of difficulty as to why we have all

this debate from time to time over the fact that the Lord's Prayer is

taught in our public schools — people say it shouldn't be taught. I

think it's important that it's there. I think it's important that we

can have the pledging of allegiance to the flag in our public schools.

I think that's important. But our mosaic, as we call it, in our

population.... Being very "liberal," we've basically set aside a lot of

those things in our public school system. I think the freedom that

parents have to make that choice and to send their children to a

private school, to an independent school, is important in our society.

You people haven't really disagreed with that.

The other thing is discipline. The member brought it up about

the private school that he mentioned, and the paddles. I think that's

an extreme example. But there are parents out there who have become

concerned about the lack of discipline in the public school system. I

don't say that because the teachers are not giving discipline. But in

many cases they are restricted from doing so because of our laws, or

because of society and the way we treat people today.

I can tell you that my wife was a former schoolteacher. When

the Minister of Education under the NDP in 1973 or so brought in the

regulations whereby you just wouldn't put a hand on a student, then

there wasn't as much discipline in the classroom. With private schools

and independent schools —

[ Page 1991 ]

I'm using both words here — the parent has the choice of

determining that they want to send their child to a private school

because they may feel they get better discipline or they possibly get

taught values or religion not available to them in the public school

system.

Let's talk about the parents that we're so concerned about

receiving the advantage of their private school being funded by the

state. We all know that those parents are paying their school taxes

into the coffers of the government, yet only a percentage of the cost

of operating those private schools goes from the province to the school.

Even though they're paying tuition fees and they're getting,

under the present regulation, 30 percent going to the cost of operating

a private school, the parents of that child going to the private school

are still contributing to the public school system through their taxes.

With regard to the curriculam in those private schools, the private

school doesn't get any funding from the province — as all members I am

sure are aware — unless the private school provides the core curriculum

of education.

We aren't denying young people their education. The main

thrust of this legislation basically is that the private school,

instead of having to wait three years after going into operation, only

has to wait one year. I think that's fair. When you stop and think

about it, they go into operation and the only way they can get the

funding is to meet the core curriculum of the province of British

Columbia.

The student there gets the same education as the student in

the public school system, but the student there gets two or three other

things. One is the values that the parent wants that child to have, and

that's freedom of choice; also, religious aspects if it's a religious

private school; and, third, discipline in the classroom, where many

parents feel that our public school system has failed.

We have an independent school department under the Ministry of

Education, an independent school inspector and staff to make sure that

those schools are up to standard as required by the Ministry of

Education for the province. I feel that it's a win-win situation. It

allows freedom of choice for the people; it allows contributions from

the province to help fund part of the operating costs, not the capital

costs. Those parents who send their children to private schools still

contribute towards our public school system.

I support the bill, and if the members opposite didn't take

that philosophical stance to say that private school is for the

privileged and the state shouldn't contribute to it and looked beyond

that, they'd find that it is a good alternate system, and one that we

should have in British Columbia. They should be pleased to contribute

something towards them. at the same time recognizing that the parents

pay a major share of the cost of operation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order

42, the Minister of Education closes debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to summarize

a few points and respond to a few points that were made. First, I

suggest that in British Columbia we have a range of choices in

education, and I am thankful for that. We have what is commonly

referred to as the public school system, and that is free; it is

available to those who wish to avail themselves of that system.

It does not preclude anyone on the basis of income levels,

religious philosophies or any other criteria. It does not preclude

people from attending the public school system without a fee. For that

we. as taxpayers in this province, collect taxes either provincially or

through the local boards and pay for that system. We have another

system in this province, which I'll classify as the private schools.

The private schools get no funding from the tax purse. They have to

exist strictly on their fees or whatever funds that they raise. Then we

have the independent schools, which I classify as those that get some

level of funding.

There is often confusion between the private schools and

independent schools. Some of the criticisms that are levelled at the

independent schools are really borrowed from the private schools. There

may be a private school that gets no provincial funding, that charges

very high fees and offers a very specialized program to a specialized

group which could pay those fees, get no provincial funding, but are in

the general category of independent schools. So there is that

confusion. So someone will take that high fee structure and impose it

on the other system.

In the independent schools we have the group 1 and group 2

schools. The group 1 schools get 10 percent of the average cost of the

public school system per pupil for their pupils. Their pupils have to

qualify: they have to be Canadian citizens, or their parents have to be

citizens; or, as in this new legislation, we put it that they can be

members of the diplomatic corps. But they do have to be qualifying

persons. There is much confusion between the independent schools and

the private schools.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), I think — I'd just

like to touch on this briefly — is a very bad example of the way the

debate can be distorted by taking one abuse example from a particular

situation and injecting it into a debate of the issue: independent

schools or public schools. While there are abuse examples in the public

school system, there are abuse examples in any private school system or

any independent school system, and I would not want the whole barrel,

in any one of these cases, to be judged by one rotten apple. There are

some bad teachers in British Columbia and they have abused students,

but they are very rare and they are very few. But I would never say

that, ipso facto, teachers are bad. I'll just mention that and discard

it, because I think it was a bad example of how debate can get

distorted.

[4:45]

I might say that the independent schools that get provincial

funding are required to meet provincial requirements, particularly

those in the 35 percent bracket. The group 2 schools that get 35

percent of the average cost of a public school system have to meet the

basic provincial curriculum. If they have a religious or another

emphasis that they wish to place, it has to be minimal. because they

cannot cover the whole provincial curriculum and spend all their time

on religious studies, for instance, just to use that analogy. They must

accept the provincial assessment program to determine pupil progress.

They must accept the grade 12 provincial examinations in order for

their graduates to qualify as well. So they have to meet all of those

requirements.

These schools are meeting, in effect, the basic objective of

an education program in this country, in North America. and that is to

provide a basic level of education to all young

[ Page 1992 ]

people according to a standardized curriculum or standardized

requirement. They do provide that, and it is for that reason that we

provide funding to them. That funding, contrary to some of the

arguments. does not take money from the public school system. When

those students are in the independent school system, they get 35 cents

per dollar of the cost. When they are in the public school system, they

are getting 100 percent of the cost. So you can't say that if you take

a dollar from here and turn it into a 35 percent cost, it is taking

money from over here. I have a hard time accepting that. What we're

really doing is, because they are providing and meeting the objectives

that are there for every student in British Columbia, every young

person. to get a basic education.... And since these people are

providing some of that in a slightly different manner by choice of the

people involved, we call that fairness and I think people are entitled

to that choice.

I know the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) mentioned that

until 1977 there was objection to public funding. I could also point

out that his party during the 1979 and 1983 elections were very careful

to say that they would not be against funding for independent schools.

When political aspects come into it, then of course I think there is

some concern.

I suppose the biggest concern is the philosophical position

best expressed by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). He talks

about a universal society. Universal can mean with choices. or all our

way, or no way. Sometimes I think he is expressing the extreme

socialist position that equality or egalitarianism is what we say it

is, without people choosing it for themselves. If you say that when

people have the choice to take the B.C. curriculum in this situation or

that one, that is, as he refers to it, a fracturing of society. then

the only thing I can draw from that is that he feels you've got to

bring that in so that it is not their choice but "our will be done" —

our collective will.

I believe the member is expressing it very well. He says we

have to have cohesion. Does that mean one mould? Or can there be

others? He says it is fracturing society. I think there is a danger

when any government decides there is only one way to achieve an

objective. Yet that member said, I think, that the only way it should

be achieved is through a public school system and that everyone, a

universal free education.... A universal free education is available to

everyone in this province, but it does not preclude their choice if

they wish to do something else or go in another direction.

Equality of opportunity is provided. I know it's translated.

and I think he's talking about the private schools rather than the

funded schools, as the bastions of privilege, and objecting.... Not

objecting to the religious emphasis, but some schools have a religious

emphasis.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member for Nanaimo,

if you'll let me finish, was saying that these schools have a religious

emphasis. But I maintain that if they get public funding, they have to

offer the full B.C. curriculum, so their religious emphasis can only be

minimal. Is there something wrong with that?

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) said the

same sort of thing: a big issue about the religious aspects of it. But

really, if the group puts a religious emphasis on the school, they do

not get any public funding unless they put the major and virtually the

full emphasis on the B.C. curriculum. which is offered in every other

school in the province.

MR. ROSE: You give public education a bad

name. Didn't you go to a public school?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. And I am not calling

the public schools a bad name. I am simply saying that people are

getting some choice and paying a higher price for that choice. Some of

the members are saying that just because they have some more money,

they should not have that choice.

MR. ROSE: No. we didn't.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, it is implicit in

some of the things that are said.

The opposition House Leader did say — I rather scratched my

head at this one — that the teachers in the independent schools are not

qualified, at the same time making the argument that they seem to be

able to provide a better education and that's why they attract kids

from the public school system. And you did say, Mr. Member — I wrote it

down — that the public schools then become the dumping grounds for

those who cannot qualify for independent schools. How you can say that

these teachers are not qualified but somehow or other they attract the

elite students so that the public school has to take the rest.... Start

thinking about what you say, Mr. Member, because I make notes on some

of it.

The one example that the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones)

came up with: I need to correct that on the record, because I share his

concern. An ad was placed from an "independent" school. It turns out

that it was a non-funded independent school. They did not get any

public money. Despite the fact that it was a non-funded independent

school, our inspector of independent schools immediately contacted them

and suggested that tha