1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th

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)

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 675 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable W.K. Kiernan presented to Mr. Speaker two Messages

from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of Mr. Kiernan, the following Bills were introduced,

read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day

for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 66) intituled All-terrain

Vehicles Act .

Bill (No. 67) intituled

An Act to

Amend the Wildlife Act.

The Honourable R.G. Williston presented to Mr. Speaker a Message

from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of Mr. Williston, Bill (No. 68) intituled

An Act to Amend the Forest Act

was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the

Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of the Honourable L.R. Peterson, the following Bills

were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on

theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

Bill (No. 70) intituled

An Act to

Amend the Police and Prisons Regulation Act .

Bill (No. 69) intituled

An Act to

Amend the Jury Act .

On the motion of the Honourable R.G. Williston, Bill (No. 72)

intituled,

An Act to Amend the Land

Act

was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the

Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. R. Wenman, Bill (No. 84) intituled

An Act for the Establishment of

Agricultural Parkland

was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the

Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded

to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, if I may,

I would like to advise the House, as House Leader, I want to ask the

House, to not sit on Wednesday night, since it's the 17th of Ireland. I

just mention this, so that Members can make their necessary

arrangements to celebrate a very important day.

Second reading of Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 5.

An Act to Amend the School District and

Regional Colleges (Pensions) Act . The Honourable the Provincial

Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): Well, Mr. Speaker, the

principles outlined in other bills before the House on Friday afternoon

are the same here. If I might enumerate them, briefly, the principles

in this act make provisions for the shortening of the averaging period

which is presently ten years to that of seven years, the present

$12,500 per annum contribution salary ceiling has been removed, early

retirement benefits have been improved and the act applies to every

college or college council, in respect to the eligibility of faculty

and senior administrative staff. The same other principles, as I said,

cut across the others. Those are the main ones. There are some

housekeeping amendments as well, along with the bill. I have pleasure

in moving second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on Friday

last, we had a fairly long discussion on one of the other three bills

that the Minister is speaking about. The bill in front of us now is

Bill 5 and it has improved the pension prospect of teachers and other

employees of regional colleges. The one problem that I can see…we

certainly are very happy to see that the ceiling has been removed,

we're also extremely happy to see that we're using the 2 per cent

formula and also early retirement, etc.

One great problem, I believe, in all of these bills, however, is the

fact that the Government is not giving the kind of leadership that I

think that they should with regard to the future of portability. Now

portability has been a feature in other Provinces and I was thinking

that, within all of these bills, because of the fact that the

Government is the carrier, it would strike me that there should be more

access. Now, there is some access to portability, but it isn't the pure

portability that it could be, as if in fact, they were interchangeable,

so to speak. In other words, you were allowed to carry on as a

municipal employee and go from that to the other areas. As far as those

already retired, that doesn't affect this bill very much because of the

fact that this bill was only enacted in 1968, in the first place. With

that, our Party endorses this bill and we hope that there are some

amendments in the future to give them a greater degree of portability.

MR. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to close the debate on

this, may I, through you, inform the honourable Member that built right

into this bill is instant portability from day one. Instant portability

from day one. It's built right into this piece of legislation.

Furthermore, in connection with others, portability does, in fact,

exist between the various plans that the honourable gentleman has

mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 5 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of

the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 6,

An Act to Amend the Members of the

Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act . The Honourable the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: Again, Mr. Speaker, the same principles cut across

this bill as cut across other bills, that have been mentioned

heretofore. Further, the honourable Members are quite well aware that

certain things have taken place. To mention one, there has been a new

Leader of the Opposition so, as a consequence, that

section of the act

would have to be amended, in any case. The same averaging principles

and so on cut across this bill as they do others. I have the honour to

[ Page 676 ]

move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 6 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of

the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to Amend the Public Service Group

Insurance Act . The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: This bill, Mr. Speaker, although not strictly

speaking a pension bill, nevertheless, is related to the pension bill.

The purpose of the bill is to extend group life insurance coverage

available to Government employees, who contribute under

part 2 of the Civil Service Superannuation Act .

It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that, because the Civil Service

Superannuation Act is before the House as Bill 28, then, obviously,

this type of amendment has to take place in order to bring the Public Service Group Insurance Act

up to the amendments of that bill. It is strictly housekeeping, in that

sense. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Minister could inform the House as to who is the carrier of this

insurance, who is the original salesman for the insurance, and whether

or not such insurance comes up for periodic bid?

MR. BLACK: In closing the debate, Mr. Speaker, I will be

happy to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the

debate.

MR. BLACK: The carrier is the Great-West Life Assurance

Company. The proposal was open for bid. Great-West Life Assurance

Company was the successful bidder. I move second reading. I think two

years ago, was it not? The answer is no, then.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 7 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to Amend the

Community Care Facilities Licensing Act. The Honourable the Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker,

heretofore, the administration of private hospitals has been under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance. On the other hand, a wide variety of community care

facilities, such as nursing homes, rest homes, maternity homes,

boarding homes and so on have fallen under the jurisdiction of the

Department of Rehabilitation. This has, on occasion, caused some

inconvenience to the public in that it's not always clear, when

enquiries have been made, as to whether they should direct their

enquiries to the Department of Health Services or to the Department of

Rehabilitation. I think, too, that on occasions, there have been

difficulties in achieving uniformity in respect to rates and so on. The

effect of this bill is to gather under the jurisdiction of the

Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance the community care

facilities' licensing procedures which, heretofore, have been with the

Department of Rehabilitation. The act defines, with some degree of

particularity, the type of accommodation which is intended to be dealt

with. It also has in it a number of provisions substituting the words,

Minister of Health, where, heretofore, has been, Minister of

Rehabilitation. Then, there is a provision at the end validating

various transactions by the Minister of Rehabilitation during the

period of transfer. The appropriate financial provisions have been made

in the two departments. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the bill is welcome in that it

transfers the obligation from one department to another as it would

seem to us that the Health Department could probably do a better job of

supervising than has the Welfare Department, in the past, by virtue of

the fact that there are more health groups being afforded this kind of

supervision concerned here. Now, we feel that, in the past, there has

been very little or no inspection. We would hope that, in the future,

there will be some kind of inspection under this kind of bill and that

there will be something new added and that the community care

facilities will be supervised properly. In the past, there has been a

very definite move with regard to opting out as far as community care

facilities has been concerned with this Government. We've known, for

some time, that there's been a great need for the kind of rest home

facility that would relieve the hospitals, that is, the extended care

and the chronic care facilities that we have, and also, indirectly

would help the acute care hospitals. What this bill might do is that it

might get the Government off the hook still further in that they might

feel that, now that they're supervising this under the Health

Department, no longer do they have to worry about providing these

facilities. All they have to do is let the private sector, that is, the

corporate group and also private individuals, start up their own little

empires.

Mr. Speaker, we feel very definitely that this is an obligation of

the Government, particularly with regard to all of the phases of

chronic care. I recognize that there is extended care and there is

intermediate care and one thing and another, but we're thinking in

terms of the general chronic care situation.

Mr. Speaker, we would hope that the Department of Welfare, having

been taken off the hook, can now deal with its work more efficiently.

We would hope that the Health Care Division will deal with this and

also go on about creating a great many more beds for those chronically

in need of beds, those people who are called extended care patients in

this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the

[ Page 677 ]

Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I endorse the remarks of the Member

from New Westminster, who has done a great deal of study in this

particular area and has found that the Provincial Government has been

extremely lacking in providing the facilities that may be supervised by

this bill. I have some fears I wish to express to the Minister in that

this bill, in my opinion, has been politically inspired. There has been

glaring errors in this Government's policy in not incorporating these

areas of service. In an attempt to make it appear that the Government

is entering these fields, it is shifting something that already exists

and is not being administered in the Department of Welfare to the

Department of Health, where it may not be administered there, either.

The Member from Oak Bay has pointed out, time and time again, the

lack of facilities of chronic care and rest homes. There's been a

misinterpretation given to this bill by the press that, by introducing

this bill, the Government is making a first, halting step towards

providing rest home service and chronic care service. That's not so,

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just transferring something that already

exists and is not being administered in the Department of Welfare, to

the Department of Health, where it won't be administered, either. The

Minister will have to get up and say what will be done with the staff

in the Department of Welfare. Will they be transferred to the

Department of Health? The Minister must tell this House what he intends

to do, in terms of recruiting staff, or does the Minister expect to get

the staff that already exists to do this from the Department of Welfare?

The Department of Welfare has not done a good job in inspection and,

if you read the bill closely, and we expect some detailed discussion in

the committee, it says in the explanatory note,

section 9,

"…clarifying the right of inspection of suspected community care

facilities and those operating without a license or permits." What do

you mean by "suspected?" Suspected by whom of what"

Now this bill was hastily drawn, in my opinion. It doesn't provide

anything brand new, but it gives the illusion that, somehow, all those

complaints that all of us have received, as M.L.A.s, about certain

practices in rest homes are going to be corrected. I don't think

there's a Member in this House that, under this bill, hasn't already

received complaints. What do we know in terms of follow-up? Is a

suspicion a complaint — a suspicion of what, by whom, where and how?

Now, I ask the Minister to tell us exactly what he intends to do under

this bill that's different, that has not been done by the Department of

Welfare? What is his long-term goal with this bill? What is his policy?

What is his philosophy? What is the purpose? I suspect it's nothing

more than shifting one thing that already exists to another Department,

just to give the illusion that something new is going to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I'd like to pursue a little

further the point the Leader of the Opposition has raised. This,

certainly, could leave considerable scope. I'm not sure that the

Government intends it that way. I hope that they do but this very

topic, community care facility, opens the door to a far greater measure

of public health and preventative health care than what we have,

heretofore, known. In other parts of America, there are preventative

health groups that operate under that very name. Here, they hire a

whole staff of the various medical professions and the various

ancillary services and, where these groups are allowed to practice full

and free in their professional orbit, we find that, not only are the

hospital patient days reduced to less than one-third of our B.C.

average, but also the number of operations that are made, in a great

many cases, is reduced to one-third or one quarter of what we are doing

in B.C. When we realize that our Provincial Budget is over one fifth of

a billion dollars in this field, I hope, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

the Minister will very seriously consider extending this facility into

the realm of preventative medicine.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it has been

suggested that this bill changes nothing and I think that that's

correct, in terms of the scope of service. I interpret this bill as a

step in the right direction, but I would agree with the Honourable

Leader of the Opposition that it does nothing to make the Government

responsible for either providing a wider scope of service or putting up

money which is presently being put up by the individual patient. I

don't think the House or the public of British Columbia need be in any

doubt about that, but the reason I'm optimistic is that this represents

a progressive step. It revolves around the fact that what we are doing

so badly in providing facilities in British Columbia is related to

providing the proper level of care which the patient requires.

If we look at this bill, it defines community care facilities as

being several different levels of care. As I've said, many times in

this House, and certainly many times publicly, the biggest waste of

money that anybody could imagine in our health facilities in British

Columbia arises from the fact that we are providing levels of care in

very expensive facilities, when the care required by the patient could

be provided in much simpler surroundings, with less expensive staff and

less expensive facilities. I would hope that, by bringing the

administration of all these different levels of care under one

Minister, we could enhance the efficiency of the programme and, having

set up an efficient administrative vehicle, I would hope this means,

and I would plead with the Government that it does mean, that, within

the very near future, we shall be aiming at two very specific goals

under this type of bill — one to provide an adequate number of

appropriate levels of care. I don't think this can possibly be

overemphasized that this kind of bill should make it possible to

administer a much more comprehensive programme of care for all patients

at different levels of need. Secondly, that following on this goal, I

hope, will be a measure of social justice, which will not differentiate

between the methods by which Government assists patients with different

levels of illness. I've said it many times and I think it must be

repeated, ad nauseam until acted upon, that it is a complete negation

of social justice that certain patients, depending on the degree of

their illness, are looked after by the State and that other levels of

illness are totally neglected. I deplore this as an individual and I

deplore it as an M.L.A. I would hope, with the strongest encouragement

possible, to ask this Government to initiate, at the earliest moment,

provision of a wider scope of the facilities covered under this bill

and, as soon as possible, the financing of such care, so that the

patient using the community care facilities is treated on a par with

acute and extended care patients.

[ Page 678 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, the

definition, community care facility, is really a misnomer. There's

nothing about the community involved. These are private facilities,

operated for a profit. This Government, having failed to take its

responsibility to the ill and those who are infirm, in regard to public

care facilities, has the temerity to use the words, community care, in

regard to these private facilities that are purported to be regulated

by this bill, and the one of which this is the heir.

The difficulty is that, when private nursing homes or other

facilities of a similar kind, like rest homes, are functioning as a

private, profit-making organization, subject to Government control,

inspection and licensing, the Government has a tremendous power over

that facility, which it can use and abuse. For example, it can put upon

those operators the duty of caring for patients or infirm people, who

are unable to pay the normal rates. The Government, by using the threat

of licensing privileges, can withdraw the license privileges if the

facility doesn't take a certain number of welfare patients. This

particular matter has arisen. There was a great deal of threatening

going on, threatening of these private operators. I really don't think

it is the right business of Government to engage in this kind of

campaign of threats and coercion of private enterprise operators.

It seems to me the proper course to follow is to declare this out of

limits for private profit and for the Government to take a proper

responsibility for the care of all patients in need of rest homes or

private hospitals or any other facilities of intermediate or long-term

stay. That's why this bill is so unsatisfactory, because it has hidden,

within the phrases and terms of the legislation, a continuing threat to

the existing operators. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this can be

abused. It has been abused.

I recall one case that went to Court, where a license was taken away

on what was a suspicion of an operator not carrying on the business

properly in terms of elderly patients. That was set aside by the

Supreme Court because it was obvious that the department, the

inspectors, had not acted properly and they were censured quite

severely by the Court for their conduct. The matter was reopened and

the license restored, but a year and a half went by, apparently, during

which this operator was, really, operating without a license. Reprisals

— economic and licensing — reprisals are built into this legislation.

It will always be so, providing this Government fails in its own

responsibility to assume the jurisdiction and control and operation of

these facilities, so that they can, truly, be community care facilities

instead of private profit on human misery.

Now, what is the result of this type of legislation? It's true it's

useful having the Health Department taking over the responsibility,

because I hope that they will be more familiar with the problems of

health that relate to these facilities. For instance, the problem of

proper nursing care available, the problem of bed sores, which is a

continuing problem with old people, who are unable to get out of bed

part of the day, the problem of adequate food and seeing that older

people eat the proper food; these things that inspection staffs have to

be alert to all the time. What concerns me is that, when you have

operators trying to cut corners to either make a profit or even break

even, sometimes, when they have a larger number of welfare patients

amongst their clientele, there is a downgrading of the diet of those

people who are patients. We get complaints from time to time. I imagine

nearly every Member gets complaints about some nursing home or some

long-stay convalescent home or similar institution. Now, how do you

meet this problem, if the Government is not prepared to pay a

reasonable rate on a bed-patient basis or, alternatively, going to take

responsibility for its own programme?

You have merely perpetuated a problem that is hard to solve, so far

as the private operator is concerned. Now, local staffs, in my own

municipality, do a very good job of inspecting these facilities and, if

they find anything wrong, they immediately get in touch with the

Provincial authorities on the problem, but many areas don't necessarily

have that kind of alertness in their inspection staffs, or, indeed, the

people trained to do a proper inspection from time to time of these

facilities.

I would appreciate knowing from the Minister whether he proposes

that the inspection staffs that he will be using are merely a transfer

of staff from the Welfare and Rehabilitation Department, or are they

going to be his own trained health people to do the job? The bill, from

our point of view, as I see it, is sort of a neutral bill. It doesn't

do a great deal, but it doesn't do any harm, other than the harm that

is already in the legislation as it exists, today, which some time or

another this Government has got to face and change.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver

East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the

Minister, under this bill and under the general powers of his office,

has the powers of a czar, so far as the life savings of many families

in British Columbia are concerned. The question whether somebody goes

into a convalescent care hospital, when they have to and pay $400 or

$500 a month, or whether they're given a bed, and there are a few such

beds in the Province of B.C., now, under BCHIS, in a chronic care

facility, say, in Surrey, or, if the conditions warrant it, out in

Valleyview, and pay a $1 or a $1.50 a day, the difference between those

people and the people I'm talking about whose life savings have been

consumed…now, maybe, they won't be able to enjoy them. Their families

might have had the right to those life savings passed on. I know of a

case where a couple have been pretty well incapacitated, partly through

age, partly through illness, and they are each paying, at these private

hospital rates, over $400 a month and their life savings, laboriously

built up, of $26,000 have gone down the drain to date. They're both

alive. What little they have left is still being drained off and they

leave nothing to their families.

Who decides whether that couple gets BCHIS treatment, favourable

treatment, or who decides whether their life savings shall be wiped out

by chronic illness over a period of years?

The Minister of Health makes that decision and he has the powers of

a czar, because of the kind of a set-up that has built up in this

Province, to make decisions of the utmost consequence to the families

of the people of British Columbia who run into this kind of illness and

old age. Of course, there's only one answer, Mr. Minister, and that is

that you simply have to provide. You can't go on like this,

distinguishing and drawing these kinds of distinctions between

different people, suffering from the same things — of illness or old

age, in the Province of B.C. and decreeing to them, in the one case,

your life savings shall be consumed by the private hospital operators

and, in another case, you'll get

[ Page 679 ]

a break from the public hospital system. It can't

go on. It's far too much power in the hands of any one man to decide

between the Jones family and the Smith family as to whether the Jones

children or the Smith children shall be left penniless. It's as simple

as that.

Now, in addition, there are, and I'm not sure of the exact number —

I think we have licensed in B.C., under this act, about 19 chronic care

hospitals, including Sandringham…. It's one of the greatest tragedies

in the history of B.C., you know, if you look back at the last 15 or 20

years of this Government, that they have awarded to the private

hospital operators, and a very limited group it has been, I think, the

number is 19, but I could be wrong in the number, what was really a

tremendous privilege, what was really a right to make money out of

human illness and sickness. These people put up the private hospitals

in the 1950's and 1960's, at the most at about $2,000 per bed in terms

of cost. If you went to them today, Mr. Minister, and said we should

revoke this license and bring it under the public hospital system and

pay you off for your investment, they'd be demanding, at least, $12,000

or $15,000 a bed, today. In the meantime, they've paid off their

mortgages, sometimes, with social welfare but, mostly, out of the

suffering public of B.C. at $400 or $500 a month. We have made them

rich and they have coined…the private hospital operators have coined

money out of the human suffering and illness of the families of B.C.

Now, I think the Minister's policy is no more licenses. We have

enough. They've been highly favoured, they have had, in effect, from

this Government, the right to get rich. They are ready to sell their

hospitals, if need be, at the right price back to the people of B.C.,

but, boy, that will be some mark-up! We say no more licenses for

chronic care facilities, cut them off and from now on let the taxpayers

do the job.

In the meantime, we have had a little class of private hospital

operators, who have benefited enormously in the last 15 or 20 years at

the expense of human suffering and old age and the chronic illness of

families of B.C. who, in most cases, have had nothing, whatsoever, to

leave to their children after their sojourns in these private hospitals.

What you have, Mr. Minister, is an impasse. You can't go on being a

czar and picking and choosing among people, and you can't allow this

private hospital thing to go on, anymore. You may not be wise to buy

out these private hospitals, but you'd certainly be wise to provide the

facilities so that people will be able to get out of them and not pay

their exorbitant rates. Why should there be profiteering in human

misery and illness? What has profiteering got to do with chronic care

and old age and illness? Nothing. If it's to be outside of the realm of

Government, at least, it should have been nonprofit, co-operative

societies. This is what we've done in B.C. and it is one of the

blackest marks on that Government opposite that they have allowed

profiteering out of illness. Don't buy out these wealthy, favoured

private hospital profiteers, but provide the facilities and do it

quickly, so that those in need, whether its acute illness or whether

its chronic makes no difference — they are entitled to the

consideration, in a Christian way, of all of the people of B.C. on

equal and fair terms applicable to all.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the

debate.

MIL LOFFMARK: In respect of the inspection staff that has

been administering some of these community care facilities under the

Department of Rehabilitation, we're in the process of transferring the

personnel to the Department of Health. They will come under the

direction of our chief inspector of hospitals.

Now, on the matter of the expression in which the Minister of Health

is described as a czar, on this point I think, there's a couple of

observations that might be made. First of all, the definition of

extended care, as it applies to these facilities in this Province, is a

matter that's determined by agreement between the British Columbia

Government and the Federal Government. This is the same in all

Provinces. The Federal Government has a standard contract form, or one

that's, generally speaking, the same. It's the same in this Province as

any place else, so that whether a person is qualified for extended care

is determined in accordance with an agreement between this Province and

the Federal Government. As I say, the terms of this agreement are not

substantially different than they are in any other Province.

The second point is that, in each and every case, before a person is

admitted to an extended care hospital, he is so recommended by his

attending physician, who fills in a complete set of questionnaires on

this matter. In the Department of British Columbia Hospital Insurance

Service, there are three qualified medical doctors, who spend a very

large part of their time assessing the individuals concerned. To the

best of my knowledge, every person, who is in an extended care hospital

in this Province, had been approved for this service by one of these

medical practitioners on the staff of the B.C. Hospital Insurance

Service. If there are any exceptions to that, I would like to hear of

them (interruption) .

No, the suggestion went abroad, here, a few minutes ago, that the

Minister had some discretion in this matter. I most emphatically deny

that. As evidence of that, I refer you to the agreement between the

Provincial Government and the Federal Government. I also refer you to

the practice of the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service, where

these matters are decided by three doctors. To the best of my

knowledge, there was only one case where the Minister has been involved

and that involved a 99-year-old man in Nelson. That's the only one. I

move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 45 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of

the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 47,

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act .

The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, on speaking

on this bill, times change and so do the organizational needs of

systems. The bill before the House, today, contains the most extensive

set of revisions to the Public Schools Act since 1958, and it reflects

these facts. As well as proposing legislation, it will enable a major

revision in the structure of the Department of Education. the bill also

proposes several significant and far-reaching changes in some of the

major details of the public schools system.

It is not without some regret that we see the time-honoured title of

Superintendent of Education disappear. Students of the history of

education in British

[ Page 680 ]

Columbia are well aware of the major role played by

the many excellent educators who have filled this position, commencing

with John Jessup in 1872 and concluding with that outstanding educator,

Frank Levirs. But we realized that the position was established in an

age when the average daily attendance of the entire school system was

under 600 and could be operated under a single superintendent who

reported directly to the Legislature. The new organization consists of

a Deputy Minister, with several senior superintendents of major

divisions. It is, obviously, the one most suited to today's need for

rapid decisions. It will enable unity of overall planning, with a

number of people skilled in various areas to advise on policy and apply

decisions to their own areas of concern.

A second historic term will also disappear and that is the Council

of Public Instruction. The council originated in 1891, some 30 years

before the Department of Education was established, and consisted of

the Members of the Government meeting with the superintendent as their

secretary. Today, it is the Executive Council that considers those

items that require major Government decisions. The act will now clearly

show this. Changes in these two aspects, alone, have required

amendments to over 60 sections of the act.

Grade 13, formerly known as senior matriculation, is another term to

vanish from the act. From its beginning in 1899, when there was not

even a university in British Columbia, the practice of offering, in

high schools, courses accepted in lieu of first-year university work

served our Province well. Senior matriculation classes grew until in

June, 1965, there were 3,600 students enrolled in these classes. With

the rapid development of universities and with the development of the

Institute of Technology and the colleges, enrolment has steadily

dwindled until, in September of last year, there were only 343 students

on a full-time basis. The cost of revising the courses, the

impractibility of continuing to improve the necessary facilities, when

better alternatives were available, and the difficulty experienced in

co-coordinating these programmes with the requirements of four

universities led to our decision to eliminate it. However, apart from

colleges and other institutions, we will continue to provide grade 13

by correspondence until June, 1972, to permit those who have started

grade 13 courses to complete them.

I am also very fully aware of the contribution to education made by

school boards and individual school trustees of British Columbia. They

are, as laymen, actively involved with the development and operation of

the schools in their districts, central to the concepts of the public

school system that can respond to the wishes of the people. I've also

welcomed suggestions from the trustees and have, during the past two

years, personally visited nearly all our school districts to become

better acquainted with their concerns. This bill incorporates several

of the major requests of school boards and the B.C. School Trustees'

Association, including provisions, by which our first citizens may more

readily qualify for office, a revision in the period of limitation

regarding legal action against boards, clarification of procedures

concerning negotiation of salary agreements, a more equitable basis of

payment of part-time teachers, provisions for college councils to

provide, without the necessity of leasing, semi permanent buildings and

equipment that will be needed for newly established colleges, and

further elimination of any remaining controls by municipal authorities

over school board budgets and expenditures.

During the course of my visits to the various school districts, and

knowing that major revisions would be made to the Public Schools Act ,

I was interested to hear the comments of students, teachers, parents

and school board representatives. Many teachers, for example, asked me

why it was required by law to belong to an association in order to

teach in the Province? On taking a close look at the situation, I have

concluded that it costs the taxpayers of the Province in excess of

$25,000 to have a person graduate as a teacher from our university

system. Upon graduation and upon being fully qualified to teach,

according to our requirements, the Department of Education issues a

certificate authorizing a teacher to teach in the Province. It seems

incongruous, therefore, that, after having qualified and certified by

the Department of Education, a teacher should be compelled to belong to

some other organization before having the right to teach within the

Province. This bill, therefore, makes provision that membership in the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, or any other association of teachers, shall

not be a condition of employment of a teacher by a board.

To avoid confusion among the voters caused by different requirements

in municipal and school district elections on questions, this

Government has established the policy that, insofar as practical,

the Public Schools Act should parallel

the Municipal Act .

Amendments, this year, carry this policy into effect in two more

sections and also adjust the dates for rural meetings to ensure the

availability of up-to-date voters' lists. Consistent with our urging of

boards to involve the people of school districts and school affairs is

the provision that, provided 60 per cent of the qualified electors

vote, a simple majority will be sufficient to carry a question.

During the past year, the department's attention was drawn to the

fact that it could not provide information to boards concerning a

teacher, who had been suspended, or whose mental or physical capacity

might be injurious to a child. Amendments are introduced to correct

this situation.

The conditions under which substitute teachers may be employed,

without the necessity of obtaining a certificate or letter of

permission, have been revised but protection of pupils against any

extensive use of uncertified personnel has been maintained.

Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the question of matters relating

to teacher tenure has been referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Social Welfare and Education. I expect that, following the receipt of

the report from the committee, suitable amendments to bring about

desirable changes in the tenure conditions and appeal procedures will

be introduced. Also I have amendments on the Order Paper to repeal

section 25 of Bill 47 and I will bring to the attention of the Speaker

that, upon this happening, we will also be repealing

section 82 of

section 47 which will no longer be required. The bill will further

improve the basic framework within which the Department of Education

can operate. Mr. Speaker, 1, therefore, move that the bill now be read

a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, we completely

oppose this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Completely.

MRS. DAILLY: Completely, yes, because we're very

[ Page 681 ]

concerned about two major things, here. One is that

we feel a very dangerous precedent is taking place in this bill and

something, I think, that has escaped many people. It hasn't come quite

to their attention and we want to make it very clear, today, that it

has come to our attention. This is what our concern is. Inherent in

this bill is the whole theme of centralization of authority under the

hands of the Minister of Education. As a matter of fact, with the

removal of the word, superintendent, and the word, minister, in its

place, in essence, this bill is turning the Minister from a political

figure into a professional educator. We consider this highly dangerous

for the educational processes of this Province. You are going to take

upon yourself many of the functions which previously were given to the

superintendent, which means, in essence, that you are also, now, taking

upon yourself the right to control educational programmes as well as

educational expenditures.

I don't think that there is any other department of this Government

which gives a Minister as much power in his department as the present

Statutes which you are proposing will give you. I think this is a point

which must be seriously thought about by all Members in this House.

We are also very concerned with the removal of the automatic

membership from the BCTF. Now, Mr. Minister, you say that you had a

couple of hundred teachers phone you to talk to you or write to you

about their concern over having to….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's a growing tendency in the

House for honourable Members to address other Members in the House

rather than the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if honourable Members would address the

Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr.

Speaker, we understand that the reasons for this removal of the

automatic membership, Mr. Speaker, was because the Honourable Minister

had received a number of complaints from several hundred teachers. At

the same time, the Minister said that, when he brought in this

legislation, great consideration and consultation took place. I would

like to know if any consultation, at any time, took place with the

BCTF, with reference to removal of their automatic membership.

This is a very serious step this Government has taken, without any

consultation with the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The people who are

primarily concerned were not consulted — just a number of people who

happened to contact the Minister. We consider this action an entirely

punitive action. The B.C. Teachers' Federation has had a history in

this Province of being a highly professional organization. Much of

their membership dues has been put into the professional advancement

and the cause of education in this Province. As a matter of fact, there

has been so little put into research by the Government that we must

thank the teachers of British Columbia for their efforts in this area.

Yet, by removing their automatic membership, what you are doing, in

essence, is that you are going to force the teachers to no longer spend

the time and the money, which they previously did, in improving the

professional stature of their own members and the whole standard of

education in this Province. Now, they are going to be forced to spend

time and money in the recruitment of membership. This is not good for

education in this Province.

I think, when we're looking at this bill, Mr. Speaker, this is the

question we should all ask ourselves. Is this bill going to improve

education in this Province? As far as we are concerned, the two basic

principles inherent in this bill are not going to. In fact, I'm very

concerned for education in this Province if this bill goes through, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to say that there'll

be far more discussion on this when we go into the committee stage. We

will elaborate our concern on these points of principle, which I'm

bringing up just now. I would sincerely urge upon the Minister that he

consider hoisting this bill and giving it a year's study, on the basis

of the principle, the very dangerous principle, which is enunciated in

this bill, regarding centralization of education in this Province and

the removal of the automatic membership.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in beginning my comments

on this bill, I would like to say that, in my opinion, professionally,

the British Columbia Teachers' Federation is a very fine organization

supporting not only the rights of its membership but, even more

important, it works to build higher teacher standards in British

Columbia and to build quality education for our children.

I would say, at the outset, that 1, for one, will choose to keep my

membership in the British Columbia Teachers' Federation but I must say,

also, that, while I would make such a personal choice, I would say, at

the same time, I value my right to choose. I would say that a hundred

years ago, men rightly fought for the right of association and

collective bargaining at peril of both their job and personal censure

by their society. The winning of these rights established further sound

democratic and economically moral principles. These principles were

securely based in an idealism that brought economic justice to the

labouring producer. However, like so many great "isms," unionism has

grown, to some degree, to not represent, seemingly, its members, and it

has deprived and subjected the individual and even the State to its

whims too often.

The cyclic nature of history has come full circle and it is now time

to extend the freedom of association and collective bargaining to

include the even fuller right to disassociate and bargain on an

individual basis, if an individual so chooses. Compulsion encompasses a

commitment that, I believe, is an abuse of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights ,

which says that no one may be compelled to belong to an association.

I would say, I think, that doctors and lawyers represent a very good

direction that the British Columbia Teachers' Federation might move in.

They have separated their professional function from the economic

function. I think that that is a good move and I think that's the

direction that we should, perhaps, move in. I can understand the

concern of the Opposition, because the point that we're debating is a

very important idealistic difference between a socialist party and

those on the side of the freedom of choice and free enterprise. As

legislators, we must attempt to satisfy three parties in our society —

the individual, the association and the State. In each one of these

three units of our society, existing side by side, a different group,

be it the individual, the association or the State, predominates,

depending upon economic and social conditions. They are out of balance,

at the present time, and I believe that the balance needs to be

[ Page 682 ]

restored.

The idea of freedom itself is essentially individualistic Man,

through his very basic survival instinct, is basically individualistic

but, through reason, has, of course, agreed to group. It is this

tendency that forces us to decide upon the balance and upon the

question of the freedom of association Freedom of association must

imply both the right to associate and the right to not associate. For,

if you do not have the right to associate or to disassociate, where is

the freedom? A very basic principle is, therefore, brought forward into

debate of the two sides — the socialist side and the free enterprise

side. One side guarantees all citizens the rights on the same footing,

ignoring the special interests of any minority or occupational

grouping, while the second side enters into relations with the

association, regulating society in relationship to the needs of these

associations, which they equate with the needs of the workers who make

up the society. The association, then, in effect, becomes the State and

cannot, therefore, tolerate noncompulsory membership in the association

or in the union and the related full freedom of association or freedom

of choice.

As we look for current examples, where trade unions amalgamate with

Government, as is the very foundation or base of the NDP in all cases,

where this happens, the principles of the freedom of association and

the right of choice are regulated out of existence. Such intensive

regulation of our society may be necessary in the earlier stages of

democracy but, as we strive to a fuller, freer society, regulation and

compulsion must be removed in respect for intelligent, rational and

mature freedom of choice. I would hope, and I would remind you, Mr.

Speaker, that a majority does not abdicate when it resolves to take a

minority into consideration. It remains the majority with its

advantages that its situation implies. It only, through recognizing the

individual right, demonstrates a humanitarian and democratic principle

of the freedom of choice.

I have confidence that the teachers of this Province will look at

their association, because they have the ability, professional judgment

and integrity and I'm sure that a very large percentage — be it 90, 95

per cent or whatever it shall turn out to be — a very large percentage

will retain its membership. I hope, as well, they will also retain the

professional attitude and the many fine professional functions of the

British Columbia Teachers' Federation, such as their magazine, the

resource libraries that they have and the many in-service training

meetings that they have. I'm sure they will recognize the importance of

these and maintain the important areas.

I might say that, having spoken in favour of the freedom of choice,

I would suggest that the principles of this bill have been in conflict

with themselves. I commend the Minister most heartily for withdrawing

the

section relating to discrimination against the democratic rights of

teachers. I think that it was a very sound move and 1, for one, and of

all of the teachers whom I have heard from respect and appreciate this

move. I must say, also, relating to this bill that, in the publicity so

far, we have missed, probably, the most important thing that is

happening and that is in the reorganization of the Department of

Education — long since needed. For that, I commend the Minister

because, in this reorganization of his department, I sense among the

department members, people in the department, a new vitality. The

department is on the move, it's ready to take the change and I sense in

this bill, also, as the previous speaker feared for education, I fear

for education if someone doesn't take the rudder. That's what this bill

does allow. This allows for the Minister of Education to establish his

department on a firm businesslike footing and I offer him

congratulations and support in trying to bring this about in the

department.

There are many other parts of this bill, which certainly need to be

discussed and 1, certainly, will discuss them when we move into the

next stage of the bill. But above all, the two principles, which I can

support in this bill, are the right of individuals to have the freedom

of association and disassociation, the freedom of choice, which

represents the higher form of democracy to which I hope we are

evolving, and, secondly, the reorganization of the department so that

it will put the Department of Education in this Province on the move

and provide a strong rudder and a strong command to move education

ahead in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver

East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us — we

should be frank about it, Mr. Speaker. It's a punitive piece of

legislation, because the teachers took an interest in the affairs of

the Province and had a pro-educational campaign in the last election,

with the apple, in an attempt to interest both the electorate and

candidates in favour of better educational policies and because they

are sticking up, as they should stick up, for the pension rights of

retired school teachers, who have served this Province well. The

Government is bringing in punitive legislation, which is undermining

the professional standing and status of teachers. You read the Medical Act .

The Member from Delta, who has just finishing speaking, said freedom to

associate and freedom to not associate. That is not permitted to the

doctors, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes it is.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it is not (interruption) . I'm not confusing

the issue at all. Under the Medical

Act ,

the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of B.C. requires

that a person must be a member of that college before they can practice

medicine and, therefore, the college can exercise disciplinary

functions. Therefore, the college can….

AN HON. MEMBER: And that's all.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's take that right there, Mr.

Speaker. Is that not important to the teachers that they shall be

allowed professional status, that they shall be allowed powers of

self-government within the teaching profession? (Interruption.) Yes,

self-government within their own profession. You can't do that without

disciplinary powers, you can't do that without building up a body of

ethics, you can't do that without a broad association engaged in

educational research and assisting the Province in education. The

teachers' status, Mr. Speaker, should be in process of being elevated,

at the present time, so that we can get away from the stultifying

bureaucracy of Government. Instead of that, you're undermining the

association for punitive reasons. You don't do that — freedom to

associate and freedom to disassociate. We had a bill the other day, Mr.

Speaker, to give professional status to, of all people, hearing-aid

dealers. They can't sell unless they belong to this association. We

passed that, second reading, the other day. Now, should hearing-aid

dealers be professionalized and teachers not? (Interruption.)

Should there be compulsory membership for lawyers in

[ Page 683 ]

the Law Society of British Columbia, but not for

teachers? (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: Should there be compulsory membership for

notary publics in the Notary Society before they can practice their

profession, but not teachers' You're undercutting their professional

standards, Mr. Minister. You're taking a backward step toward the

evolution of fruitful, educational policies in this Province and, I

say, it is a most retrograde step for the teachers, for the pupils and

for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I think, once

again, from the Member for Vancouver East, we have had an indication

that there's been a very shallow look at this bill from at least one

point of view. Certainly, that point of view is to describe the action

taken here as punitive and I only wish to speak about one particular

section of this bill, as you might expect.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I consider that the history of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation is one where it has been most difficult, if

not impossible, to reconcile a deep-rooted desire amongst its members

for professional posture in the community, along with carrying in the

same apparatus that carries the responsibility, or, at least, the good

part of the responsibility for that professional posture, to have the

same apparatus carrying forward the economic aspirations of its

members. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those two points of

view are, simply, not reconcilable — never have been and, in my

opinion, never will be — in the history of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is, in my opinion, this two-faced

policy, or posture if you like, of the B.C. Teachers' Federation which,

in fact, is responsible for the self-cancellation in the public mind of

those two very important aspects of any association having to do with

the profession called reaching. I think that this contradiction,

historically, now, and in the past and, in the future, if it's not

corrected, is a contradiction which has been internally disruptive to

this Federation. I say this, advisably, for, over the course of the

past few years, the numbers of individual teachers, who have brought

this point of view to my attention have been growing in numbers and

those who are responsible for the destiny of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, at the present time, should have, at least, been aware that

this was quite a deep-rooted feeling, because this contradiction, I

emphasize, again, is internally disruptive to this organization (interruption) .

I'll just continue with my speech, Mr. Member. You can say whatever

you like, I'll say what I like. I'll have something to say about

lawyers and doctors, too.

Mr. Speaker, the incredible thing to me is that the answer to this

contradiction has been present in the past, is present now, and should

have, long since, been examined by the members of that particular

organization. I'll have more to say about that in a moment.

In my opinion, the effect of carrying out this unworkable

contradiction has driven the membership further and further away from

any sense of participation with the paid and the elected executive

apparatus of this organization. The distance between the individual

teacher in the field and the executive and paid apparatus of this

particular federation has been growing and the gap, today, is extremely

wide, in my opinion (interruption) .

A professional posture, Mr. Speaker, which has long since been

sought by professional teachers, a professional posture is, not only a

matter of structure, it is also a philosophical stand which must be

understood and I underscore understood. Moreover, it must be

appreciated by the public it seeks to serve. I would suggest that, on

those accounts, neither does the public appreciate the professional

posture which teachers have so long sought, neither appreciates it nor

understands it, because of this essential contradiction between the

professional apparatus, or the lack of it, and the economic apparatus,

and the joining of the two functions together.

I suggest to you that you can walk down any street in any community

in British Columbia after the existence of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation for so many years and you can find everywhere, Mr. Speaker,

a lack of appreciation for the professional stature which we all assume

doctors have had for years, the lawyers, presumably, have had it for

years and I'm going to tell you why they have, in a few minutes. Mr.

Speaker, over the course of the years, within the Federation, in trying

to resolve the contradiction, and I think it's fairly obvious where

I've stood over the years in terms of this contradiction, I think it's

fairly safe to say that I have had a position. But, Mr. Speaker, there

has been a historical range of repugnance amongst teachers that the

professional and economic activities of the B.C. Teachers' Federation

have never been resolved. In the early 1950's, which I am, perhaps, a

little more familiar with in terms of the Federation than at any other

time, in the early 1950's, the start of where we sit, today, was the

subject of great debate. It was my privilege at that time, Mr. Speaker,

to take

part in that debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you vote?

MR. CAMPBELL: I think it will become fairly obvious how I

voted. Mr. Speaker, the issue at that time was, in effect, whether or

not the B.C. Teachers' Federation should resolve together to become

attached to the trade union activities of the B.C. Federation of

Labour. The conflict and, once again, it was a basic conflict, and the

issue was not the B.C. Federation of Labour. Anyone who thinks that,

just wasn't there. That wasn't the issue at all. The real issue, Mr.

Speaker, was the issue of whether the nature of the Teachers'

Federation should be trade-union oriented, if you like, or

economically-oriented or professionally-oriented, and whether or not it

was possible to have both, and whether or not it was possible to do the

two together. It was always my opinion, so that I'll answer the

question of the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, it was my opinion, then,

it is my opinion, now, it has been my opinion since 1954, and that's

why I'm up here speaking, today, that it was a contradiction, then, and

it is a contradiction now.

Mr. Speaker, the issue was resolved at that time, at least, Mr.

Speaker, on the surface. It was resolved, at that time, that the B.C.

Teachers' Federation would, in fact, not become associated with the

B.C. Federation of Labour. It was resolved that the federation come

down in favour of professional association — that was the resolution —

as opposed to any formalized connection with organized labour. But, Mr.

Speaker, you can read in that that the vast majority of teachers were

reflecting a very deep-rooted desire that the federation take on the

posture of a professional association

[ Page 684 ]

and not of an economic bargaining unit. Make no

mistake about that. The posture could not be achieved, Mr. Speaker.

This posture could not be achieved by some and that was the association

of taking the Teachers' Federation down the road to trade union

activity or economic activity, as opposed to the more positive

professional activity. This posture, that could not be achieved through

the front door, has taken many elements of the nonprofessional approach

through the back door.

In my opinion, in talking to many teachers, the B.C. Teachers'

Federation no longer represents the professional aspirations of the

teaching force nor, Mr. Speaker, does it present a professional front

to the public. Mr. Speaker, when I see leading members of the Teachers'

Federation talking about total war….

AN HON. MEMBER: Total war.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. I agree it's ridiculous. That's

exactly what I'm saying. When I see the Teachers' Federation, as a

federation, taking that kind of a posture in the public press, then, I

think, it only serves to underscore that there's a vast difference

between any economic apparatus or the carrying out of the economic

aspirations as opposed to the professional apparatus and aspirations.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, does a number of things. The

first thing, Mr. Speaker, that this bill does, in my opinion, is to

give the B.C. Teachers' Federation back to its membership. Mr. Speaker,

the second thing that this bill does, and by far this is the most

important, is to provide a new starting point for alternatives to

develop. In my opinion, those alternatives should be as follows — I'm

not going to stand up here and not say what I think the alternatives

are (interruption) . I did. I

think it was $37.50 but, if you put a question on the Order Paper, I'll

answer it. What are the alternatives, Mr. Speaker? Well, first of all,

the first alternative is that the B.C. Teachers' Federation should, as

quickly as can be made possible by its members, divide itself into an

economic apparatus or organization that would be of the nature of the

B.C. Medical Association, in which membership would be completely

voluntary. The second thing that should be done to project, which I

think is a legitimate and a worthwhile and long-sought for, an

apparatus whereby the teachers in British Columbia can have exactly the

same kind of professional association as the medical profession enjoys

and exactly the same kind of association that the legal profession

enjoys.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that it's possible to have that kind of a

professional apparatus developed under the aegis of the present B.C.

Teachers' Federation. I do believe, and have always believed, that the

teachers in British Columbia, and obviously this is so because the

Teachers' Federation, itself, in its own right, has shown many, many

times how much professional activity is desirable and has been

effectively carried out by that federation, in its own right…. I'll

tell you this, and the Teachers' Federation should ask themselves this

question…they have received little or almost no credit for the

professional activities of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. In my

opinion, once again, the real reason for that is that they have had to

marry these irreconcilable differences between the economic posture

they maintain and their professional aspirations..

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the third thing that this bill does is

that it underlines that a professional should develop his professional

commitments to the public in a way which does not clutter up the public

mind where there are aspirations for economic gain. Once again, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that this bill opens up the opportunity for that to

take place.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, many teachers, and they have, in

surprising numbers, been in touch with me as perhaps you might expect,

having been a teacher and still proud that I was a teacher, and still

proud of my professional association, through you, Mr. Speaker, to that

Member over there…In my opinion, long overdue in the Province of

British Columbia is that the teaching profession enjoys its

professional status. Many teachers have already indicated to me that

they will welcome this bill for it will develop their attachment to

their profession in a more positive way than is now the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, a few comments on the ending of the closed shop as far as the

BCTF is concerned and, like a few Members who have spoken in the

debate, previously, 1, too, expect that the membership in the BCTF will

remain at a very high level. In fact, I'm more optimistic than some of

the figures I've seen quoted and attributed to executive members of the

BCTF when they say 90 per cent. I would say that, about a year after

this legislation comes into effect, it will likely be up at 95 or even

96. I believe that this will make the executive of the BCTF more

responsible and, certainly, more responsive to the desires of their

membership, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated. I don't

think that they need be in any fear of any rival organization springing

up in the Province, if they do, in fact, remain responsive to the

feelings of the general membership. Now, the taxpaying public of this

Province pay, through contributions to the public school system and

higher educational institutions, a very great part of the education of

any individual, teachers not excepted. Certainly, when a student has

gone through the educational system, becomes a teacher and is certified

by the Department of Education, as such, then there shouldn't be

another group such as the BCTF who can then say whether that teacher

can or cannot teach in the public school system of this Province. If a

teacher comes into this Province from outside of it and the Department

of Education decides that that teacher is qualified to teach in this

Province, again, there should not be an organization which can say no

to that teacher — "Because we won't give you membership, you can't

teach in the public school system of British Columbia." I believe that

teachers can be trusted to judge the merits of the BCTF on their own.

The First Member for Vancouver East referred to political reprisal

and punitive legislation but, certainly, this isn't a political

reprisal against the teachers. There's no doubt whatsoever but that the

teachers have been very political in their activities, witness the

apple campaign when they went out against commendable policies of this

Government, specifically, some of their actions, with respect to the

pension campaign and, certainly, even some of the letters which Members

on our side of the House have been getting from teachers promising

political reprisal and so forth.

There's another aspect of the bill, which I don't think has been

touched upon in the debate so far this afternoon and that is the fact

that school boards no longer will have to obtain the consent of

municipal councils to exceed their

[ Page 685 ]

budget by 110 per cent but, rather, will have to go

directly to the public. I believe that this will require boards to

explain more fully their policies and programmes to the taxpaying

public. It appears to me to be logical that such approval should come

from the voters, who elected the school trustees, rather than from

municipal councils, which are not closely acquainted with public

education programmes. There was incongruity, in my opinion, in the

legislation we are amending, in which educators, trustees, active in

the educational system and familiar with it, could not exceed the 110

per cent of their own volition but, yet, could go to a municipal

council — people who were several steps away from being very close to

the situation and, yet, they could, in fact, do what trustees were

unable to do. I think that the fact of going directly to the taxpayers

is a good idea and certainly it merits the support of all Members of

this Chamber.

The one last item I would like to deal with and which was touched on

by a previous speaker in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is the clause which

the Minister indicated, and as the previous Member who spoke on this

subject indicated, is the subject of an amendment and is being

withdrawn. That is the fact that it was the intent that teachers could

not serve on school boards. Now, teachers, certainly, already have very

great influence in the administration of the Province's educational

system and they shouldn't, in my opinion, be allowed to take over the

taxpaying public's local means of expression and influence. I hope that

the introduction of this particular section, and its subsequent

withdrawal, will serve as an indication of the Government's intent

that, if this trend were to continue on school boards, in fact, it

would be the Government's intent to act. Certainly, teachers on school

boards, on local school boards, are faced with an inevitable conflict

of interest in many items other than just those of teachers' salaries.

We need the influence, Mr. Speaker, of laymen on education and the

local school district is one of the best places where this can be

achieved. For example, those who say that teachers haven't got any

influence in the educational system and that this will do away with it

— they are in charge of the system, the Department of Education is,

except for the Minister, made up, solely, of educators who have been in

the teaching system. I think it would be an awfully sorry day in this

Province if the complete control of education were to be left entirely

to the professional educators and we did away with local men, who were

not professional teachers, being in charge of these systems. It would

be an extremely sorry day in this Province, in my opinion, if we ever

got to the point where perhaps even the Minister of Education was a

teacher and we didn't have any laymen at all to have an influence and

to give an indication in the system. While 1, personally, am a little

sorry to see this particular aspect withdrawn, I hope that it will

serve as a warning that this Government is prepared to act if the

professional educators make moves to take over every aspect of the

entire system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): The Member who has just

taken his place made a terrible attack on the former Minister of

Education in this Province, when he indicated what a catastrophe it

would be if a teacher ever became Minister of Education in the Province

of British Columbia. I recollect there was a time, not too many years

ago, when the man, who is now the Minister of Lands, Forest, and Water

Resources, who had been a teacher, who had been a school

superintendent, did, in fact, become the Minister of Education. Now, I

don't know whether he should apologize to the teachers, to the

Minister, to the Government, or whether he should just resign his seat.

I don't know but certainly it was obvious that he didn't know. This is

a clear indication he didn't know what he was talking about all the way

down the line.

Now I listened with amusement also to the posturing speech by the

Minister of Posture….

AN HON. MEMBER: Number 14.

MR. STRACHAN: He's number 14 on the list, now, certainly,

after an effort like that, you know. A former school teacher, making a

speech like that — we're now getting an insight into why some of the

children in the school system have problems. But, thank goodness, all

of the teachers were not of that same calibre and I use that word with

a question mark and a dot after it, so that there are a great

many…(interruption). I don't know what the Minister is going to do

with the vote on this bill, but he has, on previous occasions in this

House, as he says, he always has a position. Nobody ever knows what it

is and especially on touchy issues. A vote was called on that

particular issue and the Minister was sitting in the front row, here,

as I recollect, somewhere, and his head was out the door and his feet

were still under the desk. It was the most amazing demonstration of

fleetness of foot that I've ever seen in this House. After the vote was

over, he came back into the House and sat smugly in his seat, thinking

he'd gotten away with something and, then — I forget whether it was

moving to third reading or what it was — but, anyway, as Leader of the

Opposition, I called a snap vote and he was trapped right there. He

couldn't get out and he had to stand up and vote on that particular

issue (interruption) .

Yes. What principle it has, mind you, and I'll be coming to that in

a few minutes, to use a favourite expression of yours. I want to point

out, first of all, that the term "closed shop" has been used repeatedly

with reference to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and their relationship

with their employees. It is not a closed shop. In any closed shop

situation, the existing organization has a right to say who will come

into the organization. It has the right to determine the qualifications

of those who come into the organization. This is not the situation with

the teachers. It's exactly the same situation as in the pulp mills or

the sawmills of this Province — the employer has the right to hire whom

he pleases. In this case, it's basically the Department of Education,

in granting a teacher a certificate. Then, once the employer, in this

case the Department of Education, which is really the licensing body —

all the act says is — once the employer or those responsible for

determining the qualifications of a teacher are satisfied that that

individual has the qualifications and is competent to participate in

the educational field in this Province, then, he must join the union in

exactly the same way as many other areas in the Province. If you're

going to work in a pulp mill, if you're going to work in the

construction industry, the employer has the right to hire whom he

pleases. I know what my union contract says — it says that very

clearly, but, once the employer has determined that that man has the

qualifications — the employer, in my case, has 30 days in which to make

up his mind whether or not that individual has the qualifications —

then, all we say is that he should belong to the organization that

represents him and is going to bargain for him and he should contribute

to that organization because, in or out, he will get the benefits

[ Page 686 ]

that accrue from the work done by that

organization. It's a pretty

sound and basic principle. If there's anyone who happened to have

particularly strong moral or religious grounds for not wanting to

participate in an organization, they know beforehand, and they have

known in the past, that before they ever went into the teaching

profession that one of the conditions of participating in the public

school system, once you have satisfied the employer, the school board

and the Minister of Education that you have the qualification, then,

they knew before they ever went into that stream that this was one of

the conditions. That's when they exercised their freedom of choice by

deciding to go into the teaching profession. That's when they exercise

their freedom of choice.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is punitive legislation. It is

retribution on the teachers for the fact that they participated in a

public debate on the goals and objectives of education in this Province

at the last election. The Government didn't want to do it in the last

Session because it would have been, obviously retribution, obviously

punitive, because they had participated in a public debate, had

promoted a public debate, in education on a completely non-partisan

basis, too. All over the Province, there were Social Credit candidates

whose ads appeared with the apple with a bite out of it — all over the

Province. Many Social Credit candidates and there's no doubt that this

is retribution.

As far as I'm concerned, in the past, teachers have been

participating in the educational field in a great many ways, not only

simply in teaching the students, but through their research department,

they have brought to the attention of the public, to their members and

certainly to the M.L.A.s, a great deal of information about teaching

and education that most of us have found very valuable. There's no

doubt at all that, because of the objectives of the Government in the

field of education, they're hoping to weaken the teachers' organization

so that they'll no longer be able to be the force in developing

education in the Province that they have been in the past. That's

related to the overall policy of the Government because, as far as this

Government is concerned, any time they see a group in our society that

is a cohesive force, that has some strength, that has some power, that

has some financial backing whereby it can carry its message to the

public, this Government sets out to weaken and, if possible, to destroy

that force. This is your attitude, you don't like to see any force out

there in society with power and strength and a voice, especially upon

occasion when its attitude happens to disagree with Government policy.

This is the crime that teachers have committed. They happened to have

been, on occasion, critical of Government policy. As people vitally

involved in the educational system, they expressed that disagreement.

That's why this is being brought in.

There's also short concern for the former teachers and for those who

are now approaching the end of their teaching careers. They embarked on

a…I won't refer to it specifically…but they embarked on a programme

of bringing to the attention of the public and the Government, the

plight of many former members of the teachers' organization insofar as

their pension was concerned. Certainly they indicated that they were

very militant about this. I admire the teachers' organization for being

prepared to fight for their former members. Not every trade union, or

every professional organization, continues to take that interest in

their former members as the teachers have done.

They certainly have been drawing it to the attention of the public

very forcibly in this year or so. Again, the Government doesn't like

that and this is another reason why they're attempting to weaken the

teachers' organization.

This bill as a whole, Mr. Speaker, does several things and this is

my concern. You take the bill, all the various amendments proposed in

the bill, and you find that, running right through them, is a common

thread and that common thread is more power to the Government. Now, it

is true that one part of it has the appearance of more local autonomy

and more personal participation. Let me say quite frankly that, as far

as I'm concerned, the main issue of this bill is not whether or not the

B.C. teachers have compulsory membership or not. That's not the main

issue of the bill — it's one of the issues as it is a reflection of

Government attitude.

The bill, as a whole, has a tendency towards giving the Government

more and more and more control of education. As I say, on the face of

it, it would appear that, on the referendum, wherever it goes over 110

per cent, it must be taken to the voters but the Minister knows the

objectives of school boards have been changed. I read to him a letter

just last week, indicating how school boards have changed their

objectives because of the school formula and how they're no longer

setting out with an objective to achieve reasonable educational

standards in their own districts. They are setting out to stay within

the 110 per cent, irrespective of what it does to educational

standards. It might be that, in the long run, keeping in mind the

debate we had in this House last week with regard to the inflexibility

that's developing in our educational system, largely as a result of the

attitude and actions of this Government, it could be, in the long run,

the public reaction against it will be such that we'll be able to break

out of this strong box into which you are trying to lock the whole

educational system of this Province. I'm hoping that that is so. But I

don't want to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or anyone else in

this House, stand up and say that this bill is going to create freedom,

or bring more democracy, or more decision-making to the local level, or

to the members of the teaching profession, because the whole tenor, the

whole trend, of the bill is to work toward more centralization of

authority in the hands of Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: While you weaken an organization that, in turn,

makes the Government stronger. I remember many years ago, reading

George Orwell's book, 1984 ,

and as I listened to the various Government

Members speak on this bill, I remembered, not the exact words but I

jotted them down as well as I could remember, the three famous phrases

out of that book which depicted the kind of society that George Orwell

wrote about in 1984 . It was

coming through loud and clear from over

there. The three phrases? Slavery is freedom, war is peace, falsity is

truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this bill, I would

like to make a few points that haven't been made. The first one is that

very few in the House have mentioned the tremendous respect which most

of society holds for teachers in their past performance, regardless of

the recent friction and this difference of opinion as to whether the

teachers have indulged or have not indulged in politics. I refer

particularly

[ Page 687 ]

to my own experience in the constituency of Oak

Bay, where I find

and where I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for the

teaching profession which I have come to know reasonably well, both at

elementary and secondary levels. Being members of a profession, I think

it is only right to clarify some of the errors that have been quoted

this afternoon and, so often, it seems to come back to this concept —

that doctors are compelled to join their association. I thought that

this had been corrected on the record at the last sitting of this

House, but it seems to me that certain Members of the House just find

it very useful to keep repeating this like a parrot when they know very

well that it isn't true.

In the medical profession, and I think if you just hold still for a

moment we can probably explain that, in any professional body of people

whether they're doctors, teachers, lawyers, dentists or what have you,

surely the primary objective must be to maintain standards in that

profession. There must be some method of licensing these individual

members of that profession. It happens that, in the medical profession,

the licensing and ethical standards are maintained by a separate body,

namely, the College of Physicians and Surgeons set up under the Medical

Act . Now, the Members of the House know this full well and yet

they

keep screaming and shouting every year about doctors being compelled,

also, to be members of the association which is a completely different

body.

To clarify something that the Minister of Municipal Affairs stated —

it was simply this — that the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in

fact, issues the license and every one receiving or seeking a medical

license, contrary to what has been said earlier, has to meet the same

standard which is the qualifying exam in Canada called the LMCC. Now,

there's no point in going into all the details. The fact of the matter

is that the college is vested, by Statute, with this responsibility —

to issue licenses and to supervise the ethical behaviour of doctors. I

would submit that, on the basis of the many doctors in the Province and

the incidence of the college having to remove licenses or suspend

doctors practising, I think the record speaks for itself: (1) that

there is a low incidence and (2) the college functions very well.

I would submit that, in the teaching profession, the same structure

could well apply. I am no expert to spell out the machinery but, I

would suggest and I speak personally and in no other way, it is my

feeling that, by Statute, the teachers have shown that they deserve the

right and have the integrity and the motivation to be given the power

to license teachers in the Province under some similar Statute as do

the doctors. I think it should be spelled out quite clearly that the

teachers are given this one division of responsibility, dealing purely

with licensing and ethical behaviour.

The other function, which is inevitably related to economic

self-interest, could well reside within the existing association. As

far as the medical profession is concerned, this split responsibility

has worked well in the past. We've discussed the licensing, if I could

say that in terms of strictly economic self-interest. The negotiations,

I think, which the medical profession has had with Governments since

the introduction of medicare and the recent agreement on a moratorium,

I think, demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that that professional party and

Government can solve many of these responsibilities which I think are

almost impossible to resolve if they're handled under one agency,

namely, the association.

My respect for teachers also leads me to express the thought that

they are quite responsible and thoroughly trustworthy to fulfill the

role of school trustee. I think the expressions that are frequently

made that professional individuals should not be vested with authority

and the administration of their own body, leaves one very important and

vital fact right out of the picture and that is that the voter is the

person who decides whether or not he wants a teacher on a school board.

Again, one should hesitate before changing any basic principle and look

at the record. My great concern, on this particular point, was not

reduced in any way when, on enquiry, I find that there has been no

major problem arising from teachers already serving on school boards.

The statement has been made this afternoon that there would be real

danger in the teachers taking over school boards. Well, while this is a

possibility in the same way that we might have an earthquake in

Victoria this afternoon, I think one has to look at it rationally and

in perspective. There is little in the past behaviour of teachers on

school boards to suggest that this is any real danger. I believe, in

fact, in the opposite direction, that a teacher who is motivated to the

degree that he wishes to have a say in the running of a school district

is more than likely a person with a high sense of public

responsibility, has knowledge and has ability to serve as liaison

between lay people, on one hand, and teachers, on the other, and is,

indeed, of very positive value. As far as I'm concerned, this has been

clearly demonstrated in Victoria.

The question of going to the community or going to the

municipalities for permission to go beyond 110 per cent and the fact

that this will now be decided by law, I think, is perfectly reasonable.

I haven't been able to agree with the critics, who feel that it is such

a disaster to limit the increase in budget by any one figure. As far as

other areas of Government financial responsibility are concerned, there

is, certainly, no such rule that I'm aware of. I think many departments

would be happy if they knew that, at least, they could count on 10 per

cent more every year. Therefore, in this regard, I don't feel that the

concern that has been expressed is realistic.

Finally, I would question the frequent use of the word, punitive,

that has been used in this debate. I feel very strongly that, before

any individual in society is compelled to do anything, there should be

a mighty powerful reason, very little short of forcing you to fight

when there's a war on to preserve your country — this kind of reason is

the reason that I would want before I'm compelled to do anything. I

think that, in this regard, it is only reasonable and fair that

teachers should have their choice whether or not they join their

professional association and the fact that, at the moment, they have no

choice and under this bill they will have a choice, I fail to

understand how that can be, in any way, punitive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. This bill does a variety of things and most of them are bad, I

believe. In the first place, the bill does away with the superintendent

of education and, now, the Minister has seven superintendents to help

him. I think, it's probably the new version of Snow White and the Seven

Dwarfs. The Minister is given complete power as the chief educator in

the Province and, in fact, he has much wider powers than he previously

had. It makes him the Moses of the educational

[ Page 688 ]

system and he is the one that has to decide what is

to be done in

education. Under

section 16, for example the Minister is given, at

least, not the Minister, but the department is given, a wide variety of

powers to regulate with reference to local school districts. The powers

given here, I suggest, are much greater than they were before. The

powers in this bill, really, take away some of the power that was

formerly held by the local school districts. What it is doing is

another step in making the school district merely a rubber stamp for

the department of Education. The trend, I suggest, should be towards

decentralization and not the reverse. This bill is doing nothing more

than making the powers of the local school boards very ineffective and

very limited. The question is is there any need any longer for school

boards if this erosion continues to take place. I suggest that, not

only does this bill destroy the Teachers' Federation, but also destroys

the value of the Trustees' Association and the value of the local

school boards.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we have

a new deputy minister in Education and it's always when we get a new

deputy that we begin to see changes brought about in the Schools Act in

British Columbia. The Minister said that, on this occasion, we had the

most extensive changes since 1958. We listened very carefully to what

he said, trying to decide whether the reasons he gave for introducing

this bill and doing so little to refer it to the professional people

who were concerned, would justify the changes, at this time, and would

justify the manner of introducing the bill. I must say we're extremely

disappointed. We're disappointed in the changes that have been brought

forward and we are disappointed in the manner in which the Minister has

handled this bill.

I've listened to a lot of what the honourable Members have had to

say about this bill this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, with regard to

playback they have had from some teachers and other interested parties.

I found it difficult to believe my ears at what the Minister of

Municipal Affairs had to say, and what the Member from Delta had to

say, regarding the reaction of teachers to this legislation, because I

can tell you it's far, far different from what I've heard about this

bill. If the Minister were so certain, after these extensive

consultations he said he had had around the Province, I would like to

know why this bill could not have been referred to his committee in

this House, so that these people could come and tell us what he alleges

that they told him, before he brought the changes forward. Mr. Speaker,

what we hear is exactly the opposite of what the Minister tells us. I

can find no interest in the teachers, themselves, at having this

restrictive covenant removed regarding the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

Of course, the Member from Oak Bay did explain that, as far as the

doctors were concerned, there was this division between the lobbying

group and the professional group.

Mr. Speaker, had you brought forward your legislation, today, to

make that division, we would have been able to support it because you

would be working on the kind of well-established principle that the

medical profession understands and which the Minister of Municipal

Affairs says he favours. But, Mr. Speaker, that isn't what's been done.

What you've done is to take something which, as far as the teachers are

concerned, breaks both. The Member from Oak Bay said he disliked the

idea of punitive action being taken but, believe me, Mr. Speaker,

that's the way the teachers interpret it and I don't see, in their

position, how any other

interpretation would be possible.

All these years, compulsory membership has existed for the B.C.

Teachers' Federation. When does the change come? Why, it comes when

they voted to strike over their pensions. It came when they publicly

opposed the educational policies because they thought they were

bringing British Columbia second-class education. That's when this

change became necessary. If it were really a sincere effort to make the

healthy division the Minister of Municipal Affairs advocated, why

didn't the bill say that? The bill didn't say that because that wasn't

your intention, at all. These matters weren't referred to the Standing

Committee on Education because you didn't want to hear what these

people had to say. It would have been pretty condemnatory. It's time,

Mr. Speaker, that we began to do a little consultation with the people

we depend on to do a job in this Province (interruption). Well, more

power to the teachers, then, for the education that some of us enjoyed.

We want to keep it up to that high standard.

Mr. Speaker, I received many telegrams, letters and phone calls from

people who don't want the B.C. Teachers' Federation broken up. You say,

in your legislation, that it will no longer be a condition for a school

board to hire a teacher that he be a member in the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, at some future time, that a

condition for not being hired by a school board will be membership in

the B.C. Teachers' Federation? Could we get to that point in British

Columbia? Why not? What is the real purpose of this amendment? If it

were some kind of a healthy development of professional status for

teachers, some way in which whatever funds were collected for them were

channeled into the most effective results, both for the teachers and

for the people of British Columbia, generally, then, we would believe

that it was a sincere attempt on the part of yourself and your

department to further the cause of education in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if there were the slightest suspicion that what you're

doing with this legislation is to reduce political opposition to your

Government, wherever it might appear, and if, in introducing

controversial legislation without consultation of the professional body

involved, then, we say that the bill must be wrong and that you should

withdraw it. If you're prepared to make a statement today that you will

take this bill and submit it to committee, not of the Whole House but

of the Standing Committee, so that these people can come and give us

their arguments, then, we could see some justification for supporting

the bill. But, to take something as extensive as this, with as many

objections as we have received and so many controversial changes, would

be complete irresponsibility on the part of any Member of this

Legislative Assembly. We oppose this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I feel that we really

can't look at this bill without having some background information.

Other Members have spoken about the events of August, 1969, the events

of last fall in the strike vote taken by the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I'm not quite as upset as perhaps I should be if, indeed, there had

been just a simple question of consultation. But, when you took upon a

responsible body like the BCTF, some 26,000 strong, and

[ Page 689 ]

remember that the Minister of Education has

appeared at their

conventions, year in and year out, and his predecessors appeared, year

in and year out, I praise the BCTF for its professional conduct, its

professional posture, its aiding of education and so on and so forth.

But, take that, on the one hand, and remember what has happened in the

previous 18 months and, then, see the introduction of this bill, at the

same time as the committee was looking into tenure, at the same time as

Bill 4 was being niggardly with the retired school teachers, this bill,

containing as it does a destruction of membership rights and did, at

one time, include an empty, undemocratic discretionary

section about

elections, then, I think it's fair to say that the bill must be

punitive and will be considered so by the B.C. Teachers' Federation and

many others in the educational world, including a great number of

trustees. I think it's fair to say that the adversative system which

you are now forcing the B.C. Teachers' Federation into will reap the

whirlwind, as far as this Minister is concerned.

You talk about consultation, you talk about upgrading and, at the

same time, without any consultation, you point the knife at the B.C.

Teachers' Federation. If that weren't bad enough, Mr. Speaker, we've

had the supporting acts by the minister to your right, who, today,

attacked the B.C. Federation of Teachers with a vigour and a venom that

was only equalled this morning by a Socred attacking that Government in

the area of Kamloops — only equalled by Mr. Forsyth.

For the Minister to say that this federation should be given back to

its members is, in my view, one of the worst things that particular

Minister has ever said. I have a telegram here from the association in

my riding I'll read to the House and then ask the question, again,

about whether this federation is controlled by its members. The

telegram: "The Surrey Teachers' Association condemns such

discrimination against the teaching profession in (1) repealing

automatic membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation and, (2) denying

board employees the right to serve as trustees. This is an

unjustifiable and unnecessary infringement on the rights of teachers

and other school board employees to hold public office. It

unnecessarily restricts the right of voters to elect any responsible

citizens of the school to speak." We've now seen that second

section

made somewhat irrelevant by the withdrawal of that appropriate

section

of the act. I still think we have to look upon its withdrawal in line

with some of these other things.

I think that those actions of the Government, namely Bill 4, the

tenure situation and, now, in membership rights, shows to me the proof

of the words from the Member from Cowichan-Malahat. I remember the

thing that happened to the last association that had some muscle and

told this Government that it was going wrong. That was the Lower

Mainland Regional Planning Board and you killed that in the dead of the

night. You slit that organization's throat. The Minister, who viciously

attacked the teachers, today, was the author of that particular piece

of legislation. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that we should

look at the rest of the bill and had I not observed the growing

reduction in the discretionary power of school boards, had I not

observed the deliberate weakening of the B.C. Teachers' Federation in

this bill, I wouldn't have been so bothered as I am about the other

sections of the bill that deal with the administration of education in

this Province.

They make a lot of sense and I'm not quite as worried about them as

some of the Members. I've got some faith in the superintendents of

education whom the Minister is appointing. I think we have to get the

administrative ship going in the right way but what I am bothered about

is taking that, on the one hand, which obviously leads to growing

centralization, with your 110 per cent arbitrary figure, with the

weakening of the trustees and, now, the weakening of the other third

partner in the educational system. When I see two partners becoming

weak in a three-party system, I must look with a jaundiced eye at what

is happening to the remaining partner, namely, the Government. That's

why I'm not enchanted with it and that's why I share some of the

suspicions that other Members have spoken about. I believe it's

probably necessary in order to do something. But I am reminded, when I

was listening to the debate, that the Member from Delta, who applauded

some of the administrative changes on the grounds that, at last, the

rudder was discernible, I would remind the Member that this bill was

introduced on March I and, yet, that Member made his speech about the

rudderless ship on March 9. So, don't let's talk on both sides of the

question at the same time. That Member is well known for striking

heroic positions and then disappearing, like he did last year in the

last debate on censorship — heroic positions in the newspaper and

absent seats when the votes come — he's got a good taskmaster and a

good teacher in the good Member from Comox.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that it's possible for anybody who has

educational responsibility deep within him to vote for this bill,

simply and solely because of the abhorrent sections I've mentioned.

I'm a Member of the Committee on Education and I want to re-echo the

call the Liberal Leader made that, knowing we were sitting and we first

started sitting very soon after this House started, this bill should

have gone to that committee. I think it's a mistake. It shows the

weakness of the Minister in presenting this kind of thing without

consultation with that committee. Already it's obvious, Mr. Speaker,

that changes are going to be made to this bill, following the work that

we're doing in the committee. I can refer you to various sections and I

will be doing so in the committee debate. But I cannot support this

bill, because of those punitive sections that I've mentioned in second

reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, just to re-echo what some of the

other Members have said, there's no question about the fact that this

bill was introduced in a very weak manner by a very strong and arrogant

Government. Placing it before the committee certainly would have told

the story. In my constituency, I've talked to teacher after teacher

after teacher and I've yet to find one teacher who supports this bill,

not one. I'd like to know where the teachers are who are coming out in

support of this bill and where you're finding them, because they

certainly aren't around the lower mainland, as far as I can see.

Mr. Speaker, the whole matter here that's being discussed is not

closed shop. A closed shop union, Mr. Speaker, does the job placement.

Everybody across there knows that Government is getting to be a great

student of the whole trade union movement. They know what closed shop

is and they know that the Teachers' Federation does not, in fact, have

a closed shop, because a closed shop is quite different. What this is,

Mr. Speaker, is the right to work philosophy that was first promoted

and promulgated by the John Birch

[ Page 690 ]

Society and that's specifically what it is.

Mr. Speaker, automatic membership

in the B.C. Teachers' Federation

has done a lot. It's taken their attention off recruiting members, off

spending all of their time in developing muscle and that kind of thing,

it has let the Teachers' Federation spend time in upgrading, what the

Member from Delta was talking about, upgrading their membership and, in

fact, producing a better quality of education in this Province. We

can't look forward to that in the future, Mr. Speaker, not with this

kind of legislation on the books. The Teachers' Federation will be

continually looking over its shoulder. It's not that there's going to

be a great reduction in membership to begin with. Maybe, it will be one

per cent, maybe it will be 5 per cent, maybe it will be 10 per cent.

Who knows? But it's not going to be a great reduction.

What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is that the new people coming

in don't know the value of working together, so, therefore, it's going

to be up to the Teachers' Federation to get a great number of

organizers and put them to work so that they can go out and teach young

people just exactly what is meant by co-operation in an occupation.

Really what this is, Mr. Speaker, is just putting them under the gun in

the future because, let's face it, membership in the Teachers'

Federation is not that cheap. It can't be that inexpensive. A $100 a

year to a young person is a significant amount of money and, if he

doesn't know the value, if he doesn't know what he's getting for his

$100, then, he's likely to resist joining the Teachers' Federation.

Therefore, they're going to have to go out and tell him what he's

getting from this Federation and there's all that time and all that

expense. They're going to have to take their eye off the ball and

they're going to have to get on with organization. What happens, then,

is that this becomes a union, the very thing that this Government seems

to loathe and despise and distrust and so on. Frankly, it may, in the

long run, be a very powerful union because there's an awful lot of very

astute people in that Teachers' Federation. They're not going to sit

down and accept this kind of philosophy. I just couldn't imagine them

sitting back and accepting this kind of thing. The teachers, in the

future, are going to have to be placed in a position where they know,

once and for all, that this Government does not accept them as being a

professional group. This Government regards them as being something

that you place in an inferior position if you possibly can. Why, if

there were any doubt, why was there not a write-out philosophy? Why is

it a write-in philosophy, when you know perfectly well there's going to

be a tremendous loss in the recruitment? If it had been a write-out

philosophy, Mr. Speaker, they would have, at least, given a person the

right to say, "OK, I won't join." They know perfectly well, Mr.

Speaker, that there would be a reduction of maybe one per cent. But, in

a write-in philosophy, Mr. Speaker, there's a great difference. As a

matter of fact, in most places where this is the case, in the write-out

and the write-in, the difference is about 20 to 30 per cent. That's a

great difference, so that, in order to get that 20 per cent, Mr.

Speaker, there's going to have to be a lot of organizing done.

Mr. Speaker, there's no question. This bill should never have been

presented to this House prior to going to that committee. It should

never have been presented. I think that the Minister would be doing the

House a service if he would stand in his place and withdraw this bill

for study before the Standing Committee on Education and Welfare.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, it's rather

surprising, in one sense, and probably something to be expected, in

another sense, from this Government — this type of a bill. The

section

that says that a teacher doesn't have to belong to the Teachers'

Federation — we only need to go back a few years when there was no

Teachers' Federation and know the jungle we had in regards to teachers

and the wages that were paid. Undoubtedly, the teachers, through their

Federation, have struggled to build up the status of teachers. Now,

what you're doing is using a two-edged sword on them, for the simple

reason that, with allowing that a teacher doesn't automatically become

a member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation once they are hired as a

teacher, to me, could lead to many things. You could have school boards

that will give preference to teachers who don't belong to the

federation. You could have school districts that hire nobody but

teachers that don't belong to the federation. This is what will happen.

In industry, most industries are glad for organization, because they

can deal a lot better with an organization than they can deal with

individual people. They found that out through bitter experience. To

say that this is a closed shop is the last thing. When I listened to

the Honourable Member for Oak Bay, trying to compare it with the

medical profession…I might read you a

section in the medical

profession…and he said that you don't have to belong to the

medical profession to practice medicine in the Province of British

Columbia. I'd like to quote this from subsection 5 of

section 46, "A

member who fails to pay his annual fee on or before the last day of

February," as provided in subsection 2, "ceases to be in good

standing…" and the council may, by resolution, suspend from

practice any member who does not pay the annual fee within 60 days

after mailing of a registered letter. I'd like to say if that isn't

compulsory… (interruption) . He

said that you didn't have to be a

member of the medical profession in order to practice in the Province

of British Columbia and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This is

under the Medical Act , where

the College of Physicians and Surgeons is

registered and you've got to belong to that body to practice

(interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: I brought up a bill here trying to get

protection for a doctor. You should be one who should get up and fight

on the teachers' behalf because you're one of the many medical men and

belong to such an organization. I imagine you'd be pretty quiet if the

Government tried to destroy the College of Physicians and Surgeons! Mr.

Speaker, the College of Physicians and Surgeons decide whether you

practice in the Province of British Columbia or not (interruption) . You

didn't take the same attitude on behalf of a couple of doctors in my

area who were denied practicing by a business group, not by the medical

profession but by a business group. They were denied practicing. You

endorse that kind of restrictive legislation and, yet, you want to

throw to the wolves the teachers' profession.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member please address the Chair?

[ Page 691 ]

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Honourable the Minister

of Municipal Affairs say he got 300 letters and telephone calls from

teachers who didn't know why they should belong to the Teachers'

Federation. I challenge him to put 20 letters onto the table of this

House stating that somebody didn't want to belong. I challenge him to

put 20 letters. He hasn't got them. You know, it's like the child that

went into his mother and said, "There's a thousand cats running over

our roof," and she said, "Oh, there can't be that many." "Well," he

said, "at least there's a hundred." "No, it can't be that many." "Well,

it's, at least, our cat and one other one." That's about the size of

it! That's about the size of what the Minister is talking about,

because this Government has a habit of exaggerating and they exaggerate

right to the finish.

I think that what you're trying to do, here, of course, is to

destroy the Teachers' Federation. This is exactly what you're trying to

do — destroy the Teachers' Federation. When you state that the

Teachers' Federation is not doing the job they should be doing, they're

a democratic organization and whatever they're doing, they're doing it

by the rule of the majority. That's exactly what we say and we adhere

to all the time — democracy. The men, who are in charge of the

Teachers' Federation, are elected annually by the teachers. What have

you got against that? Why should a Government come in and say that they

were the wrong people that were elected? Surely, you could leave that

up until the next election…Just the same as I think the people of

British Columbia elected the wrong people…but I'm willing to wait

till the next election to decide whether they want to continue with

those people or not. Why can't we do the same with the teachers?

(Interruption.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: The only thing that the Honourable the Minister

keeps going, Mr. Speaker, is the pulp mills and the airline companies,

for travelling, to run around the country at the taxpayers' expense.

I don't think that this move is in the best interest of either the

people of British Columbia or the educational system of the Province of

British Columbia, because you're taking away the cohesiveness of the

teachers. You could quite easily demand that teachers don't belong.

This will be the next step and you could try and break the organization

altogether. For that reason, I'm definitely going to vote against this

bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I

think in this debate that there has been too much attention given to

the effects that this legislation will have upon the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. 1, for one, think that the Teachers' Federation is a

responsible organization and that it enjoys the respect and confidence

of its members. They are not going to lose that membership and the

Government is going to be frustrated in this attempt that they're

bringing before the House today. If anything, the B.C. Teachers'

Federation will come through this amendment to the Public Schools Act

stronger than ever before (interruption) .

Yes. Well, then, Mr. Speaker,

if what the Honourable the Minister of Education has said across the

Floor is correct, why is he doing it, why? The Member from New

Westminster said that this bill was presented by a strong and arrogant

Government. I disagree entirely, Mr. Speaker. Arrogant, yes, but it is

the arrogance which grows from weakness not from strength. Whenever any

organization in this community gathers strength, becomes united and is

in a position to contest this Government in the political field, it's

in trouble. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs proved

this in his statement. He wants to destroy this federation until the

day that they can come back as nice little fellows and we'll pat you on

the head and when you're prepared to play the game, then, maybe well

give you professional status (interruption) .

"Play, please, sir." He

destroyed the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board for the same

reason. It was beginning to get too powerful.

We've already had, Mr. Speaker, in this Session, debates surrounding

the Minister of Health which show what happens when even one member of

a profession dares to speak up, politically, in this Province. We know

what happens when he communicates with the secretary of the College of

Physicians and Surgeons and wants to know if the college is prepared to

accept, in their profession, someone who may choose to disagree with

the Minister, politically. That's another threat. If you aren't

careful, that association will be the next one under the gun. No, this

is what's wrong with the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Not only

is it an attempt to ensure the continuation of the rigid 110 per cent

formula by taking away one of the avenues that the elected school

trustees have in their budgeting requirements under this formula —

"Throw it back to the people." The Minister knows that referenda are

not successful. He knows that the cost of referenda should be avoided

and, yet, he takes away one of the avenues where one elected body in a

school district can go to other elected bodies and get their approval.

That's another one of the principles that's wrong.

But, Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of this bill which bothers me

most is found in the very first amending section. This is a Civil

Service bill. This is a bill for the bureaucracy, for the mandarins in

the department to take over and emasculate the power of the Minister

(interruption) . Yes. That's

right. Wait until the Leader makes his

speech, Mr. Speaker, because all of the powers that are given to the

Minister in this act may be passed on by him to some civil servant

designated by the Minister. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the Civil

Service wrote this bill, not the Minister. It was the Civil Service,

the new deputy minister, who had the hand in writing this bill. The

extensive powers that are given to the Minister to make rules under

this new legislation also provide the ways for the Minister to pass

those responsibilities over to members of the Civil Service. Slowly, we

find the control of the Department of Education passing from the hands

of the elected representatives of the people, through their Minister,

into the hands of the Civil Service.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the aspects of the bill about which I

feel most strongly. When we lose control of a department, such as the

Department of Education, to the Civil Service, to the technocrats, we

lose a real element of control which will never be won back, because

the rules that they will establish, the controls that they will bring

to bear upon the school districts and the school teachers and the