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)

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

973 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

All-party committee system. Mr. Harcourt –– 973

Royal Inland Hospital board of directors. Mr. Miller –– 973

Deductions from GAIN benefits. Mr. Cashore –– 974

National day-care policy. Ms. Marzari –– 975

Tabling Documents –– 975

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 975

Mr. Jacobsen –– 976

Mr. Lovick –– 977

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 980

Mr. Guno –– 982

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 984

Mr. Stupich –– 986

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 990

Mr. D'Arcy –– 992

Ms. Campbell –– 995

Mr. Barnes –– 997

Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR403). Mr. De Jong

Introduction and first reading –– 999

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the first and second

members for Richmond obviously get a disproportionate number of calls

to the office, and regularly so. But we're very blessed with a group of

wonderful volunteers, who dedicate all their time regularly. They are

in the House today, in your gallery, and I would like to introduce

them: Lyn Greenhill, Lucy Zapf, Sylvia Howard, Jan Truer, Lorea Szabo,

and the constituency secretary, Maria DeVries. I would ask the House to

extend them a big welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming two

visitors from Alberta: Bill and Delores Stuart. Bill is the president

of District 18 of the United Mine Workers of America, and participated

in the community task force for selling coal to Ontario.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precincts today we have Gloria Parker,

president of the RNABC, and some of her executive. Would the House

please make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: In the House today is a former colleague of mine,

Don Jantzen. He was executive assistant to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs from 1973 to 1975. He's the first vice-president of the IWA in

Vancouver. He has been very active in raising money for the good work

that Rick Hansen is doing. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. RABBITT: On deck today I have two friends visiting in the

precincts, both from the community of Merritt in the great riding of

Yale-Lillooet, two very hard-working volunteer workers for my campaign

in the last election: Jack and Carolin Raikes. Would the House please

welcome them.

Oral Questions

ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about one-party

task forces. The throne speech included promises — many promises, as a

matter of fact.... "My government will expand the number and roles of

the all-party committees of this assembly." Furthermore, "committees of

this House will travel across our province to bring government to the

people." Yet with regard to the liquor privatization task force, the

social policy review and now the Project Pride Task Force headed by the

first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), the government is

sending out one-party Social Credit committees. I would like to ask the

Premier whether he has decided when the government will live up to its

promises by involving bipartisan committees of this assembly in that

sort of work.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I appreciate the question. I guess

we've all been very busy, including members of the opposition, and

we've only just now gotten into a couple of bills, so perhaps there

hasn't been the time to allot to this. But it will be addressed.

MR. HARCOURT: The labour legislation, the Teaching Profession Act and

the gambling initiatives are areas that should have been before the bipartisan

committees of this Legislature. Those are other examples. So I would like to

know, Mr. Premier: what's your deadline for sending those kinds of issues

to bipartisan committees of this House as you promised?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the labour legislation,

we certainly are aware of the many visits that the minister made to the

different communities throughout the province and the various

submissions received, and that certainly is the responsibility of

government. We intend to involve all members as much as possible, but

we recognize, too, that we can't govern by committee. There are certain

initiatives that the government must take, legislative initiatives

particularly.

ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Minister of Health. The

minister by now must have received the motion from the medical staff of

Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops with regard to the situation there.

Has the minister decided to take any action with regard to the method

by which hospital boards are elected?

HON. MR. DUECK: No.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary to the minister. Mr. Minister,

the board of that hospital really.... That hospital serves a population

area of about 100,000, and that board is not representative. Now that

hospital boards have stepped out of their traditional role as monitors

of the administration of the hospital and into a political role in

terms of policy, do you not believe that those boards should be elected

in a democratic manner, in the same way that municipal councils or

school boards are elected?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that

they are elected democratically. There is a system in place, and

historically there has been one for many, many years. There may well be

a change in the future; I'm not sure of that. I don't know what change,

or whether a change will take place, but they are duly elected. They

operate according to the Criminal Code of Canada. I don't know what

more he expects the Minister of Health to do.

[2:15]

MR. MILLER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the

minister could advise the House whether he agrees with there being no

residency or age requirement for people to participate in that

election, which is the case with this particular board and probably

with others. Does the minister think this is a suitable way to elect a

board that's going to decide this very important question of public

policy?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not aware of the bylaws that are in place

in that particular hospital. If there is some unusual method of

electing people to the board, and if it's brought to my attention that

it's not properly and correctly done under our laws of Canada, it may

be looked at; but I'm not aware of that. I know they have a duly

elected board in place. The particular hospital that you're referring

to has their election coming up June 13, I believe, and we'll see what

the outcome is of that.

[ Page 974 ]

MR. MILLER: It's June 18.

Surely it's a terrible admission to make, that you're not aware of

the bylaws or the method by which people.... You've been standing up

defending that. Given that situation, does the minister now not feel

that it is appropriate to respond to the motion of the doctors — which

he has done — to investigate the method by which that board is elected

in that community?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not sure whether the member asked whether

I was aware of what the particular doctors are doing or saying. All I

am aware of is that I've got a letter from 60 of the 130 doctors saying

that they no longer have confidence in the board. That doesn't tell me

that the board is not functioning and the hospital is not operating

properly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: You asked me a question. Do you wish me to answer it or do you wish to ask another one?

I am telling you that there is a board in place, duly elected. They

have appointed a therapeutic abortion committee under the Criminal Code

of Canada. They are acting according to that Code. Consequently, unless

there is some proof that those hospitals are not functioning properly,

or there's a risk to health, I will take no action.

MR. MILLER: Another supplemental to the Minister of Social

Services and Housing. My question is with regard to policy in your

ministry. What arrangements have been made for children who may be in

the care of your ministry in that particular city to provide them with

an abortion if they so request?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well

that the Royal Inland Hospital has a therapeutic abortion committee in

place — or did have, as late as last week. If that committee, which is

comprised of physicians, makes a medical decision, why would I possibly

want to interfere with or overrule a decision made by physicians?

MR. MILLER: There's some confusion in terms of the

responsibility of the minister. If a child in the care of your ministry

requests an abortion, what arrangements have been made by your ministry

to accommodate the wishes of that child?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member is fully aware

that that child, whether in care or not, must fall under the same rules

as the rest of society.

DEDUCTIONS FROM GAIN BENEFITS

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Social Services

and Housing. In December the federal government announced its intention

to increase Canada Pension Plan benefits for the disabled by $150 a

month. On Thursday order-in-council 880 was passed, which clarifies

that all so-called unearned income shall be deducted from GAIN benefits

for the disabled who live in institutions, including Canada Pension

Plan benefits. What is the government's rationale for taking away these

federal pension benefits?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, that question has been well

canvassed in this House on two or three occasions — during my

estimates, for one, and I answered at great length at that time. But I

will answer again that income supplements are paid to people as a

supplement to their income, to bring them up to a certain level. If any

person receives additional income beyond what they have, whether that

is an inheritance or a pension or winnings from a lottery or whatever,

that is added to their income. Once they pass that level, GAIN no

longer applies, and an income supplement is no longer necessary.

That income supplement is not a pension, Mr. Speaker. I make that

very clear to the members opposite. It is a safety net, to ensure that

everyone comes up to a minimum level of income. If their income rises

above that, then the income supplement is reduced at the other end.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would remind this

minister that the Hon. Jake Epp has requested that these benefits be

passed on to the recipients . I would add that by the passing of OIC

880 there is an indication that that is something new that has

happened, which indicates you weren't absolutely sure you had the power

to do it or else you wouldn't have had an 880. I would like to ask the

minister: has the minister decided that disabled GAIN recipients living

in the community can expect similar GAIN deductions in the near future?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the policy is quite clear,

and I have gone over it now several times in the House. Supplements to

income are not to be viewed as a pension and something that is

permanent. When a person's income increases by whatever amount, if it

goes above that floor level, then the person will lose by a

proportionate amount at the bottom end. We have even had a case

recently where someone won a large sum in a lottery and couldn't

understand why their GAIN payments were cut off. Although it is not the

same as a lottery, it did increase their income. When their income

rises beyond a certain amount, they no longer require social assistance

from the government.

MR. CASHORE: I would remind the minister that that is the case when somebody wins a small prize in a lottery, too.

I think it is shocking that this government continues to reach into

the pockets of the disabled in this way and take away what is

rightfully theirs at the request of the Hon. Jake Epp. I would like to

ask this minister, recognizing that disabled people with sufficient

income and not on GAIN are not penalized in this way and will receive

full disability pensions, if the minister will reassure the House that

he will not be depriving these people of their pension increase.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member seems to want to

make a speech rather than ask a question. We have never "reached into

the pockets" of anyone and taken money from them, nor will we. To

repeat, if their income rises beyond a certain amount, then they are

ineligible for the GAIN supplement.

Further, I have had discussions with Mr. Epp on this subject, and,

although we don't necessarily agree on it, I point out that we make the

decisions regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' money in this

province. Those decisions are not made in Ottawa.

[ Page 975 ]

NATIONAL DAY-CARE POLICY

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Social

Services and Housing. This week in Vancouver is child care week, and I

understand and we all know that negotiations are now underway between

the federal government and the provinces with respect to new national

day-care policy. There is a substantial sum of money to be spent by the

federal government in the field. Will the minister tell the House what

this province is taking to the bargaining table, give us some

indication of what those negotiations will look like and give this

House a chance to address the bargaining package that B.C. will be

going to Ottawa with?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for the question. We

had one meeting in January with the federal minister and the other nine

provincial ministers where we set out the timetable and the task force

to deal with child care. The follow-up meeting is in June and I'm

looking forward to finalizing, hopefully, the child care scheme for the

entire country.

At this point I'm not prepared, in advance of that meeting, to tell

the Legislature what we will be taking to the meeting, but I certainly

will in due course. The member and the House and the people of British

Columbia can be reassured that British Columbia will be well

represented at this very important conference which, as the member

pointed out, involves a tremendous sum of taxpayers' money.

MS. MARZARI: Given the fact that the minister is not prepared

to divulge to this House what he will be asking for, will he guarantee

that any agreement he makes with Ottawa will address the chronic lack

of accessible, affordable and universally available child care in B.C.?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, that was really not a

question. That was a political statement about the availability of day

care and the philosophy as put forward by that member regarding

universal, free day care. So I will accept it as a political statement

and leave it at that.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled an answer to a question put on April 30 by the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report and supplement of the

Ministry of Human Resources (Ministry of Social Services and Housing)

for the year ending March 31, 1986.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member like to present a petition?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I'd like to present

a.... Actually, I don't have a petition, but I do have a message to

convey to the Premier on behalf of some 1,000 correspondents who have

written to the Premier. In order to save postage they have....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you are seeking leave to present

a petition, I think that is one thing; but if you are seeking leave to

make a statement, the Speaker can't allow you to make a statement.

MR. BARNES: I don't wish to make a statement. I would be

satisfied, with leave, if the House would permit me to read the card

that I will be presenting some 1,000 of to the Premier. I think for the

edification of the Legislature and in light of the protest, Mr.

Speaker, which is....

MR. SPEAKER: I might suggest you avail yourself of meeting the Premier after meeting here. I heard many noes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that the message is simple.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member resume his seat.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: While the House is in a moment of levity,

this is a political anniversary for all of those elected May 5, 1983.

For all of you elected May 5, 1983, four years of fun and games and

genuine interest.

A bit more levity, if the Chair will permit me. The best line from

the 1983 campaign came from my colleague the opposition House Leader,

who said in his maiden speech: "At least I'm a member of the official

opposition". I'll give him a response....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we can debate all day but the Chair is at your request.

MR. ROSE: Read the card of the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

Seriously, in response to this particular anniversary, I would like

to tell the House that after coming from the cold climes of Ottawa,

entering this chamber was a tremendous culture shock for me and it's

taken me four years and I've almost got over it. But one of the things

that does worry me a bit is the number of days our friend the Leader of

the Opposition has got left, and it will not give us seven years if

he's right. So the member from Dewdney and I are really concerned about

qualifying for that seven years. I don't know who's right, but I hope

we might have maybe three or four more years left in the sessions of

this House unless something happens to improve things.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Victoria adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria has eight minutes left.

[2:30]

[ Page 976 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, before we all departed for lunch, I

was reflecting on how sad I was that this government, in only six short

months, has abandoned all its promises about a fresh start and no

confrontation, and how sad we are that they cannot keep up to their

promises of consulting and achieving consensus with very important

professional groups in this province.

If I had time I've got some quotes to make from some of these

renowned back-benchers on the other side, but I was also reflecting on

the fact that we thought in this House we were going to have a new

image and a new Premier who was not going to have the tough guy image

of the last Premier. We were hoping and the people of British Columbia

were hoping that indeed we could take the Premier at his word that

consultation was going to be the theme of the day and the theme of this

government. But with this legislation and the way this government has

handled this legislation, the old style of government is back. It is

back and it looks like it is here to stay. We find that most

unfortunate because we on this side of the House and the people of

British Columbia had hoped that things would indeed be different.

We've asked through hoist motions and other suggestions on this

important bill that impacts on those who guide our young people that

the teachers of this province, who are so important for our future,

have the opportunity to resolve this difficult issue in private

discussion with the minister and find some consensus.

To conclude, unless the government will change its mind, all I can

conclude is that this piece of legislation is vindictive and its

purpose is to attack the teachers of this province and those who guide

our young people. We have seen many speeches from those on the other

side, particularly the backbenchers, and I have to say that some of

those comments, particularly from the first member for Langley (Mrs.

Gran) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), indeed do

point out that all this legislation is a very banal attack, a

vindictive piece of legislation on our teachers.

The first member for Langley, for instance, suggests that we

shouldn't have politics in the classroom and we shouldn't talk about

current affairs in the classroom. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would remind

that first member for Langley of a party that a year ago sent to every

school library in the greater Victoria area, asking the librarians to

put it on their shelves, blatant Social Credit propaganda. The folder

you put out about all the things that you do was blatant Social Credit

propaganda, and it was sent out from greater Victoria. It seems to me

that if there is any hypocrisy in this government, it's on that side of

the House. They say: "We can't have current affairs, and we can't talk

about the political issues of the day in classrooms." Which government

was it that asked all the librarians in my riding to put blatant Social

Credit propaganda on their library shelves? It was the Social Credit

government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by suggesting to this government that they

can achieve consensus with the teachers, despite some members saying that they're

not a government of consensus. We do need consensus on important issues that

face our province. We should truly end the confrontation that we find ourselves

locked into in this province, where British Columbians are taking each other

on and saying things about each other, which I don't think is becoming to

British Columbians and the teachers and their associations, parents and politicians.

They're all saying: "I'm right. Our views are correct." But

what happens is that the system suffers and the children suffer in the long

term.

I would suggest to this government that they have every opportunity

— because they're only six months into their term — to do the very

thing they promised the people of British Columbia that they would

achieve: to try to find consensus on the important issues of the day

and try to work with British Columbians, work with the teachers for the

future of this province. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, all we can conclude is

that the old style of government — Social Credit government — is back,

that the tough-guy image is still here on the Social Credit side, and

that the people of British Columbia in the next few years — unless

there's some dramatic change — are going to be confronted by

legislation that wasn't based on discussion or consultation but was

based on personal vendettas and vindictive approaches to dealing with

issues they can't deal with in a consultative process.

We ask this government to really think through on their promises of

consultation, and if there was ever a bill that we've had so far, in

terms of the impact on our future, our kids and our schoolrooms, it's

this bill and what it's doing to the system. We cannot support Bill 20

in its current form, and we ask the government to consult, to achieve

consensus and stop attacking people and those who work for children and

the future of this province. It's not getting us anywhere, Mr. Speaker.

Let's have some consensus and consultation.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I

support Bill 20 not only as an MLA and a member of the government but

also as a parent of two young children just now entering the school

system. I support it because I believe that my children and their

teacher, along with all children and all teachers, will be better off

because of this legislation.

When the teachers in this province have had the opportunity to work

within the legislation, away from the false criticism and the

intimidation that is taking place today, they will be pleased. They

will be pleased because finally they will work in an environment of

true professionals. They will be free from having their profession

used, abused and degraded for a purpose that has little to do with

education but much to do with politics.

Everyone who has fairly examined the legislation knows it is good,

and the opposition criticism to the bill has been meaningless. Let's

look at a couple of examples. The Leader of the Opposition a few days

ago spent a large part of his speech criticizing Bill 20 because it did

not deal with the important issue of class size. Can you believe it,

Mr. Speaker? Bill 20 criticized because it did not legislate class

size. Of course, had Bill 20 dealt with class size, there is no doubt

that the opposition would be on their feet charging the government was

making a mockery of granting teachers the right to negotiation, by

legislating class size without any negotiation. Who are the opposition

speaking for when they criticize the provision that allows those

considered unsuitable for teaching to be removed from the system?

Certainly it's not the children, because that's who this provision

protects. And it can't be the vast majority of teachers, because they

are the people who are probably most anxious to have those unsuitable

for teaching removed from the system, because they severely hurt the

profession. Since we compel parents by law to send children to school,

we surely have the responsibility to do all that is possible to

guarantee the safety of those children. Since we charge the citizens of

this province, through taxation, tremendous amounts for education, we

[ Page 977 ]

have the responsibility to ensure that every young person shares in the great advantage of having a good, competent teacher.

No, I don't believe there is one member in the opposition who truly

believes that we should have legislated class size, and I'm equally

certain that there is no one in their ranks who would support an unfit

or mediocre person being allowed a place in the proud profession of

teaching. So why all the questions about Bill 20?

A member of the opposition today asked the question: what is driving

Bill 20? The answer is the determination to improve education in

British Columbia; that's what's driving Bill 20.

A more appropriate question, I suggest, is: what's driving the

opposition to Bill 20? Is it the concern that offering teachers the

freedom of choice on who will represent them may lessen the opportunity

to use teachers as a political force? Is that the concern? Mr. Speaker,

there's evidence that points in that direction.

A member of the opposition said that Bill 20 is a political bill

designed to blow apart the administrating organization of the teaching

profession in British Columbia. Another said the act is not to deal

with education, but an attack on the BCTF. Well, that's not quite true.

The act does deal with education, and it also deals with the freedom of

choice for teachers.

The opposition attack on the bill, I suggest, may have little to do

with education, and more to do with political interest. When we look at

the past political efforts of the BCTF, it's easy to understand the

opposition's concern for the continuity of that organization. Certainly

the BCTF is a powerful political force with its large membership and

strong financial base, and while it has not always been a comfortable

ally for the opposition, it is not difficult to understand the concerns

members opposite may have with the prospect of losing such a powerful

supporter. But let's be honest. Let's acknowledge what all the

objection is about. Let the people and especially the teachers of this

province know that the objection of the opposition to this legislation

is not a concern with education; it's not a concern about teachers or

about children; rather it's a concern with their political future.

That's the issue.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, as I've been listening to this

debate, which has now gone on for a considerable length of time and has

involved a considerable number of people, I was feeling up until this

morning that we had come some distance toward achieving civilized,

dispassionate and reasonable debate. Now, however, I detect a certain

degree of acrimony and hostility, and I'm saddened by that. It seems to

me that that ought not to be the case.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He was smiling.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Finance opposite tells me that

the former speaker was smiling as he spoke. I would suggest that that

is probably a pretty good description of the attitude of this

government: they do indeed seem to smile as they stick the knife in.

That's the predicament. This government continues to tell the teachers

and all the others who protest: "We're really doing this for your best

interests." Despite all the complaints and the protest, despite all

those expressions of anguish, the government continues to reiterate and

claim: "We are doing this because we care for you." Clearly, Mr. Speaker, one can only listen to that kind of refrain for so long before one becomes suspicious.

We have, as I suggested, now heard probably more than 50 different

speakers on Bill 20. I would hesitate to guess precisely how many hours

and how many days we have spent discussing this bill. Sometimes there

has been acrimony, but for the most

part I like to think that all

members involved in the debate have been guided by their own best

lights and what they perceive to be the issues of concern to all of us

as parents, citizens and taxpayers.

[2:45]

Let us not forget that besides the words exchanged in this House we

have also had a great deal of evidence of concerns by our constituents

— by the people throughout this province. We have, I would remind

members, had demonstrations; we have had walkouts; we have had schools

close down. All of us, I am sure, deplore that, but the fact remains

that has happened.

We have also had letters. All of us who sit in this House, I am

sure, have had letters. I know certainly I have had, and all of those

letters, I am pleased to say....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I am sure the Minister of Education has also, I

am delighted to hear. I hope he reads them. Certainly all the letters

that I have received are eloquent; they are reasoned; they are

rational. None of them is what I would call intemperate or

unreasonable; rather, they are, if anything, poignant, and they err

perhaps on the side of being reasonable. These are people who are not

asking for the millenium; they aren't asking for anything that is

outrageous or unacceptable to the fair-minded. Rather, they are asking

simply to be beard; they are asking that their concerns be addressed.

I have been asked to deliver some letters today, and this mound of

paper I have before me is indeed that batch of letters that I have been

asked to deliver. The postman always rings twice, so I am going to

perhaps emphasize again that I have all these letters addressed to two

different individuals. The first batch of letters is addressed to the

Premier of the province, and I have some 198 letters in this pile. I

want to emphasize that each of these letters is individually

handwritten. We're not talking about a form letter; we're talking about

individually written letters. I want to draw your attention to the fact

that I also have on my desk another bundle of letters, some 265 in

number, addressed to the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How come you got them?

MR. LOVICK: I've been asked to deliver them, and I shall

indeed pass them across the House. If you can restrain your enthusiasm

and your anticipation, Mr. Minister of Education, I shall indeed pass

them across the way. I intend to do that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you reading my mail?

MR. LOVICK: I have not opened them.

The point I want to make again, though, is that these letters are

from rank-and-file members of the education profession in my community.

These are not BCTF executive members; they are, to coin a phrase,

ordinary folks. They are people who feel sufficiently concerned and

upset and alarmed about what is happening to education in this

[ Page 978 ]

province that they have marched to my office — some

400 individuals — and presented these letters to me as the MLA, and

asked me to deliver them to this Legislature, to the Premier and to the

Minister of Education.

When the Minister of Education and other ministers on the government

side of the House have the temerity to say to us that what is happening

here is not the rank and file but rather the designs and the activities

of the few, of only the BCTF, of only the executive, and that ordinary,

average members really are not supporting that cause, I am appalled,

because the fact is very clear — and I present it here for all to see —

that these individuals have indeed taken the time and the effort to

make their feelings known to the government.

If I might, it seems appropriate to quote a little Latin. The line I

would like to quote is the famous epitaph of Sir Christopher Wren: Si monumentum requiris circumspice .

A nice, easy translation for everybody on the opposite side of the

House is: "If you want the evidence, open your eyes. It's fight here."

Happily, I have not yet had to suggest any acrimony in my remarks. I

want to suggest, however, that I hope that these letters will indeed be

answered. As I say, they are all individually done. They have all

obviously been produced by individuals who want to express their

concerns to the government and who are concerned about what is

happening.

The theme that comes across, I think I can fairly conclude, is

betrayal. These are individuals who, for the most part, said: "We

thought indeed there was going to be a 'fresh start'; we thought indeed

there was going to be a new beginning." Unfortunately these individuals

concluded, with grounds, I suggest, that that is not the case. Rather

these are individuals who feel they have been led down the proverbial

garden path, and I suggest to you that they have every reason to feel

that way.

Let me illustrate. In the throne speech that memorable day — March

9, 1987 — the stentorian tones emanating from the Speaker's chair, we

heard that: "Education is the bedrock on which we must build our new

economy. My government will introduce a range of new and imaginative

initiatives throughout our education system." The first initiative we

have seen in this bill, however, is beyond imagination. Indeed, I would

suggest that it's — and I wish the Premier were here — faaantastic! Let

me tell you what fantastic means, because obviously the Premier does

not know what the word means when he uses it. Fantastic means

grotesque, imaginary and unreal. I suggest to you that that is

precisely what we have in Bill 20: grotesque, imaginary, unreal.

Faaantastic!

The throne speech also declares that: "All British Columbians are

proud of their public education system which has fared well in

evaluation and testing across the land." But the proposed legislation

is a frontal assault on the organization that has the primary claim to

taking the credit for the performance and the excellence of the

education system. In other words, it would seem that the reward for

excellence, for good performance, is to attack the individuals who have

performed so well. That's the predicament; that's again, I suggest, a

reason why teachers and others in that profession feel betrayed.

A third point in the throne speech: "The new economy will demand new

skills and new education programs for our people; our educational

institutions will be given the tools to do the job." Sadly, to judge

from Bill 20, the only tool that's being given is the proverbial shaft.

Certainly that is the sense that teachers have of this bill — that they

have indeed been given the shaft or the gears. That's the kind of tool.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Education is trying once again —

valiantly, I might add — to articulate a sentence. What he seems to be

suggesting is that I am confusing this bill with the other agenda for

education. Let me remind the minister, however, of the point I made

when last I addressed this House: namely, that this government's

principal predicament is to restore its own credibility with the people

and with the profession. Unless and until that happens, all the

protestations, all the claims to the contrary about this government

being concerned with and committed to education, do not amount to a

great deal at all.

I have already stressed the notion that the government's predicament

with this bill — even if we were to give it full marks for good

intentions and even if we were to say that its motives are honourable —

is that it has indeed a credibility crisis. I am not going to reiterate

and restate at this time the last ten years of history that have led to

the predicament that the government finds itself in. I think the record

is all too clear, Mr. Minister of Finance. Sadly, that's the problem;

that the record is indeed all too clear to those who look at it.

Instead, I want to suggest that the predicament with Bill 20, besides

the fact that it is indeed coming up against its own problem as a

government agent or a government initiator for the bill — the problem

of credibility — is also that again and again members on the other side

of the House have demonstrated pretty clearly that their motive does

not seem to be education. The motive seems, rather, to be vindictive.

Individuals who tell us that this is not an effort to get the B.C.

Teachers' Federation nevertheless devote the great majority of their

remarks to comments about the BCTF, about the problem with the

leadership, and so forth.

Beyond that reason for our being suspicious on this side of the

House about the motives of the government, I also want to suggest that

we have problems because those of us who have spoken in the House about

Bill 20 have had to listen to comments emanating from the other side.

For example, when I talked about my own personal experience working in

the system, I alluded to the fact that all of us began — in the

community college movement at least — with some sense of missionary

zeal, some kind of crusading spirit, if you like. Of course, what

happened at that point when I said those things is that members

opposite proceeded to break into a rendition of Handel and started

singing "Alleluia." Others, of course, accused me of being too "

idealistic." I want to pick up on that theme for just a moment, Mr.

Speaker, because I want to emphasize what I think is an absolute and

basic and necessary truth for those who are charged with the

maintenance and establishment of a meaningful education system in this

province: namely, the absolute requirement for some idealism. If we

don't have that, I want to suggest that our system is doomed to fail in

its primary purposes.

Let me just briefly sketch out what those primary purposes are,

because I fear, in listening to comments from the other side, that

sadly there are so many over there who have never reflected on what we

want from our education system.

In very simplified terms, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that we

can summarize the demands we have every right to place on our system by

making four simple points, the first of which is this: our education

system ought to take as its

[ Page

979 ]

responsibility to find and to encourage the

individual's talents and abilities. That ought to be a role for the

education system: to help individuals find for themselves what they can

do and to encourage them to do that to the best of their abilities.

That ought to be a method and motive for education.

The second — how shall I call it? — function or purpose of an

educational system ought to be to foster and encourage the

well-informed critical intellect. We do not want a nation of sheep. We

do not want a province of docile yes-persons. We want critical

intellects. We want people who are prepared to challenge. Sadly,

listening to members from the other side, and listening carefully, one

is tempted to conclude that that view of education is incompatible with

this government's notions.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Thirdly, I suggest that an education system worthy of that name

ought to have as part of its mission to make the world a little bit

better and happier than it is when we find it. That is idealistic; of

course it is. But it seems to me also that it is absolutely necessary

and ought to be encouraged.

Finally — and I would deliberately make this my fourth objective,

Mr. Speaker — an education system also has an obligation to provide

people with the skills, training and aptitudes required to perform

socially valuable and economically beneficial roles in our society. And

now I shall yield.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A point of order I find the member's

dissertation on the educational system quite interesting; however, I

believe it's entirely out of order. This bill deals with the

organizational structure of the teachers' organization in the province,

and he has yet to comment on that.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could make a comment on what the

minister has said. He told us this bill has nothing to do with

education and that he's out of order because he's talking about

education. Is that the point the minister makes? This is a general

debate on second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just draw to the attention of all

members, while we let tempers subside for the moment, that the purpose

of second reading is to discuss the principles of the bill and really

nothing more. There has been a certain amount of leeway allowed during

this debate, and the Chair has noticed that those debating have talked

from time to time with respect to the actual parts of the bill. I would

just remind you once again that we are to be speaking on the principle

of the bill. Maybe the member would continue and try to confine his

remarks to that.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm intrigued to discover the

Minister of Education sitting across the House grinning like the

Cheshire cat. I would suggest that the arguments he presents are as

ephemeral as the Cheshire cat: they do fade away when one looks too

closely.

To the issue raised by the minister, I would suggest to him that what I am

trying to demonstrate very clearly is that when we talk about the principle

of a bill we surely want to start first with some notion of what this education

system is that we are trying to fix up and improve. If that is out of order,

Mr. Speaker, God help us all, because then any meaningful discussion of education

is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting that for our system to work well, it is

imperative that we don't give up our ideals. It is imperative — and I'm

going to explain this simply enough so that even the Minister of

Education will be able to follow me — that what we do is encourage some

kind of enthusiasm, commitment and idealism on the part of those who

are teaching in that system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's known as professionalism.

MR. LOVICK: I'll talk about professionalism, because I don't

think, with all due deference, Mr. Speaker, that the minister quite

understands what that term actually means.

I'm suggesting, then, that what we need is lots more idealism rather than any less.

To leave off this point of my remarks and move into something else,

I want to emphasize that I am appalled — apoplectic, almost — when I

listen to members from the other side who want to tell us that the only

reason we are standing here speaking for, lo, these many hours about

this bill is because it's politics, or because we're doing it to

protect our friends in the BCTF, or some other such cant. That is

simply cant; that is nonsense. It may sound very good; you may want to

take it out to your ridings, to tell all your friends: "Boy, we sure

showed those guys, and we told them about what was really happening, as

opposed to what they were saying." But the truth, as they know and as

we know, is that that is so much nonsense.

We're talking about a principle here, called education. We're

suggesting that this bill is animated by, produced by, a very bad

principle. The principle, specifically, is that what you have to do is

boss people; you've got to coerce people; you've got to push them into

the roles you want, if you want them to be productive. It says that you

don't worry about anything like cooperation; you don't worry about

common cause; instead, the way the world operates is that you force

people to do things. It's the system that we often called adversarial.

It's the system that some economists have called "guard labour," one

sustained by "guard labour." Let me explain that term, Mr. Speaker

"Guard labour" is the term given by economists to an economy which

works on the coercive model as its motive force. It says that instead

of having everybody working to produce products, what we need to do to

make things happen is to have an army within the labour force whose

only function is to guard others and to make sure that they continue to

do their work. I'm suggesting that that's what a number of us are

reading in this bill; and we can't do otherwise. It's a system of

labour-management relations — of industrial relations, if you prefer

that terminology — that divides the world into superior/inferior, into

dominant/subordinate. It's a system that is insensitive, adversarial

and also, I fear, costly. It's inefficient; it's not even good

economics.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I think I have already given too much of my time

to dealing with the rather inane kinds of comments coming from the

other side of the House that are designed, obviously, to throw me off

track, Mr. Speaker. So I am going to plunge straight ahead. I am no

longer going to indulge the Minister of Education and give him his

moment as he wishes.

[ Page 980 ]

What I'm suggesting here is that what we find most repugnant in this

bill — and certainly what most people find repugnant about the bill —

is the redefinition of the role of administrators. You know, the

government has been alerted to this problem. We're not talking about

something brand-new. This is no surprise. This indeed has been on the

agenda, if you will, for them for a considerable period of time.

Let me quote to you, for example, the letter from the president of

the B.C. Teachers' Federation, which, of course, in the minds of the

government will automatically be suspect. The statement says:

"It is that redefinition of the role and the duties of

administrators that we most strongly object to, as it will have a

damaging impact on education in our schools, and will guarantee a

deterioration of the personal and professional relations that are

critical to the provision of quality teaching.

"If school-level decision making becomes, as Bill 20

requires, the imposition of management directives in an adversarial

setting, rather than educational leadership and the involvement of all

colleagues, it will be a tragedy for education."

That's the case that's being presented by, in this case, the BCTF.

As I say, I know that the government wonders whether that is indeed

merely an interest group speaking. What I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker,

is that the view that the managerial model outlined in Bill 20 is

incompatible with providing good education, with maintaining a good,

functioning and effective educational system, is also taken by all of

those teachers who have had contact with my office, and I assure you

those numbers are considerable. Indeed, I presented some 460-odd

letters today, and though I have not opened and read those letters, I

am willing to bet dollars that they all indeed are making precisely

that point.

The Minister of Education and other members on the other side will

tell us, of course: "Only the BCTF feel that way. It's conflict of

interest. They're protecting their own careers and so forth. Only they

feel that way." And I'm suggesting that is just not the case, Mr.

Speaker. I want to suggest that this opinion, the one that has been

illustrated by the letter I quoted to you, is also corroborated and

substantiated by all those letters I have received and indeed all those

phone calls I have had. I want to let members opposite hear something

of that testimony, because I fear that what has happened is that the

government has not really listened to much of what has been presented

to them.

Let me give you a short excerpt from one of the many letters:

" The provisions of Bill 20" — so the letter-writer

argues — "that placed principals and vice-principals in strict

management roles, in concert with other provisions of the bill, promise

a climate of confrontation, along with the worst excesses of elitism

and paternalism. I do not want my children who are just entering the

school system to be educated in such an environment. I do not want my

children prepared for a twenty-first century world by an educational

system based on nineteenth-century ideals and values."

Again, there may well be arguments on the other side that are going

to suggest: "Well, this is obviously just somebody in an executive

position trying to protect his or her role." That's not the case. We

are talking here about an articulate, intelligent, reasonable,

hard-working, dedicated, conscientious teacher — a well-respected

teacher, I might add.

We are not talking about a radical, somebody who is suggesting that

we ought to topple the edifice of government or some such thing, not a

member of the BCTF executive, not even a member of the local teachers'

association.

Let me quote another letter, Mr. Speaker. This one is

self-explanatory, I think, and lays out in somewhat more specific form

the concerns that these individuals have.

"As an administrator and teacher in British Columbia I

have some grave concerns regarding the proposed changes in Bill 20. As

an administrator I find it alarming to read that I am to be considered

an 'administrative officer' whose job is to manage a school properly.

The new laws dictate that I am to be like a businessman, bargain my

personal contract with my school board (section 82 (a)....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Two minutes left, Mr. Speaker? My goodness, I am shocked and devastated. I have a number of things I wanted to talk about.

The final paragraph I will just quote directly then.

"Education research consistently reflects that

effective schools have educational leaders who work with staffs to

achieve a positive school climate, higher academic standings and broad

curriculum goals. I consider that Bill 20 is structured to work

contrary to all those goals."

I think that's the nub of the argument, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 20 is

perceived by so many to work contrary to those goals. It's an

old-fashioned model that ought to be obsolete. Let me end by just

quoting a line from Edmund Burke, that great conservative thinker who

might strike a resonant chord on members of the opposite side, who told

us: "The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a

moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again...." The

government will have its way with this bill, there is no question. The

victory, however, will be temporary. This bill is a prescription for

further conflict.

[3:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's pretty difficult to think of anything new to say. I'm in favour of Bill 20.

As a matter of fact, I heard the 460 letters mentioned about five

times in the last 20 minutes. The letters look suspiciously similar —

at least the envelopes do, from this distance. It'll be interesting to

see if the letters are indeed mimeographed or some sort of form

procedure. That would be customary, I suspect.

The previous speaker talked about betrayal. It's betrayal, all right....

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

clarify.... It seems to me that my integrity has been impugned in those

comments. These letters were all in the same envelope, because written

at the same time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. That is provided for

under the rules, but not at this particular juncture. For you to make a

comment....

MR. LOVICK: Is there another mechanism available to me, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page

981 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and I'll point it out to you in a few moments.

MR. LOVICK: If you would, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the previous

speaker went on at some length on a variety of subjects, some of them

pretty remotely connected to Bill 20. As a consequence, he seems to

have lost most of the audience in the House. I understand that's not an

uncommon occurrence with the previous speaker.

The suggestion was made by the previous speaker that this

legislation represents force, and that it therefore becomes a

reprehensible action. Surely everyone must understand that after

traveling the province, after hearing submissions from every party that

could possibly be affected by the proposed labour legislation changes,

under no stretch of the imagination could the process be called force.

Surely anyone who reads the bill in any detail would have to concede

that what the bill does is democratize the system, and that's certainly

a far cry from forcing anything upon anybody.

It is true that the intent of Bill 20 is to separate the two

functions of wages and working conditions from that of qualifications

and internal disciplinary matters. We have seen ample evidence over the

last number of years in this province of the desperate need to separate

those two functions. It clearly is in the interest of all participants

in the process to ensure that there is very clear thinking on the

question of teachers' capabilities and qualifications, and also that

when it comes to negotiating working conditions or wages, the overall

question of professionalism should not be confused with that.

In reading Hansard it's

clear that every conceivable aspect of this bill has been debated and

every conceivable argument mounted in the last week and a half. We've

heard some excellent presentations dealing with the question of student

interest. Certainly the interest of the students is paramount in the

minds of our government. That's reflected in the increases we presented

in the budget. We've clearly indicated our support for the importance

of education, the key role we believe education can play in the

development of the province, and in the process have ensured that there

will be adequate funding for that process — more so than in previous

years. I think the question of the students' interest has been

addressed by many. The question of the public interest has been

addressed by many during this last week and a half. I've heard

presentations dealing with the public interest as it relates to the

parents' interest. There are many publics out there, Mr. Speaker. There

are parents, there are young singles, there are seniors. I've heard

excellent presentations from both sides of the House, actually —

dealing with those publics' interests.

I would like to talk for a minute about the teachers' interest. I

suspect that every member of this House believes with conviction —

fervour, if you like — that those individuals who enter the teaching

profession do so with the highest of ideals. They do so with a desire

to serve and a desire to contribute. In the overall scheme of things,

their place in our society is probably more important and influential

than even ours in this Legislature. They enter the profession with a

desire to impart knowledge, and there can really be no nobler task than

to attempt to broaden awareness, improve knowledge and provide an

increased opportunity for our young people to assume the

responsibilities of citizenship, with all that might imply. Those who

enter the teaching profession do so with a desire to help create a new

future. That too is laudable. They enter it hopefully, with the

objective of teaching our young people how to think independently. To

do that, I believe that they must have the wisdom to explain both sides

of any argument or any issue, and for that reason I feel that the

actions of the BCTF during this debate have been unconscionable.

It's clear from the evidence submitted — we see it on television

every evening, and we certainly see it in the daily press — that the

students are being used by some teachers and by the BCTF for

self-serving political gain. It's clear that some of the information

presented is biased and not balanced, and it seems to me that that's a

reflection on the profession itself, and does a disservice to the vast

majority of teachers who entered that profession believing that they

had a valuable contribution to make to our society. Indeed, they are

making it — if only the BCTF leadership will let them get on with the

job.

I heard a previous speaker here this afternoon try to wrap the role

of the BCTF in disseminating some literature in our high schools in

some flag of legitimate discussion of current affairs. I found that

stretching the point to be almost ridiculous. Clearly, if this is to be

wrapped in the flag of broadening the awareness onto the agenda of

current affairs, then there should have been a complementary piece of

literature issued in that instance, one that would help explain the

government's position. That wasn't done, obviously.

I believe, on the basis of phone calls and letters I've received,

that there are many teachers — I believe the majority of teachers — who

find themselves trapped in the public relations net constructed by

BCTF, and find themselves uncertain as to what their legitimate role

should be in this circumstance. There was a classic conflict of

interest under the current situation of marrying the question of

teachers' qualifications with that of wage bargaining. This act

attempts to separate that and does so with the best of interests in

mind, with a recognition of the history of disputes — the sad history

of our existing system's failure to deal with the question of

competency and capability in the classroom. For this if no other

reason, the majority of citizens in this province are behind Bill 20

and believe it must pass.

The opposition, by dragging this issue out as they are doing,

repeating themselves ad nauseam, I suspect are damaging the very

institution they claim to want to protect, the BCTF. Because by the

dragging out of this debate, the endless daily attention being paid to

it, they are providing a temptation for the more adventurous leaders in

the BCTF organization to embark on more and more improper strategies.

And in the process of embarking on those improper strategies, I believe

it inevitable that in the fullness of time the vast majority of

teachers in this province will start to stir. Clearly, the legislation

is not aimed at BCTF; clearly, we leave it in the teachers' hands

themselves to determine the future of BCTF. Any arguments attempting to

make the point that it's an attack on BCTF are bound to fail.

After paying a particular amount of attention to this debate, as I

say, I am satisfied that the majority of teachers themselves are

supportive of this legislation. The majority of teachers themselves are

in agreement that there should be a professional body that deals with

the question of qualifications and competency. I know from experience,

and from

[ Page 982 ]

talking to other organizations, that these kinds of approaches are desired by other, similar organizations in the province.

It is time for teachers to be given full professional status. Parent

after parent, in my experience, has criticized and condemned the fact

that we do not seem to be successful in creating a spirit of

professionalism among the teaching profession. That isn't because of

any lack of desire in the teachers. It is clearly because of a lack of

desire of BCTF leadership, because it would erode their traditional

prerogatives, and in the process, they suspect, might lead to their

eventual dissolution. That's up to them. They have the opportunity to

show some leadership in this issue. They have the opportunity to inject

some professionalism into that profession, which it is, and to hold

that organization together and bind it together so it speaks with a

unified voice on the question of wage and bargaining rights.

More importantly, the bill allows a peer group to be created to

judge teacher performance and qualifications. There can be no criticism

levied at that. Anybody who would object to the idea that the teachers

would start to police themselves is clearly out of tune with the public

mood. It is time for the teachers themselves to come to grips with that

problem. It's long overdue.

The creation of the college clearly will allow us to enter a new era

in this province, dealing with the public image of teachers and of the

education system, and hopefully will allow the politicians to stand

back and let those most qualified in the system operate it. The bill

does that, Mr. Speaker.

I speak in favour of the bill, and I hope to goodness we can resolve

this issue shortly. I have not heard any new arguments for at least

seven days.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to make an introduction to the House.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: I would like to introduce Dr. Sydnay Butler from

Point Grey. He is a teacher in Point Grey, a professor at UBC and,

perhaps more important for today, he is a parent, like me.

MR. GUNO: I'm pleased to be able to participate in this

debate on Bill 20, and pleased to join my colleagues in speaking

against this particular bill.

This morning I listened to the member for BurnabyEdmonds (Mr.

Mercier) talk at great length about the present teachers' work-to-rule

campaign, and he characterized it as petty because it was not for

freedom. He went on to say that it was really about the B.C. Teachers'

Federation trying to save a structure, and therefore they were involved

in some political action. In my hoist speech I think I dwelt on the

fact that freedom, as we know it, is only possible where those kinds of

political activities can take place. I'm certainly glad that we have a

system of government where that kind of political interplay is still

possible, and I think both sides of the House agree that such freedoms

should be cherished.

I've talked to a number of teachers from the north — I have calls

from them every day — and there is a fair consensus that particular

problems with this bill are unique in the north. I want first of all to

state that there is a consensus among all the teachers in the north

that Bill 20 needs to be exposed as one that will cause a tremendous

amount of turmoil in the educational system, while a number of them

feel that the kind of actions taken today may be some problem in the

north, because it's at this time of the year that extracurricular

activities take place. Generally speaking, travel is not always

possible in the winter months because of the severe road conditions and

the expense of traveling. So it's particularly hard on many of the

students to forgo many of the opportunities that are only available at

this time of the year. But again I have word from many parents that

they do understand the situation the teachers are in, and that they

support the fact that they have to take this kind of action; that it

was forced upon them by the draconian measure the government has

introduced under the aegis of Bill 20.

[3:30]

As I mentioned in my hoist debate, the matter does not apply to or

involve only teachers. There's no doubt that this government is

attempting to seize control of education and to put their own

ideological stamp on it. The Minister of Education's recent letter sent

directly to students is an example of the length that this government

will go to in terms of isolating teachers from the rest of the

educational community. I think it's fair to say they've dropped all

pretence that they are trying, in introducing Bill 20, to revamp or

improve the educational system. I would suggest that clearly the gloves

are off; that the target of this government is the autonomy of the

teachers of this province. The absence of any kind of consultation with

the broad communities prior to introducing this bill is proof that that

particular revamping or improving of the educational system was never a

serious attempt on the part of this government.

I want to dwell on some of the more serious implications that this

bill would have for the northern districts, particularly the riding of

Atlin, and to concentrate first of all on the college and speak to it

in general terms.

One of the first of the obvious problems that we would have in the

north is the inadequate representation our communities would have on

the college. The four northern districts would have only one

representative. In other words, one third of the province would have

one representative to speak for them. There is also concern about the

whole issue of professional development under Bill 20. Because of the

extra costs that many of our northern teachers have to face, in terms

of transportation and having to move great distances and maintaining

another household.... This would confront them with added costs. They

feel that under Bill 20, the realization of these kinds of costs or

assistance would simply be impossible.

Another concern I want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, that involves the

north is the fact that the principals and the vice principals would

have to elect as soon as the proposed act comes into force whether they

want to enter into individual contracts with the board as principals or

vice-principals, or to return to a teaching assignment. In other words,

they can be excluded from collectively negotiating their own terms and

conditions of employment. Under this proposed bill, they would be

required to gather information for the board prior to negotiations and

to make recommendations to the superintendent of schools on

reassignments, suspensions and dismissals of teachers.

I think we have to recognize that because of the small sizes of the

schools in the north, virtually all of the principals are what we call

teaching principals; in other words, they function 50 percent of their

time as teachers and 50 percent as principals. In isolating them as

some form of management, I

[ Page 983 ]

suggest that this would create cleavage within the

school community and destroy the concept of collegiality that is in

place in these schools. This would have an inhibiting effect on

teachers trying innovative measures to meet particular problems that we

continue to face in the north.

For example, we have language arts, which includes the introduction

of native content into the curriculum and which is of particular

importance in many areas of the north where there is a large native

population. This program is still fairly new. It is still in a stage

where problems are being worked out, and it requires constant

experimentation with developing teaching techniques, in terms of

presenting them to a broad range of students. So it is often difficult

and requires adjustment.

I would suggest that under Bill 20 these kinds of innovative

approaches would be much more difficult. I know that several principals

have phoned me and have expressed real concern about this particular

aspect of Bill 20. School District 92, the Nishga School District,

which is in my riding, was created when the New Democrats were in

government in 1975. This particular school district is unique, because

it recognizes that the development of local educational priorities

rests in the hands of local people. For years the native people in this

country, and indeed in British Columbia, had to suffer under an

oppressive educational system which deprived generations of our people

of a decent education.

In 1975 the Nishga Tribal Council negotiated with the provincial

government to create a school district which would have significant

leeway in providing the native people in that area the right to include

cultural and linguistic content in the curriculum. I think it is

succeeding. Whenever I go home, I am struck by the incredible

improvement that has taken place there, because I can compare what it

was like before and what it is like today. Today the quality of

teaching has improved. In terms of attendance, it has improved; in

terms of the number of our young people who are now going on and

becoming successful in post-secondary institutions.... This is as a

result of local people taking the educational priorities and

identifying them and going with them.

It is a far cry from the kind of educational opportunities that my

generation faced, for instance. Once you reached grade 8, that was it.

You had to be sent off, sometimes thousands of miles away from home, to

educational institutions that were really more or less institutions

that had education as a very low priority. Really, it was to try to

transform us, to kind of assimilate us into the larger society, in an

effort to try to completely destroy any kind of cultural identity that

we had. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many generations of native people

are now having particular problems adjusting to the society as a direct

result of that kind of educational program. Part of the success of

School District 92 is the fact that it recognizes that for someone to

succeed in life in our society, they have to have that clear sense of

identity that would provide them with a kind of confidence to meet the

challenges that they constantly have to face, in terms of dealing with

education.

I see, when I return home, in New Aiyansh the fact that teachers and

the community have a tremendous working relationship. Just the other

day I saw our school band perform at a function, and they have gone on

to win music festivals throughout the northwest. I think these are

tremendous achievements that are only possible because teachers and

parents and the administration are able to work together in a more

cooperative fashion, rather than what is contemplated under Bill 20,

which would be more or less coercive, and less based on that kind of

community-type of approach.

I want to also dwell on certain aspects of Bill 20 in general terms,

Mr. Speaker. Under Bill 20, the College of Teachers is a professional

body, I would suggest, to regulate, to control the teaching profession.

While the government members paid lip-service in their speeches to

democracy in the workplace, they are certainly not going to allow

teachers the right to determine their own kind of structure, the kind

of organization that would represent them. Instead, this government,

under this new legislation, will be able to create a body in its own

image, for this legislation provides that the college will be governed

by a council of 20 members, with two appointed by the cabinet, two by

the minister, and one dean of education appointed by the minister. The

other 15, of course, will be elected by zone, but the first group will

be appointed by cabinet.

This first council will also be able to determine the ground rules.

They would be setting in place the bylaws under which the council will

operate, and will administer and also implement the powers set out in

this act. I would suggest that the powers are largely disciplinary and

unnecessarily broad. It doesn't take much insight to see that there is

a certain bias discernible in this bill, a disturbing kind of

anti-intellectual cant.

It is clear that the main function of this bill is to regulate and

control. It is not about representing, or acting for, the teachers. I

would suggest that it is evident that the wide powers available under

this bill, and the process of applying them, are there to intimidate,

to coerce. The bill totally ignores the need for a more cooperative

approach among certain teaching professionals. So rather than going in

for more collaboration and collegial decision-making, this will result

in a more adversarial relationship between teachers in this province,

and that would be disruptive and chaotic.

On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, we have a college that is created as

an agency of the provincial government, ostensibly to represent the

teachers but primarily to regulate and discipline them. On the other

hand, we have a federation whose chief role would be to represent and

act on behalf of its members. For a government that promised to end

confrontation, I would suggest that under this system of relationship,

that is geared to create more disruption, more chaos to the public

school system. In terms of this bill, the fact that it has this kind of

anti-teacher slant. It is evident in looking at the disciplinary powers

of the college under Bill 20 that the central purpose is to establish

another powerful mechanism for disciplining teachers.

[3:45]

There is a

section in the bill that will substantially expand the

powers of the school board to fire teachers, to provide for their

termination on a 30-day notice for professional incompetency,

unprofessional conduct, immorality. mental incapacity or any other

cause which, in the opinion of the board, renders the teacher

unsuitable.

These are broad powers. What it's saying is that teachers have to be

on the lookout. Teachers will have to watch every step that they take.

It will inhibit them from taking risks, from taking a professional

stand, and I would suggest that it will have a devastating effect on

the development of our educational system. Teachers will, under these

circumstances, not speak out for more innovative approaches in dealing

with

[ Page 984 ]

particular problems that they meet in their particular areas, and it will stifle individual professional autonomy.

So I would ask, in closing, why not cooperation, collaboration, a

more broader-based decision-making? Why is the government adopting a

more top-down approach that will take away local autonomy, that will

make impossible the kinds of innovative measures that need to be taken

to deal with the broad range of educational problems that we have in

this province?

I have a publication that was published in December 1986 by the B.C. Teachers' Federation entitled In the Wake of Restraint .

They do quote certain findings from the B.C. Ministry of Education. One

of the findings of this research is that between 35 percent and 40

percent of all public secondary school students — that's between grade

8 and grade 12 — drop out before completing their grade 12 graduation

requirements. Their comment, according to this publication — and this

is from the Ministry of Education discussion paper "Success Rates for

the Public School System in British Columbia" — is that the success

rate for the B.C. student is only 60 to 65 percent. It goes on to say

that at the beginning of the new school year, 25 percent of all grade

12 students fail to meet the requirements necessary for graduation.

One that's more particular to the kinds of districts that I

represent in my riding states that 14 districts were identified as

having higher than average student dropout rates, fluctuating or lower

grade 12 graduation rates and higher levels of undereducated

individuals than the provincial average. These districts are

Armstrong-Spallumcheen, North Thompson, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Lillooet,

South Cariboo, Merritt, Hope, Central Coast, Prince Rupert, Bums Lake,

Nechako, Lake Cowichan, and Stikine and Nishga, the two districts that

are located in my riding.

In Stikine, because of the restraint, the people there, the

taxpayers, the property owners, are facing 80 percent hikes this year

because of the fact that they have such huge overruns in terms of

budgets, overruns that are caused by more expensive equipment, more

expense in terms of operating the schools, more expense in terms of

transportation. Yet those kinds of problems are not recognized by this

government. Instead, they call upon local property owners to somehow

come up with the shortfall. I say that that is unacceptable in this

province, which has so much potential. I think that the only way we're

going to be able to recognize our potential is by being prepared to

invest the kind of resources that are needed to provide for a

first-class educational system in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take a bit of a

different tack than what has been expressed today in the House. I'm

going to speak to Bill 20, which may be surprising to some. At the

outset I think it's important to note that I draw a very definite

distinction between the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and

teachers in general — and that will be most of the content of my

remarks today. I have an awful lot of personal regard for teachers. I

know many of them. As many of you may know, I was a school trustee and

latterly, a chairman of the board in Prince George. I have a lot of

good friends — and quite candidly, a lot of good supporters — who are

teachers. So I want to draw that distinction for the record, and to

assure everyone listening to or reading what I have to say that I'm not

going to embark on any teacher-bashing, but rather, am going to speak

to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and their position.

The other concern I have is that my cousin is a schoolteacher and

has got a nice truck that I want to borrow this weekend, so I've got to

take it easy on teachers.

Mr. Speaker, it has occurred to me and, I think, a lot of people

throughout the province that there's a remarkable lack of intellectual

courage on the part of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and, I

would say, a lack of intellectual capacity as well. What we've seen to

date has been a knee-jerk reaction to Bill 20. What we've seen and what

we've read has been a lot of misguided concern that indicates to me

that in many cases the Teachers' Federation and their executive — and

they met with me some three weeks ago now — really haven't read the

bill; and if they have read the bill, they've badly misinterpreted what

it says. I would even go so far as to say that the legal counsel they

retained to interpret the bill for them appeared to be giving misguided

information — I won't say misleading, but certainly misguided — and

they're misinterpreting the content of the bill.

I guess the first sign that we saw of the BCTF knee-jerk reaction

was the ballot that they sent out to teachers some two weeks ago. The

ballot was cute. It posed three questions, one dealing with a walkout

or job action, the second with work to-rule or teach-to-rule, and the

third with a question: "Will you mark government exams?" Now those are

all legitimate questions that should be posed to teachers, and I'm sure

that teachers would make up their own minds in deciding how they would

answer those questions. The curious and interesting thing about that

one ballot is that there was only one choice — three questions and one

choice: yes or no. That indicates to me that the BCTF really are

operating in the knee-jerk mode. They obviously have something they're

sincerely concerned about, but obviously don't trust teachers to decide

which questions they want to answer and which way they want to answer.

The other concern that was brought to my attention by teachers is

that the BCTF had promised that when these ballots were returned, there

would be an independent tabulation of the ballot results. Teachers were

later informed that the BCTF in fact tabulated the results themselves.

So I really have some question as to BCTF motives, and I think many,

many teachers do throughout the province. I'm sure a lot of Members of

the Legislative Assembly and members of the general public — parents,

taxpayers and others — would have questions about BCTF motives.

I think the question about the motives of the BCTF — the knee-jerk

mode I'm speaking of — can be answered to some degree by looking at

their budget. Boy, it's remarkable. It is big. I have a six-month

statement here, and it indicates that they are a remarkably large

organization with an awful lot at stake. It's interesting to look at

how they spend their money. I can understand why the members opposite

might have some concern for the Teachers' Federation and want to see

them continue. I note in the budget that the British Columbia Teachers'

Federation contributed $86,767 to the provincial election campaign last

year, supporting candidates who would promise the end of restraint. I

can assure you that I didn't see any of those cheques coming to my

Social Credit campaign, and I don't think many of the members on my

side....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Did you see any? No? Right. I don't think too many of us saw any of that $86,000. But I'm

[ Page 985 ]

sure other parties might have, and of course, given

restraint and that it was a Social Credit package beginning in 1982,

it's clear to me who the teachers were campaigning for, and on whose

behalf they were spending the $86,000. On the basis of that, I have to

conclude that there would be some concern by the members opposite. I

don't know if it is totally to do with what happens in the classroom,

but rather what happens during election campaigns.

The curious thing about the Teachers' Federation reaction and the

incredible resistance to this bill is that when I look at what the BCTF

have published, when I look at what their objectives are, this

legislation and another bill really answer all their concerns. They

want the right to bargain at the local level. They want a fixed

timetable for annual negotiations. Those are both items that the bill

will accommodate.

Teachers want the right of local teachers to decide whether they

would strike if necessary to achieve a settlement instead of binding

arbitration. They are clearly given that option in the legislation,

among other objectives outlined in the BCTF statement of claim

concerning the scope of bargaining. We are really giving them in Bill

20 all the scope in bargaining that they want.

There is one more item that regrettably I can't discuss because it

would be subjudice, but members of the public and Members of the

Legislative Assembly and teachers should look at the financial

statement of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, and an item

under "constitutional challenge." That is going on at this point, so it

is subjudice for me to say any more, but it does raise some interesting

questions.

It is interesting when you listen and analyze the debate. There is

great concern over Bill 20 and what it does. The BCTF seems to be

saying: "We don't trust teachers to run their own affairs." That really

is the only conclusion that can draw. We have given teachers a College

of Teachers which will be governed by them. We have given teachers the

right to do their own thing within their own district and to bargain

with their own employer, either as a union or as an association. Any

criticism of those basic principles of democracy has to be telling me

that we don't trust teachers, and I believe that is what the Teachers'

Federation is saying.

Rather, my good friend from Prince George North commented yesterday

that she found it incredible that we could legislate morality and

unprofessional conduct. Who determines unprofessional conduct? Well, it

is clear in the bill. The teachers themselves do. That's the guiding

principle of the College of Teachers. Fifteen members out of 20, the

vast majority, are going to decide on the actions of the College of

Teachers. When I see comments like that from the member for Prince

George North (Mrs. Boone), who is obviously well-intended but has not

really thought through the impact of what she is saying.... She is

saying: "We don't trust teachers to govern themselves." In other words:

"Mummy knows best, the BCTF knows best, or daddy knows best; but we

just won't allow you teachers to handle your own thing and do your own

thing. We don't think you have the maturity, the intellectual capacity

or the ability to govern your own affairs. Therefore let us. Daddy

knows best. Let the BCTF do your thing for you, and please don't let

any government or any legislative initiative get in the way of having

Big Brother BCTF manage your affairs."

Mr. Speaker, I find that just unacceptable, really. It is something

that people all over the world have fought for. As a matter of fact, we

had a delegation in our caucus today, another professional organization

asking us for exactly what the teachers are getting in this bill. For

your information, the nurses are requesting that we do for them what we

have done for the teachers. That is a matter for another minister and

maybe legislation, so I won't discuss it much further.

[4:00]

But when you see professions who have in fact set themselves boards

to govern their own affairs, their own ethics, their own performance,

their own adjudication of members, and when you hear people such as we

heard this afternoon pleading for that right, you really have to

question the wisdom of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who are stating

that they wish to deny that same right to their membership.

I can't understand it. It is ludicrous, and obviously teachers have

not thought that through. Why a federation which supposedly represents

teachers would go out publicly and say — imply, at least — that it

doesn't trust teachers is beyond me. I find the whole scenario so

curious, so ludicrous that I am sure teachers are going to have to

think about that and wonder what the federation is doing for them.

There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon. The former

speaker talked about curriculum and no curriculum and what Bill 20 is

going to do for curriculum. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Bill 20

says nothing about curriculum, nothing at all. That is provided for, as

all members should know. In other areas and other legislation and other

venues, but I would just — parenthetically and speaking from another

movie — agree with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) as he spoke about

curriculum. Although it was out of order, he did make a good point

about the Nishga School Board, and I can tell you that I associate

myself with those comments. It's probably one of the best native school

boards in North America in terms of curriculum development and in terms

of putting the core curriculum into their own language. So I would

totally agree with the member on that. It's recognized highly, and I

give him and his people, and particularly Rod Robinson, credit, and I'd

like to publicly say that now with respect to curriculum guides.

But getting back to Bill 20, I don't see how anyone can criticize

the results of Bill 20, the intent of Bill 20 and the democracy that's

contained in Bill 20. Here are bargaining issues that the BCTF wanted.

Teachers want bargaining rights comparable to other professionals under

the Labour Code. Teachers allege that they are denied the right to

liberty and security in accordance with the principles of fundamental

justice. Teachers want the fight to strike. Teachers allege that the

School Act provides truncated access to dispute resolution and

grievance procedures. Teachers want procedures for the appointment of

arbitrators. Teachers want the expectations of the compensation

stabilization commissioner and mediator. Teachers want the expansion of

work-to-rule campaigns. I can't really agree with that but,

nevertheless, I guess if they wanted to negotiate that type of thing

with their board, they could try their best. Teachers want

interpretation of teaching security agreement provisions — again,

something that could be negotiated under the scope of Bill 20 when it

becomes law.

Teachers want a lot of things. I believe teachers should have it; I

believe that Bill 20 provides it for them. I believe strongly that Bill

20 is the picture of democracy, giving them the right to handle their

own professional affairs and certainly giving them the fight, as every

other employee has in the province, to bargain on a local and

individual basis with their employer — all contained in Bill 20.

[ Page 986 ]

I strongly support Bill 20 for the reasons I've given. I'll recap my

comments by simply saying that people who are opposed to this, notably

the BCTF, are telling me — and I'm sure telling everyone in the

province of British Columbia — that teachers can't be trusted to handle

their own affairs; they can't be trusted to handle their own

professional body; they can't be trusted to negotiate with their

employer; they really have to be led around by the nose continually and

by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Speaking on behalf of teachers and, I

think, on behalf of anyone who believes in the fundamental principles

of democracy, I find that attitude by the British Columbia Teachers'

Federation is unacceptable, is denying basic human rights and is a

position which I reject. Accordingly, I support Bill 20.

MR. STUPICH: As I listen to the members on the government

side of the House speak about this legislation, each one of them

convinces me again that Bill 20 should not be proceeded with at this

time, and I have no hesitation at all in standing with my colleagues

and opposing this bill. Each one of them expresses some question, some

inability to understand what it is that the teachers and the BCTF are

so concerned with and so upset about.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

So, in spite of the fact that member after member, including the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) today and the government House

Leader and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), has said on

several occasions: "We spent six months traveling around the province

and listening to people, listening to everyone that wanted to talk to

us about education, and we brought down this bill...." Well, if they

spent six months listening, apparently they did not spend any time at

all hearing the message, because if the bill that has come down is

totally unacceptable to the BCTF, by the minister's own admission, then

obviously they were totally surprised when the bill itself came down

and the teachers as a whole had no idea as to what would be in the

legislation. There's no comparison between the bill that we now have

before us and the representations made to the teachers, to their

organizations, to everyone. The representations made by everyone to the

minister and to his people listening to them obviously were not

listened to when the bill itself was written. Otherwise there wouldn't

be this confusion; there wouldn't be this lack of understanding on the

part of the minister and every spokesperson on behalf of the government.

A few of the members opposite have indicated to me that they really

are anti-teacher, and certainly teachers have been made

whipping-persons in the province of British Columbia over the years and

in the last few years in particular, especially with the restraint

program. Teachers were picked on because they were felt, I suppose, to

be politically vulnerable. But beyond that — very much beyond that —

the BCTF is really being the ogre in this whole picture, as though the

BCTF were a creation of some other group of people, some other body,

somebody totally separate from the teachers themselves. The BCTF is the

teachers' own organization, like it or not.

The government House Leader talked about the democracy in Bill 20.

Well, democracy is rule by the majority. Certainly the majority, as we

hear....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, he'll have to speak

more loudly, or wait until I stop talking, or put up his hand and I'll

stop and listen for a moment, because maybe he's saying something

that's worth listening to when he's sitting down.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll stand up.

MR. STUPICH: Not stand up — I won't let you get away with that. No, you've had your turn.

Every member, every teacher in the province that's teaching, is a

member of the BCTF. It's their organization. When the organization

first started over 40 years ago, the teachers had to prove that they

were at the point in time when they needed, wanted and had earned the

right to have the B.C. Teachers' Federation established, by having 93

percent of the teachers in the province signed up as members before the

government gave them the right to establish that organization.

It is still their organization. The executive of the BCTF is not

imposed on them by the government or by anyone else. The executive of

the BCTF, like it or not, is elected just as is the executive of the

Social Credit Party. They have a convention once a year, and I think

the Social Credit Party has one once a year. They have a convention

made up of delegates from teachers' groups all over the province, just

like the Social Credit Party in convention, and at that convention the

teachers pick their executive members for the BCTF just as the Social

Credit Party and the New Democratic Party do at their conventions.

That's the way our system works. That's the way democracy works. That's

majority rule. It's the majority that decides who are going to be the

executive members, not the minority.

But in every such organization, and here as well, in this

Legislative Assembly, while the majority has the right to rule, to

govern, they also have the obligation to look after the rights of the

minority, including individuals. Sometimes all of us stray from that.

My concern at this moment is that with Bill 20 we are not looking after

the rights of the majority at all; we're imposing something on these

people that they, to this point, don't want.

The minister may be right: it may be that they don't understand it

yet. But if that is his point.... It's been one of the points made by

various people on the other side: if they just took the time to read

it, to study it, if they had better advisers.... I think it was the

government House Leader who said that their legal adviser was giving

them improper.... I've forgotten how he phrased it now, but giving them

the wrong advice, in any case. If they had the right advice, then they

would understand it, appreciate it and support it.

Madam Speaker, to this point that hasn't happened. If that hasn't

happened, one of the greatest arguments against the council that is

going to be imposed upon the teachers is this: if they can't understand

it, don't know how it's going to work and don't want it, then how can

it possibly work? How could the executive of the Social Credit Party

function if the Social Credit Party membership had no faith in that

executive and were not prepared to accept what it was doing? That

system won't work. We couldn't survive as a Legislative Assembly if the

people of the province didn't support the concept of what we were doing

and the way in which we're chosen, and

[ Page

987 ]

the fact that we can stay here for a maximum of

five years without having an election. That's all accepted; it's part

of our system. But if it wasn't accepted, then it would break down; it

just wouldn't work. Anarchy is not a substitute for rule by the

majority. It just won't work in our system.

If the college council has no support from the teachers, then I suggest that it's going to have a hard time surviving.

This is not the first time that a Social Credit government has taken

on the BCTF and has tried to destroy the organization. Some of us will

recall that in 1971 the Social Credit government decided that they had

had enough of the BCTF involving itself in matters that the government

felt were better left to others. So they took away the compulsory

membership in the BCTF in 1971. The BCTF then had to sign up its

members, as it is going to have to do when Bill 20 is passed. And what

kind of a percentage did they get? The minister is talking again from

his chair. Does he recall what percentage of members they got signed up

at that time? Sixty-nine teachers in the province did not join. I

suspect one of them was the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Brummet); I'm not sure. But 69 teachers did not join the BCTF when the

government took away the compulsory membership.

There's no better way to strengthen the hand of the executive of the

BCTF, if you don't like what they're doing, than to attack them and to

say to the teachers: "We don't like what you're doing. We're going to

take away your right to have your organization, and you're going to

have instead the kind of organization that we, as government, think you

should have." Madam Speaker, that's no way to get cooperation. That's

no way to get the kind of organization you want. That's no way to get

peace, if you like, between the teachers' organization and the Ministry

of Education and the minister.

I heard him this morning, I think....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Remember the ides of March.

MR. STUPICH: He's talking about March now. Madam Speaker, he

threw that in this morning when someone was speaking. What did they

threaten in March? He took great delight, as minister, in throwing

gasoline on the fire that he started by refusing to sit down and talk

with them as reasonable people. He said he was listening. After six

months of listening, the minister had the nerve to stand up and say

that the teachers threatened to walk out because he wasn't listening.

He said he was listening; the teachers said he wasn't listening.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That's not the whole story. I wasn't there. You were there.

Madam Speaker, was that listening? Did he really think that he was

listening? If he did, the teachers certainly didn't think he was

listening, or they would not have issued the threats that they did in

March.

I mentioned the Cold War when I spoke in the previous debate on this question.

Had either the Russians or the Americans started exchanging nuclear weapons

because they didn't like the threats coming from the other side, where would

any of us be now? Was that the way to respond to that kind of threat? I don't

suggest that the minister should give in when he's threatened by any group,

but neither do I suggest that he should exacerbate the conflict by saying: "Well,

if you're threatening one thing, then I'm going to come back on you

with something harder."

The minister has said that he doesn't understand what the teachers

want, because in this legislation before us now they've given them

everything they want. There are two ways of taking that. You can say to

someone, "I'm going to give you everything you want," or you can say,

"I'll give you everything you're asking for," in which case you're

determined to do exactly the opposite because you think that person

demands the opposite treatment. It can be a threat as well as a

promise. I wonder whether the minister, in speaking about Bill 20, is

saying that he is not really giving the teachers everything they asked

for, but rather that he is treating them in the way that he thinks they

should be treated — as a federation, if not as individual teachers.

[4:15]

Madam Speaker, we're not dealing with a foreign organization, one

that doesn't have the support of the teachers. Rightly or wrongly — and

I have my own comments about the tactics they've used, which I feel

will be counterproductive when it comes to winning public support to

this point — the BCTF is nevertheless their organization. I don't know

how many teachers did not show up in the classroom a week ago in the

Langley School District, or in the district represented by the

minister, but I do know the figure in Nanaimo: 96 percent of the

teachers did not show up in classrooms on Tuesday last. This doesn't

bode well for the future of education in this province, and that's my

concern. I spoke in my earlier debate about the way my father taught me

to value an education, and about the way I had been taught to respect

teachers in the classroom, organized or not. I'm pleased to say that in

the Nanaimo School District, where 96 percent did not turn out to

classes on Tuesday last, the students, the teachers themselves, and the

parents have a very high appreciation of teachers as a group and of the

educational system.

Three surveys have been conducted in the Nanaimo School District —

1984, 1985 and 1987 — and students, parents, teachers, people in the

community, were asked a number of questions. Looking first at the

students in grades 3 to 7 — there were 1,135 returns out of 1,237 asked

— 86 percent of them answered positively the question: "Do you like

your teachers?" If you like the people you're working with, the people

who are teaching you, there's a much better chance that you're going to

learn something in the educational system than if you resent them or

don't like them. Eighty-six percent also said that they liked recess

time.

In the group of children in grades 8 to 10 — 638 returns out of 761

that's reading, writing, speaking and listening. One of the criticisms

of our educational system that I've heard over the past ten or 15 years

people don't learn it. But 85 percent of the students in grades 8 to 10

way. Eighty-four percent liked the principal, and it was a reflection

of the teachers; 82 percent were satisfied with what they were

learning, and 81 percent were satisfied with the school in general.

There were some changes from '85 to '87; the figures I gave were for

'87. Remember that the schools were under attack in '83 and '84. In '85

the survey was taken. In '87 there had been relative peace. Although

there was no improvement between'85 and '87, it didn't get any worse.

So in that period when things were a little calmer in the school

system, there

[ Page 988 ]

were an additional ten points in favour of the

question of liking the principal. The vice-principal and assistant

principals also graded very high. There was a marked improvement of 8

percent in those who marked positively the question as to whether or

not they felt they were challenged by their school work, and I think

that's important too.

I'm doing this because I think people should be aware.... The BCTF

is the teachers' organization. As I said earlier, the teachers in

Nanaimo supported the BCTF decision not to work last Tuesday. I'm doing

it also to show that there is a very high regard for teachers, in the

Nanaimo School District at least — I can't go beyond that — a district

where there was a very high acceptance of the decision not to report to

classrooms last Tuesday.

Grades 11 to 12: 83 percent said yes, they do like their counsellors

— those are teachers. I think it was suggested by one member sometime

in this debate on Bill 20 — I'm not sure who or when — that maybe the

counsellors should not be teachers; they should be some other

profession.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Someone did suggest it, and I would disagree

with that, perhaps because my sister was a counsellor as well as a

teacher, and was very highly regarded in both ways by students that she

taught some 20 years ago in both capacities, who are still coming to

me. So I think it's important that they are teachers. The students will

relate to the teachers that they know and like, and I think they can

function better as counsellors.

In grades 11 to 12, where counsellors became much more important in

the system, 83 percent of them said yes, they liked their counsellors.

I guess the only thing that one might ask about that is why so many

knew the counsellor in that capacity; one would hope that didn't mean

that they were all going to the counsellor, but I don't know.

Eighty-two percent said yes, they liked the way in which the school

percent said yes, they were satisfied with how much they were learning.

And the improvements: there were an additional 14 percent in favour of

the way in which the school was handling science. That's from '85 to

'87; '87 is that much better.

MR. REE: This is on Bill 20, is it?

MR. STUPICH: This is on Bill 20, yes, because to this

time.... Madam Speaker, there's an interjection asking: is this on Bill

20? To me, Bill 20 is an attack on teachers to some extent, and more an

attack on the BCTF. And by attacking either teachers or the teachers'

own organization, an organization that they proved was acceptable to

them....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Another interjection: "They can vote for it."

That's something like the Minister of Education saying he has given them

everything they want — not he, but in companion legislation we're doing

away with the Compensation Stabilization Act, with the Public Sector Restraint

Act, and with essential services disputes. One of them has not yet been done,

but we're told it was missed and it's going to be done. All those things

are going to be done away with, so the teachers are getting everything they

want. They're getting the right to strike, as I pointed out in an earlier

debate — as much as they may want it. They don't want to go on strike; nobody

does. They're getting all those rights by virtue of the companion bill,

but, Madam Speaker, Bill 19 also denies to teachers every one of those rights.

So saying you're wiping out the legislation that denies the very rights

that the minister says are being made available to them, and then including

in companion legislation restrictions that deny those very rights at the whim

of a commissioner who will have much more power under Bill 19 provisions than

he has currently under the Compensation Stabilization Act, is certainly giving

nothing. It's taking away rather than giving. It's making it harder

than ever for teachers and the BCTF to be able to satisfy the purposes of the

organization in the beginning: they were established over 40 years ago so the

teachers could work together to follow common ethical standards. That's

the reason they were organized.

People have talked about their budget. Madam Speaker, I'll say one

thing about the BCTF.... I haven't seen their budget; I heard some of

the figures today. But I'll wager, if it were possible to do so, that

their budget is balanced, in contrast to what the provincial budget has

been since 1983. They're doing a better job.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got a deficit.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I haven't seen the budget. You say they

have a deficit; send it over and let me look at it. I know that there's

a deficit provincially — I'm satisfied with that. I'm not satisfied,

but I know it; there's no question about that.

The question is: what has all this to do with it? The point I'm

trying to make is that, in spite of this BCTF — this nasty ogre that

was created by someone from Mars, or wherever; or from some other

country, nation, world — the people in Nanaimo at least.... I'm not

sure about North Vancouver-Seymour, from whence the member who

interjected comes.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, I had the wrong one. North Vancouver-Capilano.

The teachers in Nanaimo are respected and liked by the students. The

students are satisfied with what they're learning; whether they're the

best to judge is another question. I was reading about the students. I

could go on and quote from the parents, in the same vein, with similar

responses. They feel the same way about education and about the

teachers. I could speak about members in the community....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: She's in Burnaby now, isn't she? Another

interjection, Madam Speaker. There was someone by the name of Joy Leach

who was in Nanaimo quite some time ago, but has been at Simon Fraser

University. I've not seen her in Nanaimo for quite some time.

In any case, members of the community were canvassed as well.

Similar questions were sent to them. The school teaching staff, the

school administration, clerical support staff — all of these groups

were asked, and they all responded positively to questions about

education in Nanaimo and to questions about the teachers. So the

teachers in Nanaimo are highly regarded, and there is no concern in

Nanaimo about the fact that there is this terrible organization, the

BCTF. As

[ Page

989 ]

far as the people in Nanaimo are concerned,

whatever is happening, it's good for education in Nanaimo, apart from

and this does come out, too — that they're not satisfied with the

provincial level of funding, which has changed dramatically in the past

few years; there's no question about that.

The minister tells us that they wanted bargaining rights. Well,

they've wanted that for quite some time. But it's not just to get more

money for themselves. They've wanted the right to be able to deal with

school boards and to deal with ministry staff, and to talk about what

they're doing, how they're doing it, what they're achieving and what

they could be doing better They have very little input into that now.

That's one of the things they wanted.

There has been no mention of whether, in any of the deliberations,

the minister listened to the teachers talking about how they felt, as

an organization, they could improve teaching in the province, could

improve our process of education. That's one of the things they have

always talked about lacking in their rights to bargain. Sure, they

bargain for salaries but precious little else, and of course do not

have a great deal of influence on that.

The right to strike, again, is the last weapon that anyone would

want to use, as is the right to lock out. No one wants to use it. They

want it, yes, but I don't think they want to use it.

Procedures for appointment of arbitrators. The minister tells us

that it is in the legislation now, but precious little good it is going

to do them, if we look at the provisions of Bill 19.

There was something more that I wanted to say about the BCTIF as an

organization: the fact that the executive is democratically chosen from

among its own members at its own conventions, just as in so many other

organizations; also, the fact that they meet as an assembly, with

representatives from every school district in the province, three times

a year. I expect there is a similar organization in the Social Credit

Party, in the New Democratic Party and in other organizations.

Again, the government House Leader said: "What do they want? What

are they concerned about? Why do they have so little faith in

themselves as individuals?" Madam Speaker, that is not the question.

The point is that they do have faith in themselves. They have faith in

themselves to produce the kind of organization that they want. The

minister said that he met with a delegation today that was asking for

and wants to have the same kind of organization as is being offered to

the teachers. But the difference is that the group that was meeting

with the minister in his office wants the kind of organization the

ministry is imposing on the teachers, and the teachers want the kind of

organization that they have built up. There's the difference. To hand

something to somebody that they don't want and say, "Aren't we doing

something great for you?" unless you can convince them that they want

it....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They can have it voluntarily.

MR. STUPICH: They can impose a second organization on top of

the first. They can have what they want voluntarily, but why do they

have to have what they don't want by your edict or by the force of this

government? By the fact that you have 47 members and we have 22, you're

going to say: "Yes, you will take this whether you like it or not,

whether you want it or not, whether you can work with it or not."

That's not the point. "We think you should have it, and you are going

to have it."

That's not what the nurses are saying. The nurses are saying: "This

is what we want. Give it to us." I think the minister is positively

inclined to give it to them. But the teachers are not asking for this

organization that is being imposed on them. Certainly they want the

other one, and I think that the teachers will once again prove to this

government that by attacking the very organization that they have built

up and have supported, to the extent, as I say, of getting in Nanaimo a

96 percent "yes" in favour of a BCTF action.... That's a very high

percentage. I know that as members in this House we would be pleased

with much less than 96 percent. Some of us are here with less than half

of that percentage of the vote in our constituencies, I would guess.

[4:30]

Ninety-six percent is a very high turnout, and that in itself....

Even if some of them did not feel comfortable about what they were or

weren't doing, to go out with 96 percent shows to me that they do

support their organization. They may want to make some changes, but

they are determined to do that at their timing, in their conventions

and with their own ideas, rather than because the minister has imposed

upon them something that he thinks would be good for them.

In all of this, where is education in the province? I mentioned

earlier that the minister seemed to be determined, when he talked about

March — he keeps talking about the ides of March — that the way to deal

with what he perceived to be a threat to himself or to government,

because he talked about the political attack, was to throw gasoline on

the fire, regardless of the cost to education, to student careers;

regardless of the student activities; apart from the classroom work,

their social activities, the music, the sports and that sort of thing.

Regardless of all of that, because he felt he was being politically

threatened.... And that has come from member after member on the other

side: the BCTF is no good because it is working as a political

organization. No one has really said "partisan'' political.

The government House Leader has suggested that there was money that

came to parties other than Social Credit. If there was, I didn't see

any of it. I suspect that the money went to putting ads in the papers,

ads that I did see urging people to find out who among the candidates

running in that constituency was prepared to stand up and speak against

restraint, and then to vote for them. I think that was what was meant

by political money. I doubt very much that there were cheques. There

might have been; I don't know.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The implication that it went.... Well, if it

did, Madam Speaker, I can certainly say that I never saw one of those.

Not that I saw all the money that came in, but I think I would have

heard of anything substantial coming from a source like that. So I

believe that was advertising that they did that may or may not have had

some effect.

Nevertheless, the Minister of Education felt that the BCTF was

engaging in a political attack, with the threats they made in March, so

regardless of what happened to the education system, what happened to

the students, what happened to the parents, regardless of everything,

he was determined to get into the fight right up to his elbows and to

take them on and to see if he could bring them to heel. And Bill 20 is

the result — legislation that the minister tells us came from six

months of listening. Yet every time the minister opens his

[ Page 990 ]

mouth, and whenever we hear from cabinet members in

particular, I cannot help but be convinced that there was no hearing.

There might have been sessions. There might have been sessions when

people talked at each other; but there would seem to have been no time

at all during that six months when people listened to each other.

The teachers, the Teachers' Federation, the School Trustees'

Association — everyone who was supposed to have been taking

part in

those negotiations except the minister and maybe his staff — were

totally surprised when Bill 20 came down, and most of them have reacted

negatively against Bill 20. So if they got what they were asking for in

all of those discussions, then what happened between the time they

asked for it and the time it was printed?

Madam Speaker, until this confusion is cleared up, until we can once

again start talking and meeting with people and discussing relatively

amicably, as we have been able to do in this chamber in this session,

to a greater extent than we have since 1972, until we've been able to

do that, this bill should not be passed. We should wait until there is

some real communication between the minister and the people being

affected by this legislation, because the ones really affected, the

ones who are really paying the price of what the minister is doing — of

the war in which he is engaging with the BCTF — the ones really paying

the price in this province are the students. And the students,

remember, are our future. We depend upon them more than they depend on

us. I urge the minister to back off, to wait until there is some real

communication; not just listening one way but real communication

between the minister, the teachers and their own organization, the BCTF.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've got my own private cheering

section here with me now.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the members from both sides of

the House on the manner in which they've conducted this debate. As one

who's been around here for a little while — not as long as some — I

find the new style of debate is refreshing. I'm very pleased.

I'm always pleased to follow my good friend, the Hon. first member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He's very logical. I don't agree with his

philosophy, obviously — not in all things, at any rate — but he makes a

logical debate even when it's very difficult to put the pieces together

from time to time. I do appreciate it.

One of the members a while ago, however — I believe it was the

member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) — stated this was an anti-teacher type of

legislation, and he quoted someone as saying that they ought to take

the gloves off. Well, Madam Speaker, I honestly believe that we've had

the gloves on on all sides of this issue for far too long. I believe

that the whole issue of education in this province has been politicized

far too long and it hasn't done any good for the educational process in

this province, it certainly hasn't done any good for the participants,

and it certainly hasn't done any good for those people we are trying to

protect and to help through the educational system, and that's the

students, who are sometimes forgotten in this whole melee.

There are some points to be made, Madam Speaker, and I'd like to

make those points if I could right now. Bill 20 grants teachers a

recognition of both their status as professionals and the right to

organize as a trade union.

Bill 20 establishes a College of Teachers, the professional body

that will be responsible for the control of the teaching profession,

similar to that which exists now for doctors, lawyers, accountants and

other professionals anywhere in this country.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Bill 20 also grants teachers full collective bargaining rights.

They'll have the right to form unions at the local level or remain as a

non-union association, and if teachers in a school district decide to

form a union, they'll have all the rights and responsibilities of any

other union anywhere in this province. Bill 20 clearly separates the

collective bargaining authority from the body responsible for

professional standards, a separation that exists in all other

professions as well.

I was speaking with another group earlier on today, Mr. Speaker, and

that particular group mentioned to me that the separation of functions

that they were looking for and something that they were request