1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1157 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reform Association of Canada conference. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1157

Use of knives as weapons. Mr. Barnes –– 1158

Timber supply for Columbia River Shake and Shingle Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 1158

Federal sales tax. Mr. Clark –– 1158

Port Clements public hearings. Mr. Miller –– 1159

Possible BCFP-Fletcher Challenge merger. Mr. Kempf –– 1159

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Mr. Mowat

Introduction and first reading –– 1159

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

Mr. Jones

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Gabelmann

Engineers Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 1182

Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 15). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 1182

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 30). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 1182

Appendix –– 1183

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like, with pleasure, to

introduce to the House today Judy and Tink Robinson, who are the major

entertainment in the Wild Horse Theatre in Fort Steele. I'd like the

House to give a special welcome to them.

MR. LOENEN: Some time ago there was a fund-raiser for the

Rick Hansen fund. At that time there was a celebrity auction. The two

people I'm about to introduce to the House offered to pay $650 to the

Rick Hansen fund to have lunch with me today. We had a lovely lunch;

I'm sure they didn't get $650 worth. I'd like to introduce the two

principals of Pioneer Designs, a construction firm from Richmond:

George Mueller and Gerry Metheral. Please make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today there are

two residents of the top of the Okanagan, the riding of Okanagan North;

they're both very good friends of mine. As a matter of fact, one of

them is the brother-in-law of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker). I'd like the House to make welcome Barbara and Douglas Fuhr.

MR. BLENCOE: In the galleries today we have a group of

registered nurses from Victoria. They are Sheila Machin, Molly Butler,

Siria Dhirani, Sue Smith, Bonnie Corck and Karen Locken. Would the

House please welcome these dedicated health care professionals.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

there's a very special friend of mine from Richmond, Mr. Fred Durant,

who is a safety officer. I'd be pleased to introduce Fred to the House.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, those of you who had the pleasure

of passing through the rotunda area today at noon heard, I'm sure, some

of the finest singing that's ever been done in this Legislative

Assembly. The people responsible are visiting us today, and I'd like

them to receive a very, very warm welcome. It's the teacher Mr. John

Neufeld, and 73 students from the Mennonite Educational Institute in

Abbotsford. Would you please welcome them.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to

welcome to the House today, from Parksville, Mr. Ron Thwaites, a good

supporter and hard-working gentleman from that area. Please welcome him.

Oral Questions

REFORM ASSOCIATION OF CANADA CONFERENCE

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary.

The Reform Association of Canada is holding a conference in Vancouver at the

end of the month entitled: "A Western Assembly on Canada's Economic

and Political Future." One of the stated goals of the conference is the

possible establishment of a new federal political party. Can the minister advise

the House whether this government is involved in any way with this conference

or this association?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The Deputy Provincial Secretary, Mr. Mel

Smith, Q.C., is certainly attending that meeting. He's involved only as

a resource person because of his lifelong interest and expertise in

Senate reform and constitutional changes that would give British

Columbia a fair voice in Confederation. He is attending as a private

citizen; he's not in any way representing the government of British

Columbia. He will be present as an observer only and does not intend to

cast a vote on any issues discussed. He is there as an interested

citizen only.

MR. G. HANSON: As the Deputy Provincial Secretary, Mr. Smith

is a very important constitutional adviser to the Premier. With his new

organization — having deputies report to him — could the Premier

explain to the House why Mr. Smith, as Deputy Provincial Secretary,

would be attending that conference? Is it under the Premier's authority?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, he is not attending as the

Deputy Provincial Secretary, as was already stated. He is there as a

private citizen and an observer. Frankly, I think all British

Columbians, or all westerners certainly, perhaps more than any other

group, should be extremely interested in what we might do and how we

might contribute to Senate reform. Anyone on that side or this side, or

wherever in our province, should take an interest in any discussions on

Senate reform.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As all members

of this House are aware, the Deputy Provincial Secretary is generally

the most senior public servant in the province of British Columbia. One

of the Deputy Provincial Secretary's duties is to oversee the Election

Act in the province of British Columbia. I would like to ask the

Premier how he can justify having the senior public servant who

oversees all of the elections apparatus in the province of British

Columbia attending such a conference.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I won't comment on the premise of what

he does with respect to the elections, but I will say it's not for me

to tell Mr. Smith as to what he does in his own time, or how he attends

various functions that he wishes to participate in as an observer.

MR. G. HANSON: Again to the Premier, one of the stated goals

of this conference is to explore the possibilities of a new right-wing

political party for this country representing western Canada. Again,

has the Provincial Secretary's main deputy...?

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: That's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that's

very interesting indeed. Because the Deputy Provincial Secretary, as I

stated, is in charge of the elections apparatus in this province, and

the formation of a new right-wing political party.... Why is this

deputy attending this conference?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well now, Mr. Speaker, I know why the question is being asked; it has something to do

[ Page 1158 ]

with whether somebody is supportive of left-wing or

rightwing, and that certainly didn't enter my mind and that shouldn't

enter the conversation or the questions.

USE OF KNIVES AS WEAPONS

MR. BARNES: I notice the Attorney-General is absent and, if I

may, I'd like to address a question to the acting Attorney-General, the

Provincial Secretary, on a matter of urgent national concern. Members

of the Legislature will recall that recently I distributed a study by

the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association respecting the increasing

use of dangerous knives in public places. The study made several

recommendations including amendments to the Canada Criminal Code and

certain amendments to provincial statutes as well as suggesting that

studies be undertaken to determine the extent of knives and their

association with deaths. This year alone there have been ten

homicides....

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

for a second. The Speaker tries to be fair, and allows some

preamble,

but I think the member is getting into a statement. If he could ask the

minister his question.... I think it's unfair to all other members.

MR. BARNES: Well, I just wanted by way of introduction to

indicate the seriousness of the situation, and I think Mr. Speaker will

appreciate that the matter is one of life and death.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would appreciate the question.

MR. BARNES: Has the minister reviewed the report? In fact, I

would like to know if any of the members have reviewed the report. Has

the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) applied any pressure on the

federal government with respect to amending the Criminal Code of Canada

to prohibit the use of dangerous knives in public places and licensed

premises?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I thank the hon. member for this question.

It's a very important question and deserves a thorough answer, and as

such I'll take it on notice for the Attorney-General.

TIMBER SUPPLY FOR COLUMBIA

RIVER SHAKE AND SHINGLE LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests, the huge tree-farm

licence held by Westar in the Kootenay region of the Columbia basin is

still held by Westar, despite the fact that the major plant that it

fed, the Celgar pulp mill, was sold to Chinese and eastern Canadian

interests and approved by this government. There is an industry in

Nakusp, Columbia River Shake and Shingle, that is not now able to get

timber from that tree-farm, and there was a trading relationship there.

The plant will close down, and 100 people will be out of a job this

weekend. Is the minister prepared to intervene to try to facilitate

supply for the Columbia River shake mill?

HON. MR. PARKER: Thank you for the question. The Columbia River Shake

and Shingle operation in Nakusp has been drawing some of its wood supply from

tree-farm licence 23, and they expressed their concern, as the member has remarked

today. We're presently tracing that through with Westar.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister be prepared to meet with

representatives of the firm and the mayor of Nakusp to deal with some

of these important questions for that small community?

HON. MR. PARKER: I've had the pleasure of meeting with the

gentleman. The matter is being dealt with by the people that can make

the wood supply happen as a result of the meeting I had earlier with

these folks. I imagine if nothing suitable is accomplished in the near

future, then certainly we'll meet with them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has the minister then reconsidered the whole

question of a tree-farm licence held by a company without a mill or

plant? Because people are in the midst of trees and yet have no access

to work, or trees for their mills, and this is unprecedented in the

history of British Columbia. Is the minister looking at that question

of tree-farm licences without industrial plants tied to them?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, TFL 23 supplies a sawmill in

Castlegar. I'm sure the workers at the sawmill count themselves as an

industry, and they're looking for that wood supply. TFL 23 has been

downsized, and it will help form an economic base for further

operations in the Revelstoke area under a bid proposal at a later date.

FEDERAL SALES TAX

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier. A couple of days

ago in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister refused to give

assurances that there would not be a sales tax on food in this country.

Has the Premier decided to speak out on behalf of British Columbians in

opposition to the proposed federal sales tax on food?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're getting further information on

that, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as I have the information available I'll

report to the member or the House.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Premier. This

tax will add approximately $330 a year to the food bill of citizens of

British Columbia — for an average family. The Premier should know that

governments of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba have all gone on

record as opposed to any attempt to tax food in this country. Has the

Premier decided to ask his House Leader to bring forward the motion

standing under my name for debate — No. 68 — so that we may send an

all-party message from this assembly to Ottawa that we are all opposed

to any attempt to tax food in this country?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't like taxes any more than the

hon. member, least of all taxes on food. Probably there's a great deal

of agreement on that particular question. I will take it up with the

hon. House Leader, and we'll let you know further.

[ Page

1159 ]

PORT CLEMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Forests. As the minister is aware, the ten-month overdue plan by

M&B for TFL No. 39, blocks 5 and 6, will be presented next week on

the Queen Charlotte Islands in two very limited public viewings. The

regional district, the mayor and the council of Port Clements have

written, asking for a more extensive series of public meetings; company

officials, as well as the minister's officials, could be questioned.

Would the minister assure this House that he will agree to that request

and make these public meetings available to the people of the Queen

Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen any

correspondence to that effect, but the purpose of public hearings is to

make it possible for the public to participate. We will undertake to

accommodate them.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary to the minister. The hearing in

Port Clements, representing some 4,700 people, is only two hours and 45

minutes for a very complicated plan. There are serious concerns in

terms of a possible shortfall of timber if the AAC is continued at its

present level.

Perhaps I didn't understand the minister. Is he assuring us that

there will be further public meetings in addition to the public

viewings?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen any of the

correspondence that the member alluded to in his earlier question. When

I see their request, I will be happy to follow through with it. As I

say, the purpose of the public viewings is to make an opportunity for

the public to have some input into the planning process. If time

appears to be too short, we will undertake to make it a little longer.

POSSIBLE BCFP-FLETCHER CHALLENGE MERGER

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, last week I questioned the minister

with respect to the possible Fletcher Challenge-BCFP merger, wanting to

know how much of the newly formed company's annual allowable cut,

should the merger be sanctioned, will be directed toward the small

business enterprise program.

My question to the minister, in light of his response last week, is:

whether or not the merger is a solid proposal at this time, has the

minister decided to inform the two companies involved that perhaps in

some of their operating areas as much as 25 percent of their annual

allowable cut will be directed to the small business enterprise

program? And if not, why not?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, this ministry has not responded, because that would be conjecture, and we don't respond to conjecture.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean to tell this

House that merger talks are going on between two forest companies which

could form the biggest forest products company in this province, and

the minister has not told them that they could possibly be dealing on

25 percent less timber?

A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier decided to advise the

companies of this possible situation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we have not received any

proposal, and until we receive a proposal, we can't be going on rumour

or talk or things that are perhaps coming through indirectly. Certainly

when we hear and when we know a little more as to the details of the

proposal, we will address it, I can assure the hon. member.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

Mr. Mowat presented a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is unique in the sense that

Vancouver is a unique city, in a unique situation and in a beautiful

location. The act will do a lot of housekeeping. Some of the highlights

will be that the bill will provide for civic enumeration of the voters;

it will provide for a three-year term instead of a two-year term for

elected members of council; it will enable the city of Vancouver to

adopt a ward system; it will give the city the right to indemnify

council members and members who are employees of boards and societies

assisting the city. It will also bring in a

section providing the

protection of employees and members of various boards from personal

liability.

Bill PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members'

Services.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, standing orders advise that

if we have a point of order from question period, it is to be raised

after question period. I am rising on such a point of order.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) asked a question

about the position of his resolution dealing with food tax which was on

the order paper. I have today's order paper, Thursday, May 14, at 2 p.

m., and I don't see it. Is it there?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, it's not. Thank you. It's not on the order paper; the member has admitted that.

MR. BLENCOE: Just testing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is this a matter of privilege?

Interjections.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not there. We could have a matter of

privilege here, but I'll review it. It seems to me I heard the member

in question period indicate he had a resolution on the order paper with

regard to value-added food tax, and I can't see it here. But that's

just an observation.

Mr. Speaker, following the announcement by the Clerk of orders of the day, I will call committee on Bill 20.

[2:30]

[ Page 1160 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Section 53 as amended approved.

section 54.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Could I ask the minister, please, Madam Chairman, why the minister felt the amendment was necessary?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It was pointed out to us in the

negotiations that the wording indicated that it could only be a

transfer from the school in which the teacher was originally employed,

and in some districts teachers had been moved to different schools; and

so to remove that confusion, we took that step. So it leaves the intent

the same, except that it removes the "originally employed."

MR. JONES: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, I had difficulty

hearing the minister's answer. Let me raise my concern about the....

The amendment here seems to be giving boards the unrestricted right to

transfer a teacher without appeal. The teacher receives seven days'

notice and there's no appeal. I did want to ask the minister, if we're

on the same section, why he felt this amendment was necessary.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I believe we're on the

section now, rather than the amendment. The intent has not been changed

by this amendment. It is true that the teacher can be given seven days'

notice to transfer from one school to another. That's not that unusual.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam on the amendment.

MR. CASHORE: Pardon me, Madam Chairman, if we're still on the

amendment. I thought that the last exchange was on the section. I take

it you're going to call the vote on the amendment and then we'll go on

to the discussion on the section. Is that correct?

Amendment approved.

section 54 as amended.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, with regard to the question that

was just answered, does the minister not think that in view of a

concern that we have talked about earlier, that a change of teaching

position or school can have a major impact on a teacher's professional

and personal life.... Do you really feel that seven days for this type

of traumatic action is adequate, given that the party is involved in

the educational enterprise? On the basis of your experience in

education, your experience as a principal, and your experience with the

school system, do you really feel that seven days is adequate?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the answer is yes. You have

to look at situations. It's not done willy-nilly, but it is done if,

for instance, the enrolments at the beginning of the year for some

reason are way out. There may be another school where students are

without a teacher, and in this school there are more teachers than the

enrolment requires. It has not been unusual to make that move in a few

days.

I might point out that it's always been in the act that teachers can

be transferred to another school with seven days' notice, and this is

just a continuation of that practice. As I indicated, now with full

bargaining rights, teachers can actually bargain into the agreement

that if it happens, then such and such should apply, and I'm sure that

will occur.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, it seems to me that this is a

rather unfortunate way of going about trying to achieve what you say

your purpose is. By repealing this entire

section and replacing it with

this, it seems to me that some very decent and reasonable provisions

that could well have remained in effect will not be there. For

instance, the minister refers to the situation at the beginning of a

teaching year. Well, the way this is worded it certainly doesn't seem

to be directed to be dealing with that type of example in particular.

Also, in the

section being repealed there's provision for additional

procedures that would make it possible for a teacher who wished to find

other means of taking a look at this decision to do so. So it seems to

me that when you say that seven days was really there all the time, the

clauses of the act that are being repealed really do curtail the

availability of what was previously the case.

One particular concern I have, just for example, and perhaps the

minister would comment on this: what about some of our rural school

districts, where this would necessitate a move of perhaps many miles

from one setting to another? I'd be interested in your comments on this

in general, but on that point in particular.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I know that as we get into

the clause-by-clause — picking a phrase and trying to dissect it — you

perhaps have lost track of the intent of this bill: that in this

legislation teachers are being given full bargaining rights, the right

that's the main reason behind that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't

change it that drastically; the seven days doesn't change from the

I would assume that most boards in the first place.... I know I'm

not allowed to say good intent is ever out there; it has to be covered.

But most boards would hardly take a teacher from a city, move them a

hundred miles out into a rural school and expect to get away with it

under the due process of appeal and so on that can kick in. I would

assume that in the bargaining process many of these conditions were

built into many school district contracts, and the agreement would

include those sorts of things. So all of that is protected.

MR. CASHORE: The fact remains that the intent here is to

repeal some sections that would provide for fair, reasonable and decent

procedures. One wonders why the effort

[ Page 1161 ]

would be made to repeal that, when obviously the

minister, from his comments, does agree with the intent of those

clauses that are presently there. One wonders about the busy work

that's involved in going about repealing those very reasonable

sections. You talk about due process, teachers' bargaining rights and

all of these things. That may well be, but I have not heard you cite an

example from your experience, or from the experience of your

predecessors, to suggest that there has been a problem with these

clauses having been in legislation in the past. If you do have such

examples, I think that would be very informative for this House.

With regard to the parts of this

section that you plan to repeal,

subsection (5) states: "If the salary of the teacher is to be decreased

by the transfer, then the board may adjust the salary only at the

beginning of the next school year." I would like to ask the minister if

in his opinion it will be possible, once this is repealed, for that

reduction in salary to take effect immediately, or at the seven days.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we can discuss every clause in the

old legislation that is now being changed, and whether or not it should

be maintained, but is the member now asking me to take away from

I wish he'd indicate that.

for teachers, which teachers asked for.... I might admit that many of

you supported the concept of full bargaining rights for teachers. Now

you're saying that you want everything left in the act, and full

bargaining rights, and it can't be done, Mr. Member. Whether I agree or

disagree with one

section 1s I think irrelevant.

MR. CASHORE: I would point out that the kinds of comments the

minister has made in response to my questions have not really cited

examples, which I have requested; examples that would be from

experience, that would support the need to remove these sections.

Whatever your plan with regard to teachers' bargaining rights, I still

don't think the minister has made a case for removing some sections and

not other sections. If you're going to argue that point, then I'd

assume that you would be removing an awful lot more than you are. There

doesn't seem to be a consistent thread of responsibility in terms of

what the minister would decide to repeal and what the minister would

decide not to repeal. The only answer I seem to be getting is: "Well,

why should we include all of it?" That doesn't seem to make a great

deal of sense.

I would like to refer to subsection (6), where it points out that

there is a procedure whereby a teacher could have his or her situation

reviewed by the minister. That too will now be repealed. During the

time that the minister has been Minister of Education, I would be

interested in knowing if this has been an onerous part of the

minister's responsibility. Has the minister been required to conduct

several hearings with regard to this part of the legislation? And how

many of these appeals have been referred directly to the minister? If

he could answer that, perhaps I might understand better the reason for

this clause being repealed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I can assure the member

that I'm not trying to be obtuse. What you are in effect arguing here

employment have been spelled out. We have given teachers full

Therefore the examples — whether I had bad experiences or good

experiences with any of this — are irrelevant. I don't know what can be

gained in this legislation.... We've certainly deleted some sections of

the School Act; we have not deleted others. But we have carefully gone

through the School Act and tried to delete those sections in which

spelled out in the act and: which ones do I pick and choose if I get

full bargaining rights?

[2:45]

MR. ROSE: The minister might like to tell us, Madam

Chairperson, why the seven days were left in? You can't have it both

ways. You can't have full bargaining rights and have it spelled out

that you've got seven days for transfers. I'd like to know, once he's

finished consulting with his officials, if he can answer that question.

If it's going to be full bargaining rights, and we can't have it both

ways, why are the seven days left in?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To give the minimum protection to teachers,

I think that at least seven days' notice is required. It says at least

seven days; it doesn't say how many days, so the number of days may be

bargainable.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many

times a year this might occur under the legislation. Could it occur

once at the beginning of the year? Could it occur twice — say in the

fall and at Christmastime because of population shifts? Could it occur

under the legislation — not what the board's likely to do, but under

the legislation, would it be legal for it to happen more than once a

year? I'll leave it at that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Madam Chairman, under the legislation

it could happen as many times in a year as the agreement that people

negotiate will allow.

MR. ROSE: There may be a contract with a board that covers

this matter, and it may well not be negotiable. That's the problem. The

minister knows that this business of transfer has often been used by a

board as a disciplinary measure against a teacher. Is he aware of cases

where this has happened?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I am, and very rarely did it get

anywhere, because it was generally appealable. Under the new

assuming that the people who write the agreement are also aware that it

could be abused, and will try to cover all that. If they don't cover

all that, the person still has appeal through all the due process.

MR. ROSE: The minister has told us that the board could do it

innumerable times in a year — as often as once a month, if they wanted

to — under the present law and amendment. Since the appeal has gone,

the only thing that protects the teacher is the contract between the

board and the teaching

[ Page 1162 ]

association or union. So he agrees to that — if not.... I'll know that I've got his information correctly.

Teacher X gets into trouble in Kelowna. So we send him to Rutland —

the minister's home town; his home school. So for punishment he gets

sent where the minister is attending as a student in October — that

could happen. Then he could be sent to the Joe Rich valley, and because

the Joe Rich valley is a little further away — it requires chains in

winter — he might even have his salary cut. And there's a new contract.

But it won't matter really, because that change can't occur until the

following year. Next month he's sent to Westbank. When I was up there,

there was no bridge, so being sent to Westbank was almost like being

sent to purgatory. You had to travel on the ferry, especially if your

home was in Kelowna.

We're talking about teacher rights and teacher protection here. That

is what we're concerned about, because a venal board could get away

with almost anything in the old days; and I've seen some signs of that

sort of pressure and power over teachers returning, if we're not

careful. I'm not saying it's going to be widespread, but I'm saying it

could exist.

In the minister's own district, where he now lives.... Since he's no

longer privileged to live in Rutland, he's living up in the boonies —

you know, they're all broke up there because wheat....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Point of privilege?

So he's up in the boondocks. His district, correct me if I'm wrong,

could be hundreds of miles wide — not just one, but a hundred or even

thousands of miles. Well now, if Mr. Joe Teacher got transferred once a

month, and under this legislation the minister just told us that he

could do that, wouldn't this be pretty supreme punishment? And what

protection would the minister have if there were no contract negotiated

with the board on that particular subject of transfers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Technically and legally, I suppose that

could be done. But I've tried to suggest that the teachers have an

appeal process and a due process. Can the member even visualize under

common law or any law that any board could get away with that without

being challenged as to what they were doing? I suppose, to paraphrase

it, I could say there is no law against stupidity, but there is

considerable protection should that stupidity be invoked.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether the minister's last remarks

were meant to describe my questions. If they were, I'll take no

umbrage, because there will be a mutual exchange of stupidity, perhaps,

going across the floor.

I'd like to ask the minister, though: since an appeal process has

been removed from the act, it therefore must be bargainable. If it

isn't bargained in good faith, then none exists. Would the minister

confirm that?

MR. JONES: I want to thank the minister again for his

patience in dealing with this question. A valuable point is being made

here in terms of the process that we're experiencing. From time to time

in debate, the minister has used statements like "hypothetical straw

man." I think some of the questioning is really necessary in order to

fully understand the minister's intent.

I support the concept of bargaining the conditions of employment for

teachers in the province, and therefore I suppose I have to accept some

loss of protection here for this period. But the point I'm trying to

make is the kind of question that arises and the fear and anxiety in

the province with the teaching force during this transition period.

That's a very natural consequence of this situation.

Section 54 is a

good example. There were formerly certain protections in the School

Act. Now, by amendment, they're being removed so that they can be

bargainable. But during the transition period there is nothing there,

and it is this period that causes the fear and the anxiety. Perhaps

that's why the minister is anxious to get this legislation passed: so

it will be there and will be operative and perhaps some of the anxiety

will be relieved as the bill proceeds.

I would like to make the point to the minister.... Some members of

the House have accused the anxiety out there as being the product of

disinformation, and I think even during the debate here where we have

the unique opportunity to question the minister directly, get clear

from the minister his intent in this legislation.... We've spent a fair

number of hours at this now, and it's still in the process of becoming

clear to members who are studying the legislation. Certainly it's more

difficult for people in the field who may have a copy of the bill, may

never have seen a bill before in their lives and do not have the time

or the energy to put into a full understanding of the minister's intent

here.

I hope that by my comments there is some appreciation of the anxiety

being created by the introduction of this bill. I'm not suggesting it's

the minister's fault or the government's fault, but it's a natural

process of change to have fear of the unknown. What we have in this

transition period is loss of protection. There was protection before;

now, until it's negotiated.... I think the minister's main point in

this

section is that this can be bargained, and he fully expects these

kinds of protections will, in good faith, be put back in by school

boards. But in the interim we really have nothing there; we have lost

the protection, and that does cause anxiety. I hope members opposite

appreciate that that anxiety is there; it's real; it's genuine. It's

not being stirred up; it's not being created; it's a natural product of

the process that we're engaged in in changing conditions under which

teachers operate.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have one question in connection with this

clause. If a group of teachers decides to form an association rather

than enter into a certified status, then if in their negotiations they

are unable to reach an agreement, they may agree to go to arbitration.

We will be dealing with this in a further clause, Madam Chair, and I

don't want to presume on that discussion. But in respect to the matter

of the transfer of teachers and the protection then available to them,

it is conceivable that if teachers who are in an association are not

able to reach an agreement with their board on that matter, they could

stand unprotected, because there is no dispute resolution except

arbitration available to them in regard to their failure to reach

agreement. The arbitration, as I understand it, would be limited to

salaries and bonuses.

So as for those teachers who chose an association route rather than

a certification route, we could with this particular clause be taking

away their protections as they pertain to transfer. I would presume,

because the minister has indicated it, that where there are terms of

employment in the act, these

[ Page 1163 ]

are being removed in the anticipation that they will become a part of the collective agreements of teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, the association or the certified body

— the union, if you like — can negotiate all these terms and

conditions. Yes, there is no automatic compulsory arbitration; it has

to be by agreement. The assumption, of course, is that groups of

teachers choose to form an association because they believe that they

for these agreements without having to go to the strike-lockout option.

There is a remedy. Should a board be obstinate and not agree,

obviously what would they expect the teachers' association to do? To

certify, to go on strike to win those rights. So in other words, there

is that remedy that is built in.

Section 54 as amended approved.

section 55.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Madam Chairman, this amendment and the

section

deal with the rights of principals, as I understand it. That is

something that I have talked about at length.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I won't talk about it at length in this section,

but I have one question on the amendment. Why has the government

decided to insist that contracts for administrative officers must last

no longer than five years? It seems to me that boards of administrative

officers should have the right to enter into contracts for whatever

length of time they want, particularly given that the rights of

principals have been, I think, significantly limited in other sections

of the act. So I am just wondering about the five years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The intent here was to move to term

contracts, because it had been pointed out to us in the discussions

that without any term specified it could be a month or a day, and there

was no recourse on that. This way, the term can be one year, two years,

three years and, we have said, up until five years. Then if a board

appoints someone for a specified term and chooses to change their mind,

the person has the protection of that term appointment.

We felt the five years was a reasonable figure. Superintendents have

three-year terms. If we had said ten years or 15 years, then you almost

have indefinite.... So this gives protection to the board and

protection to the administrators to avoid any capricious action.

[3:00]

Amendment approved.

section 55 as amended.

MR. CLARK: I just have a few questions around this

section of

the bill. I guess I would start by dealing with whether principals and

vice-principals are managers or teachers. For example, the Premier

indicated a few years ago that he felt that in large schools they

should be managers and not teachers. We heard other members of the

House on the other side mention that. I wonder if the minister would go

on record to indicate his feeling on the intent of the legislation to

allow for principals being managers rather than simply teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I could certainly go on record, but if

we are going to stick to the legislation, the legislation requires that

they be members of the college. Membership in the college is only open

to people who have a professional teaching certificate, so regardless

of what opinions may or may not have been expressed in the past, or

whatever views anybody holds, they have to be professionally certified

educators in order to hold these positions.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour the point, but I feel

very strongly that principals really are principal teachers, that

there's a collegial atmosphere in the schools, that it's critical to

the morale of the school that they be part of a team, and I think what

attempts really to impose an industrial relations setting in a school

isn't going to work. All the experience I've had and my discussions

with other teachers clearly indicate to me that this division imposed

by this bill between administrators and teachers is going to have a

negative impact on the teaching and learning conditions within each

individual school.

Some questions regarding principals, because I'm very concerned.

I've said before in the House that when I asked principals to discuss,

for example, children who are going to school without lunches,

repeatedly they have said to me, "Don't phone me if Bill 20 passes,"

because clearly their rights are limited and they become more of an

individual contractual relationship rather than a collective bargaining

relationship. So therefore they feel, I think, threatened, and I think

clearly their rights are somewhat limited.

A question I really want to ask is: will principals be able to form

an association? Is there anything in the act or in this

section that

allows principals to form associations?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman, on the last part

there's nothing in the act that provides for them forming a legal

collective bargaining association, because they are excluded personnel.

There is nothing in the act to prohibit them from forming associations,

as they now do, informally, but they don't have formally constituted

bargaining rights as they are excluded personnel.

As to the reference about the concern that I know has been played up

dramatically, that this is going to pit teachers against principals,

and that sort of thing, I can't accept that. Principals have always had

a management function in the schools. They have always been in the

position where they have written reports on teachers, and they haven't

necessarily been favourable. They have had to call teachers on to the

mat but that has not prevented the total educational leadership that

automatically goes with being a good educational manager.

MR. CLARK: So the minister is saying that principals, for

example, specifically must have individual contracts with school

boards, and it is not possible for them then to form an association to

bargain on their behalf or to have consistent contracts across the

board on any collective matter, as I understand it. Maybe he could

clarify it, but I guess what I'm getting at then, if that's the case,

is: is it possible — it seems

[ Page 1164 ]

eminently possible — for principals with

essentially the same size school, the same essential number of teachers

in two different schools, in two different districts....? It is clearly

possible then — maybe the minister could confirm — for principals at

those two different schools, even though they're virtually identical,

to have completely different sets of pay, standards and conditions of

work for the principals because they're in different districts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is the situation now, that the

administrative allowances between districts vary considerably. So those

vary now. In the new situation, yes, certainly between districts and

other districts it can. I would think that within a district it would

be highly unlikely in that boards would have difficulty dealing with

this. As I said, in some of the districts now, although there have been

no formal administrators' bargaining associations, administrators have

formed associations and have reached sort of agreements on a set

formula. But the act does provide that when they reach that, each

administrative officer will have to sign an individual agreement with

the board.

MR. CLARK: I recognize what you're saying and I think it's

going to happen, but it seems to me logical to provide them with

collective bargaining rights so that there can be some consistency and

bargaining protection across the board, rather than just the individual

contract.

Let me direct your attention, please, to subsection (5) of this

section which requires that a board offer an administrative officer a

teaching position only if it does not intend to rehire him or her at

the end of the term of the contract. Subsection (2) says, however, that

a board may discharge an administrative officer by majority vote. So is

it correct then that under the act the board really need not offer an

administrative officer a teaching position if it's not going to rehire

him, because by simple majority they can dismiss him?

In other words, if you take subsection (2) and subsection

(5) together, they in a sense nullify each other. It says under one

section

that if they don't want to rehire them as an administrative officer,

they have to give them a teaching job. Then in the other

section it

says that they can be dismissed by simple majority vote. So in a sense

they really don't have the security that's implicit in one

section to

go back to teaching. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? What I'm asking is

that if you take subsection (2) and subsection (5) together, it really

means that by a simple majority they can be removed; therefore there is

no onus on the school board to give teaching positions to

administrative officers if they decide not to rehire them as

administrative officers. Understand?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member related that subsection

(2) says how you can do it. Subsection (5) then says that if you don't

renew the contract you must offer them a teaching position. So you have

to read subsection (5). I'm sorry, you asked the question and then I

know your attention got diverted. But as I said, subsection (2) says

how you do it and subsection (5) says what happens if you don't renew

the contract, and there it requires that they offer that person the

teaching position.

MR. CLARK: I understand that. I simply want to say that

because they can be removed by a majority vote of the school board,

there really is no obligation to give an administrative officer a

teaching position even though it states that in the act.

If they don't want to give them a teaching job, they can be removed

by a majority vote. Right? If they're not going to rehire an

administrator, one

section says they have to be given a teaching job;

but they really don't have to, because they can remove them by a

majority vote — correct? In fact, I suspect that that would be likely,

because under this bill an administrative officer will in effect become

a management function.

I think it's more clearly delineated than in the past, and therefore

it's unlikely that a school board is going to want to put someone who

has been a manager back into the bargaining unit as a teacher. Do you

understand what I'm saying? In fact, it's going to be unlikely that an

administrative officer, who has become more like a manager under this

bill.... If they don't want to renew their contract as a manager,

they're not going to want them to bump back into the bargaining unit as

a teacher, so by a simple majority they can simply remove them. Even

though one

section of the act says they have to give them a job as a

teacher, prior to their contract expiring they could simply dismiss

them. That's in fact what I perceive to be most likely.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, Madam Chairman, I've finally

realized where the confusion is. You're reading subsection (5) in the

original bill. Perhaps I could read you the amended subsection (5):

"Where a board of a school district

"(

a) does not intend to renew the contract of an administrative officer in the district, or

"(

b) discharges an administrative officer under

subsection (2) (a), except where the discharge is for a cause that

would have justified a dismissal for just and reasonable cause under

section 122 (l) " — which is as a teacher

"the board shall offer the administrative officer a

teaching position in the district before the end of the contract or the

effective date of the discharge, as the case may be."

I think that answers your question.

MR. CLARK: It certainly clarifies subsection (5), but

subsection (2) allows an administrative officer to be discharged by

simple vote. So even though we have all this protection in subsection

(5) as amended, which says you must give an administrative officer a

teaching job if you're not going to give him a job as administrative

officer, subsection (2) says that just prior to his contract expiring

they can just move a motion and dismiss him or her. That's correct, is

it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have to be careful or the member will

have me confused. Subsection (2) says that the board may, by a simple

majority resolution, dismiss an administrator. Okay, we agree on that.

Then subsection (5) says that when they do dismiss an administrator,

they must offer him a teaching position. Is that okay?

MR. ROSE: I have some questions about this. I know it's not

second reading of the bill and therefore principles are really not

debatable, but I'm concerned about the arrangements of the tenure of an

administrator. I believe he's an educational leader, and I do think

there will now be a gulf between his staff and his leadership. The

reason I say this is that he's all by himself now out in that rowboat.

He doesn't

[ Page 1165 ]

have a group of people to back him up at all. He really doesn't even have his own colleagues.

Really, what's happened to him now is that he's there at the

pleasure of the board. He's cut off completely from his colleagues and

the people with whom he works. As a former principal, I think the

minister must know that the role of principal is much more than the

factory model in which you turn out so many widgets and then you've

done your job. I wonder if maybe educational efficiency will be how

many people you can load in a particular class on a particular teacher.

The minister may counter and say: "Well, that's all bargainable." Well,

I'm not so sure it is, as long as the Ministry of Education has full

control of the budget and funding formulas. I don't think it's

necessarily that way. I think that principals, instead of being

fearless educational leaders and thinkers, because they have some

tenure, they have some protection.... I think that they'll tend to be

authoritarian submissives. That's a very, very interesting concept, and

you should study that, because I think you've got some over there on

your side. In other words, they could be very, very authoritarian with

those beneath them, but very submissive to those above them, including

the board. I'm not sure that you're going to get creative leadership

out of this.

The minister said, just a moment ago.... I wanted to know, since he

said that during the term of the contract, by a simple majority of the

board.... Does the minister not feel that this really takes a great

deal of protection away from a principal, in terms of his own tenure

and job security, which has at least the potential to turn the

principal into somebody who is less likely to take bold, creative

steps, or even certain political positions which may not be very

popular in that particular community?

[3:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to determine how this — allowing

the full collective bargaining route for teachers — differs so

dramatically from any other union organization with excluded personnel.

All of them have them. I don't see a protagonistic situation there. A

good manager in any union, who is excluded personnel, does not have the

protection of the union, but has to have, certainly if he's going to

continue in a management function, at least credibility with the people

there and the support of the people in the school. I'm trying to think

of what protection I had when I was a principal, if the board had

decided that I was done as a principal. I would perhaps have had

protection as a teacher, which is all the organization afforded me. But

certainly they could not have protected my administrative job, if the

board had in the past moved by simple majority. It didn't seem to be

the deciding factor — what the relations were between the staff and the

principal. That was the human factor, if you like, and that human

factor will continue.

From the professional side of things, they are still united; they

are all members of the college. There is a professional role to play.

In effect, all that's happened is like in other organizations that have

full collective bargaining rights: there are excluded personnel, who

often show up as district managers, or regional managers, or that sort

of thing. If you want to take the provincial government employees or

any industrial situation as an example, you don't have sort of an

automatic them/us situation. Whenever it reaches that point, it's a bad

situation.

MR. ROSE: Far be it from me to offer the experienced minister

the results of my experience, but I still think he conceives of the

school in a factory model, with managers managing people to turn out

widgets. That is not what education is all about. A manager in a school

is not just a matter of putting a certain amount of raw materials and

resources to work to produce X. It's a much more abstract, much more

professional, much more mysterious thing than that.

He asked rhetorically "what protection I had when I were a

principal." It's hard to put that in the subjunctive when I'm quoting

somebody else.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't want you to falter on the rock of the subjunctive.

The protection he had was the combined weight of his colleagues plus

the BCTF, in terms of appeal and everything else. This person now is in

a rowboat all by himself. By a simple majority of the board, he can be

cast adrift. As for his being a confidential employee, he needs more

than ever to be hooked in, if he's going to function properly as an

educational leader in with his staff and not separated from his staff.

The argument, I guess, boils down to whether or not his removal as a

confidential manager breaks that bond. I am afraid that it does, and I

am afraid that he is likely to be more interested in pleasing the board

and the political climate within his community — if you like, sucking

up to the community leaders — than in providing courageous, creative,

educational leadership. That's what we're concerned about.

As far as the students are concerned, if this educational leader

becomes the model, we won't be getting independent, creative,

self-reliant, critical thinkers, but people coming out of our schools

who are in fact widgets, who figure the best way to get along is to

keep their mouths shut and be submissive. That is the whole point here,

as far as I am concerned. It's the view of education and what kind of

people you are trying to produce. Are you trying to produce people who

are going to be willing, submissive, raw material for your factory

system? Or are you trying to provide people who are able and willing to

take chances, be creative, be critical of the environment around them —

political, economic environment, nature, or something else?

The minister sits there, and I can't see into his head, but I think

he is thinking.... Well, I am way out in left field. I'd certainly

rather be there than in right field.

Nevertheless, that's the critically important part of education,

because if education isn't about the things I'm talking about, then

it's not about very much. What kind of future citizen does this country

want? That is an essential and very profound question, and I don't see

this act, nor this particular section, contributing to the enhancement

of the future citizens of this country, this province, this community

or whatever. That's what I'm concerned about.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think I've ever heard a finer

denunciation of the professional ethics of those people who aspire to

be administrators — that they would simply become lackeys and have no

more interest in education or the board, but simply in protecting their

own position. I suppose I could use the example that some years ago

superintendents and assistant superintendents were appointed to those

positions because they were considered educational leaders; they

[ Page 1166 ]

certainly not had any indication that they suddenly became muzzled, or

muzzled themselves in speaking for the interests of education. I fully

expect that that will go on. Certainly this legislation does not

preclude people from speaking out in favour of education. It does not

prevent people from being educational leaders.

I could get into an interesting debate: what kind of people do we

want in our system? What kind of people do we want to turn out in the

schools? Individual thinkers, people who have access to the total range

of what teachers are willing to provide for students, not as pawns in a

salary negotiation.

MR. ROSE: It would help, Madam Chairman, if the minister, in

attempting to provide the total range, would be less restrictive in the

number of options that our students can have as well. It isn't just a

matter of personnel or what teachers or principals or the BCTF may be

up to or not up to. It has a great deal to do with the narrow,

restrictive academic fare which they're fed now because there are few

options left in the system. That's done deliberately, because it's

cheaper to do it that way, or there are some other motives that perhaps

some of us hardly realize.

He mentions the superintendents. I'll tell you how the

superintendents came about. Most of them started out in the north, as

young people. For instance, they went up to the north. I think the

minister, by being elected, just missed that path from the north as a

principal. They gradually move south — that's how it happens.

But I'd like to ask him about the superintendents we have here

without maligning any of them. Has it ever occurred to the minister how

many of the superintendents in our major urban areas were not even

trained in British Columbia? Examine some of the major metropolitan

areas and where those superintendents got their training, and it wasn't

British Columbia. As far as superintendents are concerned, the salaries

were so rotten — because they had to be a step below that of the deputy

minister — that for years you could hardly get them. They were not

often drawn from the ranks of educational leadership at all. They came

in to be superintendents in the old days, not from the eminent

positions in the urban centres at all but from the Dawson Creeks and

places like that. That's where they came from but that doesn't

necessarily make them bad. Yes, there are many fine educational leaders

in our province, but in the big jobs, examine where many of them came

from. They were imported. They didn't come out of our system in many

cases.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Are you talking about Prince George? Some of them

did. That's a good idea. The minister suggests that we get back to the

bill. Before I was provoked, he maintained that this is going to do

nothing to affect the outspokenness, the educational leadership, the

courage of principals. I maintain that it will be damaging because they

will become vulnerable, and they will play it safe.

I think that is maybe what the intention is, because this government

has systematically got rid of resource boards, hospital boards, college

boards. It took away the powers of school boards even to set their own

budget. Any time there is an opposing force or opposing forces, you

either muzzle them or you abolish them,

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I have been provoked into getting

off the bill myself. It is a very interesting debate, and you can draw

analogies. In the BCTF code of ethics, it says I think in number 6 or

number 7 that no teacher may speak out publicly other than on the

position taken by the federation, and things of that nature. So if you

want to start making comparisons, yes, it does. I am familiar with the

code of ethics. As a matter of fact, the principals in the province

were not allowed to talk to the Minister of Education on professional

educational matters; they had to be represented by the BCTF.

So in other words, if you are going to make an argument here about

how educational people and individual and critical thinking have been

muzzled, we could have a long and wonderful debate on that. However, I

would like to get back to the bill and suggest that how a person does a

job and how they manage and how they work with their colleagues in a

professional way is not prevented by this legislation. Nor does it put

a sort of wall between administrators and teachers.

I think that when this legislation is in place and people clearly

have to make the decisions of what they are and where they are and how

they intend to do it, we can get back on to purely educational issues,

many of which are going on, so that they are not mingled and mixed.

Section 55 as amended approved.

section 56.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: On behalf of the opposition, I want to commend the

minister for the amendments, particularly to subsection (

c) and

subsection (d). I think it is a very positive step to address the kinds

of concerns that I think my colleague from Coquitlam-Port Moody was

just alluding to, and certainly the elimination of those two sections

goes part way to achieve that by the original suggestion that we would

inject principals into disputes between boards and teachers and inject

them into disputes on collective bargaining.

[3:30]

I think it very strongly made the point that the member from

Coquitlam-Port Moody just made about the style and direction that this

section is moving principal-teachers in. So I do want to commend the

minister for removing this, because I think it does go part way to

address the concerns that we have on this side of the House.

I would like to ask a couple of very small questions with respect to

the amendment. But before I do that, I would also like to say that I

would like to see the minister go further in amending this section,

along the lines that my colleague just mentioned, to include in there

some things to balance, a little bit, some of what the member for

Coquitlam-Moody described as the managerial mentality or the top-down

approach or the authoritarian approach that is illustrated here.

Something might be added to suggest that it would be the responsibility

of principals and vice-principals to assess and make known the

educational needs in their schools. I think as a former principal you

did that — perhaps without it being prescribed — but if we look at this

act, that's the kind of thing we want to see, so that the principals

are real leaders and are

[ Page 1167 ]

representing the needs and concerns in their

schools to the authorities above. I think the addition of that one in

section 56 would be a welcome asset.

Perhaps we could do a similar kind of one for the directors of

instruction, so that the interests of the students and teachers in the

schools and in the district can be reported from the principal and the

directors of instruction in representing those areas that they are

responsible for, so that this doesn't give the total appearance of a

top-down approach.

So I welcome the amendments in (

c) and (d). I suggest that some

balance be made by making further amendments to suggest some more

bottom-up kinds of approaches. I have just one very small question on

the directors of instruction: I just don't understand why this

section

that had the reports countersigned by the superintendent was changed.

It's a very small point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On the change in the directors: under the

old regulations, as I understand, these were sort of legal reports that

were submitted, and therefore the superintendent had to countersign

them. That is no longer necessary, so that was removed. In other words,

the director is an administrative officer and would submit the report

to the superintendent. It doesn't necessarily have to be countersigned

by the superintendent.

MR. JONES: Thank you to the minister. Madam Chairperson, I'm

not clear whether we're on the amended motion or we're on the amendment

still.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment to

section 56.

MS. A. HAGEN: A note of explanation on the amendment, and

again it's in that

section that deals with the principal and the

vice-principal and it's the old clause (i) — I guess that's the best

way to identify it. Could the minister explain the reason for the

change in the wording? It originally read "suspension or dismissal." It

now states "dismissal or discipline." I think that that may have

something to do with some of the changes that have been worked through

in terms of due process, but could the minister just clarify that

wording. At times, after one has dealt with the act, the bill and the

amendments, one's mental processes in keeping track of the many

different words we're using are not always as sharp as they might be,

and I would just like to have that on record.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The main reason is that it makes it

parallel to a

section that's coming later and gives room for.... There

are the opportunities for boards to discipline as well as to just

suspend or dismiss.

MS. A. HAGEN: The dismissal and discipline I understand. I'm

still not quite clear why the word "suspension" has been removed. Does

a board not have the power to suspend? And would the minister in his

response like to just alert us to the upcoming

section where the

language here is being paralleled with language that occurs there? He

is probably more quick to find that than we will be.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, the upcoming

section is

section 122.

MS. A. HAGEN: And the omission of "suspension" — the significance?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose that suspension is, in effect, a

form of discipline. We can look at that — so dismissal or discipline,

rather than suspension or dismissal.

Amendment approved.

section 56 as amended.

MR. JONES: I suppose the remarks I made with respect to the

amendments, and the possible additions I suggested, indicated the kind

of direction I thought this

section should be going in. It's not going

far enough. The amendments were a help, but what I think we're clearly

doing in

section 56 is defining the role of principals as managers. I

know that for many years the government heard that principals should be

taken out of the bargaining unit and that that would solve a lot of

problems in our educational system. Although the Premier was a strong

advocate of that when he was Education minister, I think that was a

minority view; but I'm sure that's the view that has produced sections

such as

section 56.

It's a solution to a problem that I don't think will work. I don't

think it will be successful. In fact, I think it will damage and make

worse the kinds of situations that we have in the schools. I would like

to try to convince the minister of that fact. Yes, principals to some

degree are managers. But to see principals as managers is to understand

principals in a business and industry metaphor. I suppose that's partly

true. The world of education is likened to the world of business in the

sense that business is interested in management and control; and I

suppose that's necessary to pursue its goals of efficiency and profit.

However, just because education does in part entail management — and

the minister correctly suggests that that management has always been

there; it does have a management function, and the principal in

section

56 has a management function — doesn't mean that education is like a

business. It doesn't have to be effective and efficient in the way a

business has to. It doesn't have to make a profit the way a business

does. Although management is part of education, it's not like it is in

business, where profit is involved.

We have a partial similarity between business and education, but not

enough to do what we're doing in

section 56 and transpose what I see as

an industrial model onto the school system. I suggest that's what we're

doing in

section 56, and I suggest to the minister that this is wrong.

I'd like, from this side of the House, to emphasize that point.

Certainly the goals of education can be made more effective and more

efficient, but it doesn't require the kinds of things we're doing

through

section 56 to achieve that.

I think the minister has probably been reminded that the word

"principal" was originally understood to be "principal teacher,"

meaning the first teacher in the school — and in some schools in this

province the only teacher in the school. Principals are teachers, and

I'm very pleased to hear the minister suggest that in this legislation

it's necessary that they be teachers because they'd be certified

through the college. Principals are the leading teachers. So if

"principal" comes from "principal teacher," then "principal" at one

time was an adjective; now it seems to have become a noun. What this

legislation is doing is making that separation even greater. It's

making the principal more separate from the teacher and destroying the

concept of principal teacher.

[ Page 1168 ]

I think that recent development in terminology is to call principals

administrators. That one always bothered me a bit. I liked the concept

of principal teacher and wasn't too enamoured with administrators. Now

we're going even further in the kinds of

definitions we're injecting

into this act, in terms of administrative officers. It seems to me that

if principals are teachers and we've gone as far as administrators,

then there's no need to go any further than that. That sort of

management function, that business approach to things, was far enough

already. I would suggest that there was a reason for principals wanting

to call themselves administrators. I suppose it gave them a separate

status, a greater importance, and perhaps there was some economic

motive in their doing that. But in this

section we are taking it too

far, by the kinds of

definitions that we find under the duties of

principals and vice principals.

Madam Chairman, it's very clear that business — and I think my

colleague from Coquitlam-Moody made this point — deals with materials

and people as resources, as part of the process to produce something at

the end. That member described the product as widgets. But in education

it's a much different treatment of human beings, in that they're not

things and they're not dehumanized. The people

part is the essence of

education. Education is a people process. Not keeping that idea of the

educational enterprise being totally different from the economic

enterprise of business and industry is a retrograde step.

If we look at the origin of the word "administer," the "ad" part

means "to" and the "minister" part means "serve." So what we see in an

administrator is someone who is there to serve others, to be a servant.

What we're seeing now is quite a different process, a top-down process

where rather than serving those in the school, as the member for

Coquitlam-Moody has said, it's a different approach, a more

authoritarian approach. So what we have now is not those that are the

servants of the people in their schools, but the servants of those

people above them.

What we lose in the process of this top-down approach is the

leadership function. I know the minister disagrees with this, but I

believe strongly that that's the kind of thing that we're doing. I

suppose only time will tell. But I don't think leadership flows from

the kinds of duties that we see in

section 56 — I suppose it's (

a) through (

i) now, with the amended version. I don't think the duties

that principals and vice-principals have there speak to leadership. It

seems that these duties are not from leaders but more from persons who

are led. If we went through each one of those, they would speak to

somebody that was being led or being told to do something, rather than

somebody representing his school. We've lost the leadership there, and

I don't think through individual contracts we're going to be able to

bargain that kind of leadership that we're losing in this section.

[3:45]

I mentioned the definition of "administer." I'd also like to remind

the minister of the definition of "educate." The first part of that is

"ex," meaning out of, and the second part,"ducere," means to lead. So

education is "leading out." Leading in education essentially means

leading people from where they are now to a new possibility in the

future. That does require leadership. To lead in such a way requires

that a leader follow what education really is, and that's a leading

out. The duties in

section 56 conspire against that and thwart that

kind of leadership. The principal, as the leading teacher, must be one

who leads others to new possibilities by essentially following what

education is and being part of that process, not as one who is led but

as a leader.

I would hope to be able to convince the minister of this. It's a

concept that I think the minister understands. The metaphor of the

factory is one that we understand, and it's easy to apply that in

legislation. It's hard to find another metaphor that fits the

situation. My friend from Vancouver Centre may appreciate this: the

closest metaphor that I could think of was a football team. The role of

the principal is not as the owner of the team, nor even the manager or

the coach. It's something a little bit different. I would see the

principal of the school as being the quarterback of the team. He is

part of the action, part of the play, and not somebody who's receiving

orders from above and transmitting those only in the downward process.

There's a huddle, and there's cooperation in that huddle and working

together.

The minister knows that that team approach is important. A recent

publication that he sent out stated very clearly that research shows

that the best results occur when the principal and the teachers in that

school work together towards common goals. I think working together

like a football team is the kind of thing that we should aspire to.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: A simile — like or as. Thank you, government House Leader.

The bill not only changes the direction that we'd like to go in in

this province in terms of the leadership role of principals in the

school, but.... I think going in the other direction hurts

professionalism. I think

section 56 does that. It diminishes

professionalism in the school, because it injects this kind of model. I

think it's more of a military model, and the term "administrative

officer" suggests that. If we have officers, then I guess we have

privates; and I guess the privates in the school system are the

teachers, unfortunately, by this kind of description that we have in

section 56. I don't think the description of privates is a professional

kind of description, which is the whole intention of this act and the

consequential amendments.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) mentioned the impact in

terms of creativity that this approach takes. The minister has clearly

said that he wants the school system to be more creative and the

students in that school system to be more creative, as well as the

teachers. This thwarts the direction that we need much more of in the

schools, not less.

In second reading I talked at length about the delicate

relationships between the parties in the school system. I won't repeat

that argument, but I would like to say that in terms of the duties

described here, it's going in the wrong direction, even though the

amendments do make it better.

Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions of the minister. My guess

is that although I probably don't provoke the kind of response that the

member for Coquitlam-Moody does from the minister, I think perhaps he

may want to respond to some of that.

But perhaps I could ask one other question on

section 56 as amended,

which I don't have here. Perhaps I could ask the minister a simple

question: it relates to part (e), where it says that principals and

vice-principals will "evaluate teachers under his supervision and

report to the board." I don't know what was intended here by the

minister, but I think I see a

[ Page 1169 ]

problem in this section, and I know some superintendents in the province saw a problem when they first read this bill.

It seems to me that the process that has happened up until this

point, that when reports were written on teachers, they would be given

to the superintendent, and elected public officials like school

trustees seldom saw those reports unless it was essential that they did

for purposes of discipline.... So the reports were kept in the

professional house, if you like. Superintendents and principals and

teachers saw those reports, but publicly elected officials like

trustees did not see them. If we see under this

section all these

reports going to the board, and when I see board....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister would like to answer the question of the problem of confidentiality with those kinds of reports.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I guess the only question

the member asked was: what about the report to the board? "The board"

is the same as the board or its officers — no change, really. The

superintendent is an officer of the board, so the report would likely

go, as it always has, to the superintendent. The board has always had

the right to look at these reports to the superintendent, if they so

request, on any teacher.

But I would like to respond to some of the comments that the member

has made about the factory model. That is not in this legislation. That

is not intended; it is not stated in this legislation. It is something

that the critics of the legislation have manufactured and said: it

shall be a factory model, and therefore we can attack the factory

model. In this situation there has been a lot of argument about the

management rights and what these are. There's been a lot of discussion

and argument between the administrators, the BCTF and others, so what

this legislation has simply done is to take some of the existing

management functions of the principals and spell them out. So maybe

that argument will be dispelled. For even the criticism that somehow or

other we have taken the term "administrative officers" and created some

meaning, people have taken on that term in the system. The B.C.

administrators' association and all of these sort of things, local

administrators' associations, have taken on that term because it was

easier than saying each time the principal, vice-principal, director,

administrative assistant, etc., etc., and listing every category and

that sort of thing. So administrators was an all-encompassing term that

was put in.

I don't see any problem with that, but somehow inferred from that

the member is saying that by changing the term principal to

administrator we were moving to the factory model. How he makes that

connection I don't know. The member has said that the principal must

lead others, must be a member of the team. Of course. That's been the

case in the past and it's the case in the future.

I suppose I've got to take the blame entirely upon myself. I never

imagined that we would have to write into legislation that boards would

appoint people as administrators for reasons other than that they had

shown themselves to have leadership potential in the educational

structure. I never dreamed that we would have to say: "You cannot

appoint a principal unless he has educational leadership qualities."

Quite frankly, I thought that was a given in any administrator.

I cannot anticipate anywhere in this province, for any reason, a

board under this legislation appointing a bunch of wimps to run the

school rather than looking for the people with the greatest educational

leadership potential. So I didn't think we had to spell that out. I

still don't know how you could spell out all of the duties or all of

the functions that constitute educational leadership.

Educational leadership is both leading and being a part of the team.

I didn't think there was any way you could spell that out in

legislation. Yet here we are being told that we must say that they

should lead others, that they must have leadership qualities, that they

must have this. How do you say all of the things....? What constitutes

leadership? I've been to conferences myself where people have tried to

define what the elements are that constitute leadership. They vary

greatly from one to the other.

They can be big people, small people; they can be a whole variety of

educational backgrounds and that sort of thing. They can be men, women.

They can be any one of these things, and there's nobody yet who has

been able to pin down and define what all of the factors are that make

up educational leadership. But there's everybody in this system and

anybody in this system that can tell you that they recognize it when it

happens in the system. It will happen under this legislation; it

happened under the other.

So to suggest that suddenly, because some of the management duties

that have been the role of principals for a long time have been

defined, have been clarified, that turns them automatically into wimps

instead of educational leaders.... I can't believe that is even

conceivable, let alone somehow or other implicit in this legislation.

So I suppose I have to take the blame. I didn't think we'd ever have to

say that boards shall appoint as administrators or as principals or as

superintendent only those people who show leadership qualities. I don't

think it can be done and I don't think we need to do it. So yes, that

has upset me — that somehow or other we have removed all vestiges of

leadership among professional educators because we have given them the

term administrators.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the comments of the minister and I

sense his directions are not all that greatly different from mine, but

I think he's wrong when he suggests that that kind of view comes from

critics alone. I'm a critic and in opposition we're criticizing this

legislation. I'm very strongly opposed to the kinds of tone that jump

out in this

section to me. But I have heard this same kind of comment

from supporters of this specific section, that they think it's great

that we now have a real separation, that we have the lieutenants and

the captains and the officers up here, and we have the troops down here.

This is from supporters of this

section of the legislation. They

think that's great, because that's going to keep those teachers in

line. This isn't from a critic of the legislation; this is from

somebody who was at a conference that your deputy minister spoke at and

who is a lawyer and who was advising on this legislation, and he

supported it; and that was his

interpretation, not my

interpretation.

That's the effect of what's happening in this legislation. At least, it

was his

interpretation before the amendments. That was a comment before

the amendments; whether he's revised his opinion or not I don't know. So it's not just coming from critics of this bill.

[4:00]

[ Page 1170 ]

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that.... Yes, I know it's

difficult, but if you have a creative opportunity — and we were talking

of creativity — to write legislation that spells out the kind of things

the minister talks about, so that that kind of leadership came out, and

that kind of representing the school and not just the board, these

kinds of things, then we could have a

section of the bill that would be

very acceptable. I suggested some possible amendments to it, but that

wasn't done. So we are looking at the bill and at the kind of tone it

creates. I don't think the minister can, in total honesty, suggest that

that kind of ability to represent your school is going to carry on as

effectively and efficiently as it did in the past. We do know how

controversial education is in this province and we do know the delicate

spot principals were in when they had a greater amount of security than

I think they'll have under this legislation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I recall that not very long ago a principal in Richmond received

scathing criticism from a minister of this government. Mr. Nielsen, who

was the MLA for Richmond, attacked publicly a principal in the school

system for speaking out on what he believed were denials of educational

opportunities for his students. If that is not a definition of

leadership that I accept and that the minister accepts.... When we see

this kind of thing by government and this kind of legislation, I think

we are diminishing the kind of creativity and leadership that I was

talking about earlier. I do think school boards are going to appoint

those that they perceive to be good people and good leaders, but the

definition of leader becomes narrower and narrower with this kind of

legislation.

It was not that long ago that the kind of person who was appointed

to leadership positions within schools often came from the ranks of the

teachers' association. Education then became more controversial in this

province, and those people who represented teachers were put in the

position of having to speak out critically of boards and of government.

There seemed no end at that point to the succession of people at the

local level whose leadership qualities were recognized, in terms of

their being acknowledged by their peers to leadership positions in

teachers' local associations. I'm sure that's very uncommon now in the

province. That's certainly the kind of definition of leadership that I

think is important and that has been eliminated recently, and which is

being continued in this legislation. I saw a creative opportunity for a

much more progressive view of leadership in schools. I do not see it

reflected here, and I strongly oppose this

section of the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will not carry further the themes that the

member from Burnaby North has been discussing, but I want to associate

myself again with those themes. I am concerned about the narrowing of

the role of principal and the emphasis on managerial and administrative

functions. I believe the minister has responded to that in some regard

by introducing subsection (2), where some of the educational duties are

spelled out. I think that's an attempt to recognize the role of the

administrator as educational leader by making certain that in the act

there's some specific reference to those roles. But again, we're

talking about administering, and supervising, and there's no suggestion

here that implicit in this understanding of the role of principal and

vice-principal — collegiality, the role of peers — is that those

principles are intrinsic to this prescription for an administrative

officer. However, I think that particular matter has been well

discussed by the minister and the debate leader, so I will not do what

I would like to do: that is, to discuss it at some further length.

At second reading there was some discussion about how interlocked

the roles of many principals are — certainly even more so those of

vice-principals as managers, if you like— with their teaching roles. I

note that in the new subclause (j), to perform teaching duties assigned

by the board is one of the responsibilities assigned to principal and

vice-principal.

In many of the schools of the province, even in metropolitan areas,

we are in a very paradoxical situation in regard to the

responsibilities these people will have in their specific schools.

Certainly most vice-principals that I know, except in very large

elementary and very large secondary schools, are teachers. In fact, I

would wager that many of them spend more than 50 percent of their time

teaching; and that's true as well of a significant number of

principals. I think the minister has at some earlier time, perhaps in

his commentary on second reading, canvassed this particular situation.

But it does bear out that dichotomy in separating these people as

administrative officers from their staffs. I'd like the minister in

respect to this clause to discuss what he sees will be the role and the

definition of those people who are very much involved with teaching in

their schools although they serve as the principal or the

vice-principal of their school.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if the member puts it in

those terms,"those who are very much involved with teaching," I would

say that any principal, vice-principal, assistant superintendent,

director and superintendent is very much involved with teaching. If the

member is trying to define the act, it's fairly clear that all people

who are educators.... Every principal has to be a teacher before he can

become a principal. They must all be teachers. Where the separation

comes in is that they are excluded personnel under the full collective

bargaining process. That's the only separation that this legislation

makes. The other separations, I've tried to suggest, are the ones that

have been made by the people who want to criticize the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just do what we have done a couple of

times and take a hypothetical situation. I'll take a couple from my own

school district. We have a small number of elementary schools, and they

vary in size. One of the schools has what we often call a teaching

principal. There is no question that that person is a principal in the

full sense of her roles and responsibilities, but she, I think, spends

better than 50 percent of her time in teaching duties. I don't want to

get caught up in the question of whether all these people are teachers.

Of course they're teachers. But I'm talking about people whose

responsibilities within the system have a very large component of

teaching duties as well as the administrative duties as principals and

vice-principals. Is it the minister's intent that every single

principal and, as I've noted, more significantly every single

vice-principal — even the vice-principal whose administrative duties

might be 25 percent of that individual's working time — will be an

exempt person under contract in the school districts of this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm interested in why we're canvassing this

again. I think I answered all those questions — the same questions, to

the same member — during second

[ Page 1171 ]

reading debate. However, I suppose it serves a

purpose. The answer is: not my intent. The legislation says that he or

she who holds the title of principal, vice-principal or director is an

administrative officer. The legislation says that administrative

officers are excluded from the bargaining process, as are assistant

superintendents and superintendents, as they are now. So that is what

the legislation says. Head teachers, supervisors, consultants — all of

those people who do not hold the titles that I've mentioned before —

can be included as part of the bargaining unit. So I guess it's a

matter of what title they get. And immediately someone said: "What

about someone who is an administrative assistant?" Well, I guess there

are a number of imaginative terms that people have given for

vice-principals, and that sort of thing. My only answer is: decide. By

deciding what you call them, you decide what role they play; and they

would presumably want to be in on that decision.

MS. A. HAGEN: Might I speculate, Mr. Minister, that we might

in fact have some new and interesting titles for people who are

fulfilling administrative responsibilities in the schools, and that

that is open under this act. We're really dealing with semantics here.

We're dealing with titles that have existed. We have coordinators, we

have supervisors, we may have admin. assistants, we may have business

managers. There's a whole range of things that come under

administrative duties. So in fact the act allows whatever latitude any

board and its employees may wish to evolve to deal with the roles and

responsibilities of people in administrative or managerial roles.

I think that's what he's saying by saying that we put

vice-principals in one pot where they are under contract with their

boards, and we put coordinators, supervisors, resource people, head

teachers or other people who have administrative responsibilities in

another pot. The head teacher in a school might have teaching duties

that are exactly parallel to the teaching duties of a vice-principal in

another school, but by virtue of the name, that person simply sits in a

different kind of organization as far as the terms and working

conditions that he or she has in the district are concerned.

Again I could quote an example. I know of vice-principals in our

school district with that title who have exactly the same duties and

responsibilities as a head teacher in a teaching annex, but one is

going to be exempt under contract and the other is going to be a part

of the association or the bargaining unit. It's what's in a name —

that's what the minister is saying, I think, at this particular time.

Section 56 as amended approved.

section 57.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend the minister

for this amendment. The change that has been made here is certainly

much more palatable than the previous wording. What's been done here to

inject just and reasonable cause for the reason for dismissal of a

teacher in this province is much preferable language. My understanding

is that it's more common language in labour relations acts, and that

this makes this in line. I understand also that as amended this

section

is going to allow the review and appeal for unionized persons or

members of an association according to the negotiated contract, if they

have negotiated; and if they do not have such a contract negotiated,

then they can apply to the minister for an investigation. I think

that's a good safeguard as well. I would like the minister to know that

we support the amendment.

[4:15]

Amendment approved.

section 57 as amended.

MR. JONES: A very short question of the minister. The

section

now allows the teacher 20 days from notice of suspension or dismissal

to ask for an investigation of the minister. Previously, I understand,

this limitation was 20 days from the beginning of the suspension or

dismissal. I'm just wondering if it was the minister's intention to

shorten the time that teachers have to ask for an investigation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think in the amendment where there is

a grievance procedure in place or where the collective agreement spells

that out, then it looks after itself. "The teacher may, within 20 days

after being notified, apply to the minister for an investigation...."

The intent is to get the investigation underway should there be a

suspension or something of that nature, to make sure that it doesn't

get drawn out indefinitely.

MR. JONES: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I

don't think it necessarily follows from my question. What has happened

here in the event that there isn't a local agreement.... It might be a

short period of time by which right to ask for an investigation has

been shortened, but formerly it was 20 days from the beginning of

suspension or dismissal, and now it's 20 days from the notice of

suspension. So we have the notice first and then we have the

suspension, and I don't know how many days are in there. Now it's 20

days from the notice of suspension. So we have the notice first and

then we have the suspension, and I don't know how many days are in

there; now it's from the beginning of the suspension to the time to

apply. So there is a loss of some period of time there, and I just

wondered if that was the intention of the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm working on the assumption

that the phrase "after he has been notified" means that the person has

now become informed that this action is taken; so from that date

forward there are 20 days.

Section 57 as amended approved.

section 58.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: The amendments here reduce the requirements for notice and lay out that there's no requirement

[ Page 1172 ]

for giving reason for dismissal to a teacher. There

are some changes to the reasons that it's possible to dismiss a

teacher, and then there are general changes there.

I'd like to deal for a minute with a phrase that has been put in

under the new

section 122.1, but before I discuss it I would just like

to make the point that I hope the minister is listening to the

suggestion that the language that we use is terribly important. To me,

I find it odd that the minister doesn't think there's any difference in

calling a person in a school a principal or an administrative officer,

because there is a whole difference in that. I have not taught in the

public school system but I've watched the college system change from

when the principal person in the college changed from being a principal

to becoming a chief executive officer, and the whole pattern of what

that person expected to have to do changed.

The way that words work is important, and that's what we're looking

at. I would be extremely disappointed if the minister were not highly

sensitive to that, and would not say such things as "someone who is not

a leader is a wimp." He is using those words to make a point. The words

are powerful. I think that it's important that we look at the meaning

of the words.

section 122.1 it says: "Where a board considers that the learning

situation in a class or classes of a teacher is less than

satisfactory...." That is a very broad phrase: the learning situation

in a class to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps the minister could

explain how he expects that to be interpreted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm assuming that "satisfactory" has sort

of a meaning — somebody who admits that's something that is either

adequate or better in order for the job to be done. So the only time

that less than satisfactory comes into play is when it's not adequate,

not satisfactory, less than satisfactory. I don't know how I can define

it. I suppose I could make an analogy that we have a term like

something is tall, and then something is less than tall. Well, I

suppose you could get into a whole range of

definitions there. But with

"satisfactory" or "less than satisfactory," I think it's very, very

clear; and it's exactly the same thing as in the existing legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: I think your answer to me indicates that you are

fairly well aware of the ambiguity of the language; that "satisfactory"

of course says adequate to do what? Satisfactory for what purpose?

Satisfactory to whose standards? That kind of thing. I wonder if you

could tell me how you would interpret "learning situation."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Surely the member doesn't expect me to go

into my whole background of experience. Is it "learning situation"? Am

I to interpret that as part of this legislation; that I acknowledge the

ambiguity of a term that is satisfactory? There are terms used such as

"excellent," which I assume is satisfactory or a lot better. But when

it's "less than satisfactory," I see no ambiguity in that; I really

don't.

MS. EDWARDS: I think that those terms are terribly broad and

that some of the teachers could be in particular jeopardy because of

the broadness of these terms. I think, again, that there should at

least be some indication that the minister recognizes that some of the

learning situations in a classroom depend on things other than the

teacher's teaching abilities. I don't think that's indicated in the

proposed legislation.

Let me get back to the old standard that we're using. For example,

what if there are not enough textbooks in a classroom? That makes the

learning situation unsatisfactory, less than satisfactory. Is that the

kind of situation under which a teacher would be subject to discipline?

Again, it's whose standards of satisfaction? Is it the ministry? Will

the ministry take a role in this? Perhaps I could just ask that

question for now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have a difficult time, Mr. Chairman,

hearing what I'm believing; or perhaps I should say believing what I'm

hearing. If a report on a teacher came in to say that the learning

situation in this teacher's classroom is unsatisfactory because there

is a shortage of textbooks, I can just picture that withstanding any

appeal process right to the Supreme Court — that the teacher has been

dismissed because there weren't enough textbooks in the classroom, to

use your analogy. If the learning situation is less than satisfactory,

it would obviously and of necessity have to have something to do with

the performance or non-performance of the teacher in the classroom.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think the legislation says that, Mr.

Minister. I know that you've again got a situation where you're

suggesting that there is always the process of appeal for the teacher,

but it seems to me that the legislation should be much clearer on this.

I find that the language is very broad: "learning situation" and "less

than satisfactory." There are so many instances in which different

interpretations could be put to either of these two phrases that it

seems to me that the legislation should make some attempt to be more

definitive.

Again, is there going to be some provincewide standard that is going

to be recognized as satisfactory or....? I wonder how this is going to

go on from district to district, for example. What is the ministry's

role? Will there be different standards for what is satisfactory from

district to district? Is that going to be suitable? What's satisfactory

to the board in that district, to the taxpayers of that district, to

the peers of the teacher within that district, to the students who are

in the classroom of that teacher? How do you deal with that kind of

thing under this legislation?

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister could advise me. There's

been a fairly major change in terms of the amendment of the original

wording, but I don't note that there's any requirement in there that

when an action is taken with respect to a less than satisfactory

performance, there's any responsibility or onus on the board to provide

a letter or some document outlining the reasons why the performance....

I think that there was in the original proposal. Well, that actually

dealt with terminating the contract, but there was a requirement that

the teacher be notified as to the reasons why. I guess there is a

question of arbitrariness in terms of the word "satisfaction." I

remember my report card use to have a few G's, S's and U's on it. I

always thought that was a pretty arbitrary process; sometimes I

disagreed, and I didn't have any avenue of appeal either. Perhaps the

minister could respond to that concern.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The legislation is certainly not specific as to whether it should be a stamped envelope or a

[ Page 1173 ]

hand-delivered envelope or something of that nature

— the notification. We assume that some of that can be bargainable, but

if it comes to dismissal, I would think it's awfully hard to dismiss

somebody without making sure that they are aware of it or notified.

MR. MILLER: Again I will relate it to my own experience.

Quite often, if there appears to be a cause for a board to be concerned

about performance in a.... I hear this term "industrial model." Quite

often if, for example, a foreman feels that there is some problem with

an employee, the best procedure for dealing with that is for the person

in authority to provide in written form the reasons why he feels that

way, so that there's a basis, if you like, from which you can either go

forward or eventually resolve the situation.

It's important that it be spelled out. I'm not asking for a

procedure that requires registered mail or anything else; simply that

where the board decides that they have to take action because of a less

than satisfactory performance, they provide the individual involved

with a written notice of the reasons why they feel the way they do. It

could be quite a simple process. The individual would then have a

reference point from which to carry on any appeals or any other action.

[4:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to respond to the member's question

that in

section 45 of this legislation, which refers to

section 6 in

the School Act.... In

section 6 of the School Act there is the

requirement that whenever a report is written on a teacher, the teacher

must receive a copy of the report. In other words, as the process

builds up, say, to required satisfaction.... Because of all of the

appeal processes built in here, I can't imagine a board taking the risk

of evaluation — of unsatisfactorily starting a dismissal action. I

think that they would want supporting evidence. They're going to need

it, because they have to state the reason for the dismissal, and that

opens a whole appeal process. There's a lot of protection built in

there.

MR. MILLER: I'm satisfied with that response, Mr. Chairman.

I have a concern on the variety of procedures contained in the

legislation. For example, again relating it back to what happens

between labour and management, there's a fairly well-defined system

that has developed over the years in terms of a body of precedents

relating to a variety of situations that labour arbitrators or people

defending people can call on and cite, much the same as the court

system works. I'm not aware if that has been built up with regard to

teachers and school boards, but it seems to me that you've developed in

the legislation at least three that I see, and possibly more, avenues

for people in a variety of circumstances to have the right of appeal

and the right of some protection, through a tribunal of some kind or

another.

Whether or not you're going to get a conflict between these.... Are

you going to get, for example, a case under the situation where the

teacher has no union or association and makes an appeal to the minister

to appoint a board, citing jurisprudence that's been obtained in

another jurisdiction? You know, all this variety of things — is it not

possible to develop one that would be applicable to all the variety of

situations?

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, the amendments speak only to the

case of teachers who, for example, are charged with criminal offences

or being dangerous or harmful to students. I'm wondering if this is an

oversight, because in other sections of this act the word "teacher" has

been amended to encompass all members of the college. Is this an

oversight, or is this meant to apply only to teachers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, it's not an oversight. Because of the

exclusion of the administrative officers, if I dare use that term, the

board can immediately dismiss them, and all that they have to concern

themselves with is the term and what contract they have signed with the

administrators. There is no requirement for this to apply to principals

or the administrative officers.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay. If we proceed to

section 122(4) as it is

in the amendment, a person can be suspended without pay when he has

simply been charged with a criminal offence. Now that, I would suggest,

would seem to many people to be a case of considering that person to be

guilty before he has been proven to be guilty, and of course in our

country a person has the right of being considered innocent until

proven guilty. The point I am making is that they would go without pay

before they came before the bar.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not quite sure which

section the

member is referring to. For a criminal offence, the board may suspend

with or without pay —

section 122.1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, if I might interject, I think

that subsection 122(4) is contained in the

section itself, not in the

amendment. We will have an opportunity to speak on that when we've

taken care of the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: Was subsection 122(4) being renumbered? I think

122(2) is the one I'm talking about. No, it isn't that. I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman. It's the one about criminal activities, 122.2. My question

stands. In other words, a teacher can be suspended without pay when he

has been charged with a criminal act; but the criminal proceedings have

not necessarily...the case has not been heard. Is that not a

contradiction of his right to be considered innocent until he has at

least gone to the bar?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, that eventually comes into

play, but I think you have to look at that

section to recognize that:

"Where a teacher has been charged with a criminal offence and the board

believes that the circumstances created by it render it inadvisable for

the teacher to continue his duties...." If a teacher has been charged

with a criminal offence, and let's suppose that person has been

incarcerated in jail for a month before his trial comes up, it would be

fairly difficult to justify the board continuing his pay. We are using

an extreme case to make the point. If the person is subsequently

exonerated or found not guilty, then the board may reinstate the

teacher without loss of salary. If there is an argument about that,

then the teacher can get into the full due process of appeals and

everything else, and demand that the salary be paid. That can he part

of the whole process under the Industrial Relations Act, or under the

association route. Failing that, you still have coverage under the

School Act. I don't know whether we can protect it any more.

[ Page 1174 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I have some interest in this

particular area because of a specific instance. I think your intent is

probably not to have teachers going through appeal procedures when that

is not necessary. I myself sat on a board of referees for the

Unemployment Insurance Commission. A teacher was suspended because he

had been charged with a criminal act. He had appealed the fact that the

commission had taken away his unemployment insurance. They said he had

been dismissed for cause, had lost his employment for cause. Our

decision was that we could not say that before he went to trial, and

our action followed that. It doesn't matter what that action was, but

that is what we said. That was appealed all the way to the top court,

Mr. Minister, and they upheld our decision on that.

So I am really interested to know whether this is not going to set

up a situation in which many appeals might make their way through. I am

sure that the minister is not meaning to set up that kind of

legislation. Maybe I will leave that. I think it is an important point,

whether in fact, before someone goes to the bar when charged, you can

take action that would indicate presumed guilt.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Really, much of this

section and this

particular reference has been lifted out of the public schools act

which has been in existence for many years, to suspend with or without

pay until the final decision has been reached by whatever routes are

there.

MS. EDWARDS: I have one more question on the amendment. I'd

like to know from the minister if he could explain — and this is under

section 122.5 — how it would be determined that a teacher's behaviour

would be harmful to students, and why would a person be suspended

without pay under this section?

AN HON. MEMBER: Get serious.

MS. EDWARDS: It's not funny.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the member be just a little more specific? She refers to 122.5.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay, but I think the minister understands.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have a bit of sympathy because of the

change of numbers there, because I'm racing to keep track of them

myself. So I thank you, but I'm not nearly as mean as the Chairman is,

to that.... No, I'd better not say that. Anyway, I think it is now

section 122.3, and I think the question was: how would you determine

whether a person would be "dangerous or harmful to the pupils"? I don't

think you could set up any legislation in advance to discern that. It's

a judgment call by people that have to make those kinds of judgment

calls.

MR. JONES: I agree with that, and I agree that the Chairman

isn't mean. I hope he's not mean, because I think we've got amendments

to consequential amendments to acts as part of the bill. I'm impressed

that the Chairman seems to be very much on top of it. I hope my

question is in order under the amendment.

I would like to ask the minister, because I think it's very

important.... I very much appreciated what he said before about the

process leading up to the situation where we have dismissal for a

less-than-satisfactory learning situation. The minister said at that

time that it was the same language that had been existing in previous

legislation. He also said he could not see that happening under natural

justice; this would not proceed without the opportunity of a reporting

process.

Although I know that language is not new language, it seems to me

that under this

section before, if I'm reading it correctly, we were

looking at things like gross misconduct, neglect of duty, or refusing

to obey an order of the board, which led up to dismissal. And the other

section, where "less than satisfactory" came in, was the

section where

it was prescribed that there be reports and that those reports be

within a certain specified period of time. I was very pleased to hear

the minister say that he would anticipate that that would happen

naturally, as a responsible board, and having to make sure that those

procedures would be acceptable in light of appeals to courts, and that

kind of thing.

But I would like the minister to expand a little bit, if he could,

on the drastic change that I see here from what existed before, where

there was a built-in evaluation process — I know there were school

boards that felt that that was too long a period of time, where we had

the built-in evaluation process with three reports, and "less than

satisfactory" over a certain period of time, which I think was 12

months — to the point now, where in the bill it doesn't say even that

there has to be any reporting, although the minister suggests that that

will be a natural part of the process. It seems to me to be quite a

drastic step. If there were concerns about the length of time between

the reports, it would seem, if the minister was responding to those

concerns, that to shorten the period of time.... But not to take out

the natural built-in evaluation process that was there in the original

legislation....

[4:45]

I think this is a critical part of the bill, and I would really

appreciate the minister's explanation of the drastic change from what

was before to what is now, eliminating that built-in evaluation process.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Very briefly, it's part of this process of

moving to full bargaining rights. You can't very well write in all the

full bargaining rights.

Where I think we have kept the protection in this legislation is

that boards will have the right to dismiss, but they must state the

reason. They must specify why they are dismissing, just to use that one

example, and then that reason for dismissal is challengeable. We've

made sure that the person can then, through various routes and

considerable due process, challenge that dismissal. So because of that

process, the board would have to be able to substantiate why — the

reasons, whatever — through the full process. That is why I say "by

interpretation."

I would hardly think that a board would, on somebody's word or

somebody's brief statement, or on one vice-principal's report, let a

teacher go. There are many traditional practices of several reports and

that sort of thing. I just can't visualize that teachers, being faced

with a due process as extensive and protective as it is for teachers in

this legislation, would act precipitously without making sure they

could substantiate it and prove it. So I think there's even greater

protection in this legislation than there was before.

[ Page 1175 ]

MR. JONES: I see the minister's point. It's logical, and he

may be right. Again I make the point that I've made a number of times:

that when you read the legislation, you do read in the possibility of

capricious action, because it's not prescribed. The minister says this

flowed as a result of full collective bargaining rights being accorded

to teachers. Does the minister envision the possibility that the kind

of provisions that existed before could be bargained into a local

collective agreement so that the teachers would end up with the same

kind of protection and due process, or would this be precluded by this

legislation? Could they be negotiated or precluded?

MR. JONES: Thank you.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to speak to this section, most notably

122.1. From the discussion that has gone on in the last ten minutes, it

seems we're going from a situation where 122.1 has been ripped apart

and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Rewritten.

MS. MARZARI: Well, rewritten. And where it did talk about

misconduct, neglect of duty or refusal or neglect to obey a lawful

order of the board, we have rewritten it to say: "the learning

situation in a class...of a teacher is less than satisfactory." I'm

sure the minister can understand why we would be concerned that simply

eliminating causes and injecting a general statement about a learning

situation doesn't relieve the anxieties of the opposition or of the

teaching profession. As a matter of fact, one might think it could well

exacerbate the anxieties they might be feeling when things become as

loose as in fact they have become.

Also, by removing the 30 days — which I gather did exist in the

unamended act — in effect, a teacher-principal relationship which

involved the observation by a principal of a teacher's performance,

perhaps over the period of a year, and a written evaluation done by the

principal, observed by the teacher, and I think signed by both, with

the teacher given an opportunity to improve and direction as to how to

improve.... That has been replaced with a situation where the board now

is expected to assess that the learning situation in a class is less

than satisfactory. The board then, carried up to this level, is

dismissing the teacher and encouraging the teacher to take remedial

action which the principal might once have suggested that the teacher

take. It seems to take a relationship that seemingly worked well, at

least according to the teachers and principals in the riding that I

represent, and to escalate it to a higher level of bureaucracy,

creating an entirely new structure and strata which wasn't asked for in

the first place.

My first question here is: is there any provision, or are we going

to be talking about provisions, for ongoing relationship between

principals and teachers in the classroom to prevent this new