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 7, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Barnes –– 1001

Hon. L. Hanson –– 1002

Ms. Smallwood –– 1004

Mr. S.D. Smith –– 1005

Mr. Williams –– 1006

Mr. Huberts –– 1007

Mr. Harcourt –– 1008

The House met at 10:10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has 11 minutes left.

MR. BARNES: It's very helpful to know how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker. I probably

will not require too much more time. In fact, I think I made it quite clear that I felt the bill was

over-ambitious, to be kind, and that it seems to have been presented despite the fact that the government

intends to have a full survey of the education system by appointing the royal commission under Barry Sullivan.

I think in fairness to the commissioner and in fairness to the

public school system, to the members of the Legislature, to the

teachers, to the public, that the government should reconsider the

urgency that it has indicated this bill carries. Clearly, Mr. Speaker,

the suggestions that we've been reading in the media, most recently

this morning, that the minister intends to bring in no less than 35 or

45 amendments, and the fact that there is any suggestion that the

government would even be inclined to amend this bill, to me indicate

that it has been ill-informed; that it has acted too hastily and is

finding that there are major flaws, major problems in the bill.

It hasn't been a waste of time. The debate that has taken place on

the motion to hoist the bill and now on second reading of the bill, and

our continued suggestion that the government withdraw this bill, not

because the opposition is undesirous of letting the government do its

job, which it has a mandate to do.... Some of the arguments presented

by our members in the House have been that the government was elected

and has a mandate to bring in bills to provide the good government that

we require. But in the field of education one has begun to discover

that the government seems to be taking extra-special care to single out

one particular occupational group for some fairly heavy-handed

discriminatory acts, to the point that teachers feel that they have

been slapped in the face, so to speak — that there is something

vindictive, sinister, heavy-handed and grossly unfair about introducing

a bill in the form of an imposition.

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the government and the members of this

Legislature to explain why it would be unreasonable to request that the

government withdraw this bill and allow the commissioner to complete

his task, which will take approximately a year. He himself predicts

that his findings will no doubt have an impact on the public school

system for the next 20 to 25 years.

I would like to ask the Speaker if he would mind....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. members on the right side could

maybe hold their meetings outside, the second member for Vancouver Centre could

complete his speech.

[10:15]

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Premier, for going outside to carry on your debate.

I can see that I'm not striking up a great deal of enthusiasm.

People are not hanging on to every word that I have to say, Mr.

Speaker. Nonetheless, the words that I am putting forward are of

profound significance and of vital importance. Although it is early in

the morning and I'm the first one up after having just flown from

Vancouver — still dozy from a very difficult day yesterday and tired

and all that — nonetheless I think I'm hitting the point when I suggest

that it is a sham to be forcing this bill upon this House at this time

in light of the fact that we have a commissioner who is going out and

coming in with findings that are supposed to help the public school

system. Why is the cart pulling the horse? I mean, let's put things in

order.

I'm sure that if the government members were on this side of the

House in the opposition, they wouldn't tolerate this for one second.

It's totally illogical, totally irresponsible, and not only that, it

smacks of a vendetta of some sort. The government has its own political

agenda, and that's what this bill is — it's political. The teachers are

making that point, we've made that point, and I think the evidence is

overwhelming.

The College of Teachers is not something the teachers have asked

for. And even if they did ask for it, should they not have had a hand

in the creation of this new institution that is going to make their

jobs better? You know, there's another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I find

alarming from the minister. They are suggesting that they are going to

assume the responsibility for creating the college. Imagine that. How

many private organizations in the community — be it the surgeons,

lawyers or whatever — is the government prepared to put money up front

for in order to help them get themselves organized in an organization

that they don't want? You're doing everything you can to sweeten the

pie.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I say it's a sham, I say that with a

great deal of regret, because the public school system is one of the

most important systems. It is an essential service and it's a delicate

service. It requires a lot of commitment on the part of all of the

players. The taxpayers have to be willing to put the money up. They

have to be willing to pay for quality. Teachers have to be committed,

they have to be dedicated, and they have to feel that they are

appreciated when they give so much time for extracurricular activities.

All of those programs that I suggested last week are outside of

instruction, outside of the contractual commitments, and they give time

ungrudgingly; they give it because they care, because they're

committed. That's why you have schoolteachers, People don't go to the

classroom because they want to get rich; they go because they want to

make a commitment to future generations. And that's where you're

letting them down.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the bill, as it has been

introduced, obviously was premature. You've proven a point to us very

clearly with these proposed amendments that will be coming in. I

understand there's something like 35 or 45 major amendments, clearly

suggesting that there should have been consultation, that there should

have been no confrontation, that there should have been a sense of

cooperation; and that should have been believable because it would be

evidence that everybody had had an opportunity to have input into this

bill, including the students, who are right

[ Page 1002 ]

now in a bit of a quandary as to what they should

think. They don't understand that politics are being played, and that

the government had a political agenda from the beginning. Now that it

has made its political statement, it is backing down and trying to be

practical by patching up this bill. But no amount of patching the bill

will bring back the good faith and sense of cooperation that existed

before.

I'm not going to elaborate much further except to say this. There is

one area of education which is becoming more and more public education

as part of the government design, and that's the independent school

system. From my reading, the bill has failed to address in any

substantive way the role of the independent schools in the future.

I understand that in order to teach in the public school system you

need to become a member of the college. You need to be certified. Only

certified teachers are going to be able to instruct. The independent

schools are not as stringently controlled. There will be many

independent school teachers who will not be members of the college,

because they're not going to be certified and not required to be

certified in order to instruct in independent schools. That is a

disparity, I think, that the bill should have been addressing if the

government is seriously concerned about the quality of education and

standards and maintaining an opportunity for everyone that produces a

product of predictable quality.

That, I say, is another dimension that has seldom come up in this

debate, but we have suggested in the past that the government's

long-term agenda is to transform the public school system, reducing it

to a group of employees who are essentially without muscle to influence

the direction of education and to be in very much of a position even to

defend their own roles as professionals.

Some of us feel that the government sees the independent school

system, the ability-to-pay approach to education, as the thing of the

future. Now that, perhaps, is a look into the crystal ball based on the

government's practice and apparent philosophy with respect to public

schools and public education, but we shall see if that is the case. We

shall see if, in fact, there is a move to shift funding from the public

schools to the private schools, and if, we will notice any substantive

changes in the quality of those institutions and those means of

providing an education for the public.

I believe my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will be voting

against Bill 20. Better yet, I hope the government will come to its

senses and withdraw the bill.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I have just noticed in the House this morning our

two friends from Nanaimo, Art and Win Baker. Art Baker is one of those

people who regularly embarrasses me on the golf course, and Win Baker

is the president of the Nanaimo Writers' Group. I would ask the House

to join me in welcoming them, please.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of

Bill 20. I am sure that the members of the House are very aware, as you

are, of the numbers of hearings and the numbers of briefs that were

presented to me in my tour of the province, as it relates to industrial

relations and Bill 19. At every one of those hearings, the local

teachers' association made presentations. In some cases, because of the

area that the hearings covered, there was representation from as many

as three or four groups of teachers representing their local

association.

Mr. Speaker, the gist of those presentations, with almost no

differences, was to the effect that the teachers wanted the right to

negotiate their working conditions. They felt that they were a class of

citizen, because of the act that they were governed by, that was not

able to bargain their working conditions. Almost every other citizen in

British Columbia has that right.

They also suggested that their request to bargain their working

conditions should also include the ability to withdraw their services,

to reinforce their bargaining position, as they felt necessary. They

also suggested, very strongly and without any question, that they

should be bargaining with their individual school boards.

I guess the fourth issue, consistent in each presentation, was that

the CSP should be removed. With Bill 20, that is exactly what we have

given the teachers the right to do.

I have great difficulty in understanding some of the concerns being

expressed, because I have in front of me excerpts from those

presentations that request exactly what we are doing in Bill 20. I

grant that the teachers' college was not part of their requests. But I

think we have ample evidence that in the professional field, as has

been recognized by lawyers, doctors, nurses and engineers, there is a

requirement to differentiate between the responsibilities of a

professional organization and those of one empowered to bargain working

conditions and, if you will, wages and salaries; those professional

groups have recognized the need to separate those two. We as government

have recognized that a professional college is required in the teaching

profession; and we have given them the right to negotiate their

salaries, working conditions and all of the other things, just like

every other individual in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in the requests that came to me there consistently was

the request that they be included under the labour relations act. And

we have done that. But the teachers must recognize and realize that

with the right to negotiate working conditions and salaries go

responsibilities. Among those responsibilities are the rights of

individual teachers to make the decision as to how they wish to bargain

They certainly have the right to form a teachers' union, if you will.

They have the right to continue with the BCTF in a true democratic

manner, if that is the wish of the majority. They have the right to

bargain as an association if certification and the formation of a union

is unpalatable to the various teachers' organizations.

With those rights that we have given them, Mr. Speaker, they also

have responsibility, and that responsibility is to ensure that they are

doing the majority will of their members. There is no legislation,

which I would certainly like to point out to this House, that requires

mandatory membership in a labour organization of any of the other

citizens of British Columbia. The B.C. Federation of Labour, the

Teamsters, the United Mine Workers and the Steelworkers all have the

right to form a labour organization to negotiate their wages, salaries

and conditions. But that is not a mandatory right by legislation, and

what we've done is given the teachers the rights that everyone else has

in the province of British Columbia.

[10:30]

[ Page

1003 ]

I heard from the Hon. member who immediately preceded me in speaking

that we have destroyed the sense of cooperation that was there from the

teachers by the introduction of Bill 20. I have in front of me a number

of newspaper clippings that make me question that remark. On Tuesday,

March 17, 1987, in the Vancouver Sun , prior to the introduction of Bill 20, the headline reads: "Teacher Leader Warns of Mass Walkout in the Fall." In the Victoria Times-Colonist of Tuesday, March 17, 1987: "Teachers Talk November Strike." In the March 18, 1987, issue of the Vancouver Sun :

"Teachers Take Steps to Strike." Mr. Speaker, if that is an indication

of the aura of cooperation that existed prior to the introduction of

Bill 20, I have difficulty understanding what cooperation means.

There have been many suggestions that Bill 20 is allowing teachers

to be fired without cause. Mr. Speaker, I assure you that if the bill

is carefully read and understood.... There are a number of defences and

appeal mechanisms that would require investigation if there is firing

without just cause or without due cause. I would suggest that today's

society just does not allow people to be fired from their job or

vocation, or however you wish to express it, without cause. There are

many, many remedies at common law that deal with situations that are

unfair and unjust. So I have great difficulty in understanding the

accusation that teachers can be fired without cause. There are a number

of appeal processes for teachers who are dismissed, and I believe that

their democratic rights are well protected in the bill.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There is some question about the teachers' college. Who will control

it? Who will be in charge of it? As I understand Bill 20, the teachers'

college will eventually be formed by the duly democratic process that

is in place. The teachers themselves pick the members who will sit on

the college — not every member, but certainly 15 out of 20. If this

House were composed of 20 members, certainly 15 out of 20 would have, I

would think, the right to ensure that decisions in the democratic

process are fair and equitable.

The speaker from the opposition side who preceded me made a

statement that was kind of interesting to me. He suggested that Bill 20

was unworkable, but almost in the very next sentence he suggested that

teachers in the independent schools should come under the college, to

ensure that they were controlled. If it's not workable, it's difficult

for me to accept the recommendation that teachers in the independent

schools should be brought into the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: And they do if they have a B.C. teaching certificate.

HON. L. HANSON: As the Education minister has said many times

— and most immediately, just now — there's no requirement for teachers

in the independent schools, as a qualification to teach there, to have

a teaching certificate. But I would suspect that teachers in those

schools would be very interested in attaining a teacher's certificate,

because it is in fact a certification of their qualifications and

ability to teach.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Many of them have.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know what the percentage is, but certainly a number of them have. Thank you, my colleague.

I have some interesting quotations here from the various briefs that

were presented to me during the course of my labour review hearings.

This is from the BCTF brief: "The federation is committed to bargaining

on behalf of all of its present members. It believes that school boards

agree that such bargaining should take place at the local level." Mr.

Speaker, that's exactly what Bill 20 does. There is no reason why the

federation can't continue. All that is required is the same as every

other citizen of British Columbia is required to do: that people who

are part of the B. C. Teachers' Federation agree on a majority basis,

in a truly democratic manner, that they should continue.

Another quote, Mr. Speaker: "The federation supports all reasonable measures

aimed at ensuring that bargaining disputes do not reach an impasse. Of these

measures, a systematic process of preventive mediation seems most likely to

accomplish that goal." With the new Industrial Relations Council, that

is exactly what we are providing in Bill 19. The disputes resolution division

is required in the legislation to provide preventive mediation to ensure, where

and when possible, that labour disruption does not occur before the difficulty

erupts.

In appendix A of the B.C. Teachers' Federation brief, they say that

they are entitled to the following basic rights: the right to have fair

employee bargaining procedures for teachers set in legislation — Bill

19, when they come under it, will ensure that they have those

bargaining rights; the right to collectively bargain, with school

corresponding statutory authority — a duty of school boards to bargain

in good faith on all such matters. Mr. Speaker, if the local teachers

do in fact certify and become a union, which will be a decree of the

adjudication division of the new Industrial Relations Council, the

school boards, as the employers of the teachers, will be obligated to

bargain in good faith in all matters.

At the BCTF's annual convention it became very clear that the

federation was dedicated to embark on a deliberate strategy of

escalating job action in order to obtain full collective bargaining

rights. This was during mid March, and as I quoted from some of these

media reports, the Teachers' Federation were very clearly committed to

a plan of escalating job action. That was well in advance of the

introduction of Bills 19 and 20. We responded to their concerns in

their convention. We gave them the ability to negotiate. We gave them

the ability to negotiate working conditions. We gave them the ability

to form a labour union if they so wished. We gave them the ability to

form an association if a labour union, by decision of the majority of

the local group, wasn't their preferred way of doing their bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of those articles, of their concerns and of

the numbers of hearings that I held across the province on the labour

review, we have answered the teachers' major concerns –– I know that

they are having some difficulty. They are suggesting that the B.C.

Teachers' Federation should not only be the professional bargaining

association, but it also should be the professional association that

judges on quality and disciplinary action as it relates to teachers ––

I think it's well accepted, by the evidence that I have given as it

relates to doctors, lawyers, nurses and engineers, that those two basic

concepts must come in conflict at some period of time.

[ Page 1004 ]

Therefore it seems most appropriate that they should be divided, as we have provided for in Bill 20.

I know that the Minister of Education has been meeting with the

various groups, and I know that he is proposing to introduce some

corrections, if you will, to ensure that the clarity of the intention

of the bill is there and cannot be misunderstood. Mr. Speaker, I think

that proves that this government is a consultative and open government

and that we are listening to those concerns that are being expressed.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to say again that inherent in the

responsibility of bargaining your working conditions and salaries goes

the responsibility that the members of the school districts should have

the democratic right of making their choice as to how they wish to

proceed with that. That is a basic democratic principle that we in

British Columbia and certainly our government recognize, and we have

provided that in the legislation. The mandatory requirement to belong

to the B. C. Teachers' Federation has been removed. I believe that is a

good move. I believe that we have given those teachers the right to

make their own decision, as it should be, and that we have provided for

them the opportunity to show that they are truly a democratic

organization, that they are truly professional people, and that they

now have the ability to form their own organizations and their own

course of direction, as we believe it should be.

Mr. Speaker, I am fully in support of Bill 20, and I know that Bill 20 when

put in place will be

an act that will work well, and that the teachers eventually

will come to understand that it is a good act for them, and that they will have

all of the t democratic rights that all of the rest of the citizens of British

Columbia have, and that it will work for the betterment of education in British

Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start off by apologizing for my voice. It's not what it should be.

I also want to make some remarks early in regard to the previous

speaker's statements about the rights given to teach ers by this bill;

about his statement that the teachers will come to understand that this

bill is good for them; and that government believes that the teachers

will understand that this bill is as it should be in delivering the

rights of democracy to the BCTF

I think that those kinds of statements are revealing about the

perceptions the government have about democracy and about the rights

that people in B. C. — in their terms — are being awarded. My

perceptions and my understandings of rights are givens; they are things

that people have, and the only thing that stands in the way of those

rights is restrictive legislation. I suggest that there has been

historically restrictive legislation in this province that has denied

the rights of teachers, denied them basic rights of collective

bargaining and the right to withdraw their labour. Indeed, the

government is not giving them rights, but I would hope that the

government's intention would be to remove those restrictions on the

teachers' rights. That is a really different perception from what the

government has been outlining.

In addition to the different perceptions about rights and about democracy in

this province, there is also a difference in an acknowledgment of those realities.

When the government say that by this bill they are giving the teachers something,

that they are giving them the rights to bargain and giving the rights to withdraw

their labours, it is also very clear, as has been said over and over again,

that that is doublespeak; that the government are not only not giving the teachers

something, but indeed they are reinforcing the restrictive legislation that

has already been in place by then taking those rights that they have acknowledged

in Bill 20 away from the teachers in Bill 19.

[10:45]

The members on this side have over and over again talked about the political

agenda of the government. I think it is very important, and it is

becoming very clear to the people of this province, that this legislation has

nothing to do with democracy, has nothing to do with the rights given to teachers,

but indeed is a political agenda that the government is putting forward. Along

with the doublespeak we are hearing, we are also seeing an agenda unfolding

that has nothing to do with education ' has nothing to do with caring for,

and the delivery of good quality education to, our children.

I think that the government now must understand very clearly that

the teachers are not going to roll over and play dead, that there is no

way that the teachers could have lived on a daily basis with the kinds

of working conditions that have been imposed upon them by previous

governments and have come to the stage in their own political

development and political awareness that they now are in a situation

where they are understanding that if they don't stand up for their

working conditions, and if they don't then stand up through their

working conditions for our children's learning conditions, nobody else

is going to; that the government will continue to erode the school

system in this province, and indeed that the teachers are the last

stand.

The government has talked about the rights of the teachers to

negotiate, but then turns around and denies them the right to withdraw

their services. It is ironic that for working people in this province

the only right, the only power they bring to negotiations is their

right to withdraw their labour, heir right to say "we will no longer

perform a service" if they are not getting the justice that they feel

is their due.

It is ironic also that at this time the issue that is causing so

much tension is the withdrawal of voluntary services by the teachers.

It is in itself ironic that our teachers are putting in so much

volunteer time because they care about the development of our education

services and because they care about our children. Now to make their

point, they have to withdraw services not required of them but services

that are volunteer. The withdrawal of volunteer services is causing so

much conflict in our province, it is interesting to put it in that

perspective.

I also think that it is interesting, when we are talking about the

government and their perceptions and their understanding of democracy,

to see how revealing this legislation is about not only the doublespeak

but the tolerance of the government. If indeed the government respects

teachers, respects the job they are doing, if they respect workers in

this province, surely they would allow workers to define their own

democratically chosen organization. But what the government by

legislation — and I find that incredible — is doing is denying teachers

the right to develop their own organization. The BCTF has been around

in one form or another for 60 or 70 years. This is an organization that

has been changing, growing and developing to meet the needs of the

teachers and the children in the educational programs in B.C.

The government doesn't have enough respect for the organizations that have been developing over this time to

[ Page 1005 ]

allow them, once their rights as workers have been

acknowledged, to then define how they will function within those

rights. That's a basic that I would have thought is a given, but the

point is that the government not only is not acknowledging those givens

but is so wrapped up in its own agenda — not only teacher-bashing but

bashing the democratically developed organizations of teachers — that

they can't even themselves see that they have their own spot in all of

this which they want to reach come hell or high water — and I'm not

sure if that word is....

MR. ROSE: Come rain or come shine.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Come rain or come shine.

I wanted to use this time to encapsulate some of the points that

have already been made. I'm standing to oppose the second reading of

Bill 20, and I think that this is a good opportunity for this House to

take a look at some fundamentals like respect for working people's

organizations, like tolerance and like democracy. While time and time

again each and every political party in this province gets up on the

podium come election time and talks about the merits of democracy and

getting involved in an election, this is the real test. This is the

test about the daily functioning of organizations, about whether or not

working people in this province can have some say in their working

conditions, and about acknowledging and respecting what that means and

what working people truly bring to the work that they do not only for

our children but for the prosperity of this province. So I would like

to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to do the small sum-up,

and again I state my opposition to Bill 20.

MR. S.D. SMITH: In rising in this debate, I want to speak

somewhat briefly to the principles that underpin what I think are the

two most often discussed, debated and perhaps contentious parts of Bill

20: namely, the College of Teachers and the so-called removal of

principals from their bargaining group.

But before doing that in the specific, I want to say that I have —

and I have said so on many occasions — great concerns about the

appropriateness of using the strike-lockout system of dispute

resolution in the B.C. public school system. However, that decision

will be left to local teachers, and I think that the potential for

public hardship is somewhat ameliorated by the impact of some of the

provisions of Bill 19. In Kamloops constituency, I can tell you, my

views are shared widely in that regard by many educators and many

parents from both School District 24 and School District 26 in the

North Thompson Valley.

In speaking to the general principles of Bill 20, I think I should

frame them within the context of my views about public education in

British Columbia today, and what I consider to be the oppressively

negative attitudes which have underscored many opposition members'

comments during their speeches in their consideration of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of public school education in British

Columbia today is in my judgment very, very good. During the last 12

years, enrolment in our public schools has declined by over 58,000

pupils, or a full 11 percent of the 1975 school population. The average

class size in our elementary schools has declined slightly since 1975

and it has increased slightly at the secondary school level during that

same 12-year period. Schools during that period have integrated large

numbers of students who were previously excluded from the mainstream

public school system. Our changing social demands, our family structure

changes and education demands have inflicted enormous challenges on the

system during that 12-year period, and yet by all objective,

comparative, achievement measurements our students perform well when

compared with other Canadian provinces and indeed when compared against

school system has been challenged by changes in enrolment, in funding,

in objectives and in service demands during the last 12 years, and it

has met those challenges in large part because it has in it first-class

educators, dedicated local trustees, I think quite highly skilled

administrators and frankly a succession of ministers of education whose

sole leadership purpose and objective has been to improve the system

for our children.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear member after member in the opposition addressing the principles of Bill 20 by

excoriating the system and therefore, at least inferentially, those who run it, I want to remind them that

if they truly wish public education to prosper in British Columbia, then they had better begin to address

its needs from a. foundation of pride, encouragement, positive support and constructive criticism. Because

if they continue with their oppressively negative approach to the challenges of public education, I think

they run the risk of convincing citizens they ought not to support public education and should instead seek

out its alternatives. That, it seems to me, would be a tragic result of their often misguided rhetoric in

debates such as we are now enjoining.

[11:00]

MR. ROSE: Enjoying?

MR. S.D. SMITH: Enjoining.

Mr. Speaker, throughout debate on the principles of Bill 20, and

indeed during the debate on the hoist motion which preceded it, I've

tried to listen very carefully and very conscientiously to the

opposition members because I thought that they might rise to the level

of very principled debate, which I think was exhibited in this chamber

during second reading of Bill 19. But as a new member in this House and

as one who I think for the last 20 years has been a bit of an

afficionado, of this place, and who has sat in the public galleries

from time to time, since the time I was going to the University of

Victoria, I have been somewhat disappointed in the debate and the

speeches that I have heard from members on the opposition benches,

because instead of the kind of principled debate that we heard on Bill

19 in second reading, we have heard member after member rise in their

place and behave as a kind of shill for a very rich and powerful

private-sector special interest group.

MR. ROSE: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was

wondering whether or not Your Honour finds the word "shill," as applied

to members of the opposition, rather unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've heard the word used before by both sides

of the House, but that doesn't make it a particularly good word. I

think perhaps the second member for Kamloops might withdraw that just

in the interest of good parliamentary procedure and language.

[ Page 1006 ]

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if that word offends the members

opposite, then let me say they have stood in their places and acted as

a kind of decoy for a rich and powerful private-sector special-interest

group; and acted in that way, as sort of legislative decoys, while

their mentor organization performed its task of attempting to take

debate out of this institution and onto the streets by, it seems to me,

seeking to buy time for the purpose of organizing disruption and

disinformation and discord. To me, that kind of process demeans this

institution of the people and does no credit to Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition. Far from being a new beginning, it seems to me that that

kind of strategy is a bit of a hackneyed rerun of a long-performing

charade on the part of the NDR

The nub of the criticism of the principles of this bill seems to

focus on the notion of the college and on the role of principals in the

schools. I must say, quite frankly, that I really don't find any

difficulty with the idea that those who play a supervisory or

administrative role ought to stand somewhat apart from those that they

supervise, relative at least to their own bargaining system.

It is said that principals are prevented from forming an association

or from developing joint strategies for preparing and implementing

their own contracts. I don't see that in this bill. But it seems to me

that if greater clarity on that point would smooth the waters, then I'm

sure that the minister has been listening, and I suspect that he has

indeed been hearing.

Regarding the style of leadership that principals will provide once

they are separated, as the word is used, from teachers, it seems to me

that at least their style of leadership will depend largely on their

own leadership abilities and the ability of each individual, just as it

does now. I can't see how it is that the change in the structure of

administration is going to change the ability of an individual to be a

good leader in the school system.

The questions surrounding the college in this bill, I think, boil

down to two issues. One, is that system of organizing professional

activity appropriate? If it is, who makes the judgment, legislators or

the existing public school organization? The asking of the question is

probably the answering of the question. Nevertheless, in my view the

question of how best to organize a profession which will include public

school teachers and teachers in separate school institutions and

private institutions.... It seems to me that that question is properly

decided by representatives of the public in this Legislature, and not

by individuals who belong to a private organization.

As to whether the college is the most appropriate forum in which to

organize professional activity, Mr. Speaker, my reading of the

legislation assures me that this system will enhance the teaching

profession. I think it will improve public confidence in our school

system and increase the ability of teachers to control their own

professional activities and to speak out with greater credibility on

education issues when they are dealing with the public of British

Columbia. All of those factors compel me to conclude that the college

is a good organizational model and that it will serve the public of

British Columbia well.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to restate my commitment to

public education and my belief that our public schools are much better

than they have been given credit for, particularly by opposition

members in this House. I want to acknowledge, again, the important,

valuable and outstanding contribution that our educators make in the

classroom each and every day of the school year. Finally, I want to

state that I have no doubt the college system proposed in this bill

will improve public perception about the profession, and it will give

teachers, both inside and outside the public school system, the

opportunity to take greater control over their professional activities.

Mr. Speaker, in my view that will result in a better, a healthier and a

more vital public school system in British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hadn't planned on speaking on second reading,

but the member for Kamloops somehow gave me the urge. With his

statements of the last few minutes he provoked me into saying something

in response.

He talked about the challenge the teachers have faced in these dire

days since 1975. It is interesting indeed that he uses 1975 as the year

that he would measure against. We all know why he might choose that

date, Mr. Speaker: a change in administration. Because the challenges

have been in terms of restraint and teacher-bashing like we have never

seen in this province under the decade of your present leader, and your

former leader, whom we all seem to have forgotten in recent days.

He talks about them being dedicated and skilled, and then he

mentions a succession of ministers — the nice, legal way of talking

about it being a revolving door. The last job anybody wants in a Social

Credit administration is the job of Minister of Education. I remember

the member for Boundary-Similkameen looking like a drooping flower

around here once he got the appointment of Minister of Education. That

was downgrading under Social Credit. That's the history of it over

there. If you're going to put anybody in the doghouse, it's Education

or Human Resources. That's where you put them when they're on the

downhill slide. There have been a dozen ministers in the last decade in

that revolving door, and we get the legal niceties from the lawyer from

Kamloops talking about a succession of ministers. I don't think

succession is quite the right word. He talks about the need for

constructive comments on the part of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Criticism.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, criticism, indeed. Did he ever mention

that to his former boss, the former Premier? Did he ever mention it to

the former Minister of Education, the present Premier? Wouldn't a few

constructive things from that earlier minister have been helpful in

those days? That's not what happened at all. He talks about the

opposition excoriating these people. Really! The ultimate teacher

bashers in British Columbia are the Social Credit Party par excellence.

They are the ultimate teacher bashers, and that's what they've been up

to. Look at what your present Premier has said through the years,

suggesting that they're all socialists in the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, that they're all political folks over there. As recently as

last night he got up and gave a speech saying that if they wanted to

get into politics they should get out of teaching; that if they're

interested in political issues they shouldn't be teachers. That's

barely different from the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) who got

up and gave a speech just a while back in this House, who is so anxious

to get into cabinet and might very well beat out the member from

Kamloops in terms of that exercise because her speech was less tolerant

than his and more in keeping with the former Minister of Education's.

[11:15]

[ Page 1007 ]

I mean, what did he say? He suggests they're socialists, suggests

that they're playing political games. They're responding to the

politics of this party that's in power in British Columbia, and they

have little choice but to respond because the dialogue has been far

less than adequate. The statements are there and they've been read

through by the many members on this side.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member from Kamloops, the riding with the

most interesting issues of privilege in British Columbia, the most

interesting mixture of conflicts of interest in British Columbia, in

that part of the interior, talking about the rich and powerful. I

thought he might be talking about some of his friends in Kamloops or

around here, but he was talking about the B.C. Teachers' Federation as

the rich and powerful. Where did you go to school?

AN HON. MEMBER: St. George's.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that the sort of thing that St. George's

might advise you in terms of who the rich and powerful are in our

society? Hardly. So it's a strange kind of view of the rich and

powerful; and it's a simple 30,000-member teachers' organization, who

in my view, I might modestly suggest, lack a lot of political skills. I

think we've seen that, but I won't go into that because that would

upset too many people and all the rest of it. But to suggest that these

are politically motivated people is absolute nonsense. And to suggest

that the teachers of British Columbia are the rich and powerful — that

kind of line will not do you well, Mr. Member, in terms of getting

through the cabinet door.

MR. S.D. SMITH: On a point of order, the second member for

Vancouver East has just stated that I suggested that the teachers of

British Columbia were rich and powerful. He well knows that statement

not to be correct, because I believe that he has ears that are capable

of both listening and hearing, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation.

I'd like to clarify it. He sees the BCTF as rich and powerful. It's

equally absurd, and so I'm glad to apologize. It's an equally absurd

statement. The rich and powerful are a very different group, a

different elite indeed, and the member from Kamloops knows only too

well who they are. That's all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. Well, maybe

it isn't all I have to say.

MR. HUBERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to stand and

speak in support of Bill 20. I believe this is good legislation, but it

is unfortunate that it is being misrepresented for a political purpose,

particularly by the BCTF and also by our opposition. This part about

teacher bashing, giving the impression that we don't care — and we do

care — I can't recall ever getting any feeling in caucus or wherever

with my members saying that we don't care for teachers. That's the

impression that the opposition would like to put across, but that isn't

true. We do care, and because we care that's precisely why we're

interested in having this Bill 20 put through.

Teachers are not given the true picture of what this legislation can

do for them. For example, many teachers and former teachers have been

frightened into believing that their pensions even are being

threatened, even though their pensions are protected by the teachers'

pension act. Some teachers are afraid that they will lose all their

professional and individual rights as a result of Bill 20. This is

demonstrated by a letter to the editor from a Victoria teacher, which

was published in the May 2, 1987, edition of the Victoria Times-Colonist .

The teacher wrote: "With Bill 20 I lose both my individual rights and

my professional rights. I also lose the freedom to speak for my

students. And if I can't, who will?" Mr. Speaker, this letter was

obviously written by a caring teacher who is genuinely concerned about

her students. Unfortunately, there are some fundamental problems with

her statement. First, this legislation does not stop teachers from

speaking out on behalf of their students. Secondly, this legislation

does not remove a teacher's individual or personal rights. In fact,

teachers' rights are enhanced.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must elaborate on what I have just said.

I recognize that most teachers are caring professionals to whom we have

entrusted the responsibility of educating our young people. I am

pleased that they are willing to speak up for our children; but there

are others who will do the same. As a parent, I consider my children's

education essential to their future, and I will also speak out for my

children when necessary. As one of two MLAs for Saanich and the

Islands, I consider the education of the children in my constituency

essential to their future; and I will speak out for these children when

necessary. Prermier Vander Zalm's government and the Ministry of

Education care about the children of this province, and also speak on

their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, our government deeply cares about the children of this

province, and that is why we have introduced this bill. This

legislation is designed to expand teachers' bargaining rights, to

create a College of Teachers and improve the delivery of education

services to our children. That is why we have increased the budget for

the Ministry of Education by over 11 percent, to $1.4 billion; and the

Ministry of Advanced Education and Job training by over 10 percent, to

$800.9 million. We want to ensure that the young people of this

province receive the best education possible, so that they are prepared

to meet the challenges of the future.

The BCTF is saying that Bill 20 is a confrontational bill. The BCTF

has accused the government of playing politics with children. I believe

that it is the BCTF that is playing politics with our children's

future. The BCTF is not telling their members, or the public even, that

our government consulted with them before this legislation was

introduced and that they are still trying to negotiate fairly with the

BCTF I have spoken to many educators, and those in the know say that

the BCTF has received everything they requested. True, it wasn't in the

format they requested, but they have received practically everything

they requested.

Many members on the government side of the House have rightly

pointed out that this legislation grants the two main requests of the

BCTF which were made in their submission to the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) entitled "Improving the Labour

Relations Climate in Public Education." First, Bills 19 and 20 will

result in the normalization of free collective bargaining for teachers

in B.C.'s public schools and, secondly, the compensation stabilization

program will be eliminated.

It is unfortunate that the BCTF is trying to convince many teachers

that this legislation will remove teachers' individual and professional

rights. Individual teachers will have a real

[ Page 1008 ]

choice in the future, and I want to challenge

individual teachers to start thinking for tbemselves. Bill 20 offers

teachers the same bargaining rights which are available to every

employee in the province. They will have the right to form a union or

an association at the school district level. Unions will have access to

all grievance arbitration procedures available under the Industrial

Relations Act. Associations will have access to private mediation and

fact-finding assistance.

Our government will not arbitrarily force union membership upon

every single member of the teaching profession without consulting with

them first. This is what the BCTF would have us do, because right now

public school teachers are required by statute to be members of the

BCTF If the BCTF had it their way, teachers would have no choice as to

whether they wanted to belong to a union or whether the BCTF should

even be that union. Is that democracy'? Is that giving teachers

individual rights?

We live in a democracy. This legislation guarantees every teacher

the democratic right to vote on whether they want to be represented by

a union or a professional association. Membership in the BCTF will no

longer be required by statute. Teachers will have an opportunity to

democratically decide their future. Is the BCTF afraid to go to their

membership for support? If the BCTF is truly representing the view of

all their members, it will be reflected in their final vote.

The College of Teachers will be run by a 20-member council, of which

75 percent will be democratically elected by their fellow teachers. The

teachers of this province are responsible individuals, and I am sure

that they will elect teachers to this council who will represent the

needs of both the teachers and the children fairly. The college will

have the power to determine the qualification for teachers, to become

the profession's disciplinary body and to ensure continued professional

development of teachers. The college will defend the professional

rights of teachers.

The teacher whose letter I quoted earlier also wrote: "I want to

continue with my own professional development, with reliable

professional services to support me in that goal." I realize that the

BCTF has provided some good professional services in the past; I have

no doubt that the College of Teachers will uphold that tradition. The

Ministry of Education will also continue to provide the same quality

service it has provided in the past.

As we know, the BCTF claims to care about the children. Then why did

they hold a so-called study session on a school day? They could have

made a stronger point by demonstrating that their membership is

wholeheartedly willing to give up a Saturday to rally behind the BCTF

If it was in fact a study session, should not both government and BCTFs

viewpoint have been discussed? If it was a study session, you would

think that they would have come up with the same concrete

recommendations for change. I would suggest that these things did not

happen, because this was not a study session in the true sense but

rather a political rally.

Many teachers throughout this province voluntarily sponsor

extracurricular activities in their schools, and I think they should be

commended for that. They do not get paid for this; they do it because

they love their jobs and care about their students. But if the BCTF

really cares about the children, then why have they ordered an

instruction-only campaign and ordered teachers not to participate in

any extracurricular activities unless they are approved by a provincial

jury of the BCTF?

If the BCTF really cares about the children, why are they forcing

politics into the schools? If the BCTF really cares about the children,

why on March 17 to March 18, ten days before Bill 20, do we hear from

Elsie McMurphy that unless teachers get a fair wage settlement, see the

compensation stabilization program eliminated and get full bargaining

rights, they will begin to start processes around May that could lead

to a provincewide withdrawal of services by June? I don't detect any

sensitivity to students or our children there. I don't see any great

love or feeling for the children in that. That doesn't impress me at

all. To me that seems more self-serving than taking care of our

children in British Columbia.

Many dedicated teachers are being forced to make very tough moral

decisions. Would they let their students down by taking

part in an

instruction-only campaign? Some students have trained hard all year to

make it to sports finals, or are planning a trip or other activity.

Will they face disciplinary action by the BCTF? That is a tough

decision for our teachers, and I have had many calls from them. I can

have empathy with them, It is not an easy decision for them.

Right now the BCTF is not only the bargaining body for teachers but

also the disciplinary body. I wonder how many teachers are going along

with the instruction-only campaign because they fear for their jobs.

Many teachers attend the BCTF study sessions. I wonder how many of the

teachers who did attend the study session went because of peer

pressure. I am sure that many of the teachers who were not in the

classroom were also not at the study session that day.

[11:30]

I wonder how many teachers chose to go out for a long walk or to

stay at home to do their gardening because they did not support the

BCTF-ordered study session but also feared the peer pressure or

possible disciplinary action from the BCTF if they went to school to do

their jobs. Is it a democracy to have the BCTF act as both bargaining

unit and disciplinary unit? Should a union be able to lay ethic charges

against its members or dictate who should be allowed to teach in this

province?

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 20 because I believe that with the

passage of time teachers, students, parents, individuals, British

Columbians and even the BCTF will come to realize that our educational

system has been strengthened by the passage of this legislation.

As Crawford Kilian pointed out in the Province newspaper of Tuesday,

May 5, when we look back on the uproar of 1987, it will be hard to see

what the fuss was all about.

MR. HARCOURT: Bill 20, Mr. Speaker, has three reasons why it

should not receive the support of this House. The first is that Bill 20

breaks the promise of peace and cooperation which the people of this

province desperately want. Second, it attacks the education system; it

does nothing to support it. And third, it provides a poor model for

leadership and good government.

As I said, the first reason that Bill 20 should be opposed is that

it breaks the promise of peace and cooperation made by the Premier.

Last fall, during the provincial election, going door to door, in the

media, in statements made by the Premier, there was definitely a mood

created that in spite of the fact that the voters were dealing with

another Social Credit government, it was a new Social Credit

government, under a new leader — a new Premier — that offered a new

hope, a fresh start for British Columbians, a break from the

centralization

[ Page 1009 ]

and confrontation of the previous Social Credit

administration. When many voters voted for this government last fall,

they were voting for that fresh start, that break from the

confrontation, chaos and disruption of the previous five long, bitter

years,

This present government, through legislation like Bill 20, is

breaking the trust it gained from those voters. Bill 20 does not offer

a fresh start. It only offers more confrontation, more of what the

voters thought was part of the past, not of the future.

The hope of peace, cooperation and stability in this province was

reinforced by this government's Speech from the Throne. The opposition

and, I'm sure, the citizens of this province looked upon the Speech

from the Throne as keeping the promise of the election, that promise of

hope.

Although I wasn't sure if the government's arousal of seniors with

the user fees and of realtors and first-time homebuyers with the

minimum $100 payment on property taxes, through legislative changes,

was a sign of things to come, that certainly now appears to be the case

with Bills 19 and 20. This government has taken great strides down the

confrontational path it had promised the citizens of this province it

would not follow. Having provoked that confrontation, it has set this

province into a conflict mode once again. The Premier has done nothing

to attempt to bring reason and conciliation to the situation. Rather,

he has chosen to inflame the situation, to raise the temperature, to

increase the climate of confrontation. The Premier has said that

consultation does not mean capitulation. This is tough talk-tough guy.

This is not the talk the voters heard or the smile they saw last fall.

This is an all-or-nothing attitude being put forward by the Premier.

This is not talk of reason and conciliation. This is saying: "Do it my

way or else."

No one — not teachers, not parents, not the public, and certainly

not the opposition — is questioning the government's right to govern.

What we are questioning is the wisdom of government, any government, in

shoving legislation down the throats of a segment of society; forcing

upon a segment of its citizenry legislation which dramatically affects

them, without having the common sense, the openness and the willingness

to accept the concept of fair and reasonable representation of affected

groups in the governing process. In a truly representative democracy,

Mr. Speaker, government should not use legislation to silence a sector

of society which, through its organization, has spoken out against the

educational policies of government. Mr. Speaker, as you know only so

well, government should be above that.

Does the Premier really believe that if the government structures of

teachers are changed as provided in Bill 20, the problems of education

in this province will somehow go away? Does the Premier really believe

that this legislation is going to do anything positive for the public

education system? If the Premier thinks that teachers in a union or a

college are going to accept the largest class sizes in Canada in this

province, then he is wrong. If the Premier thinks that educators in a

union or college are going to stop speaking out for desperately needed

improvement in the learning conditions in our schools, then he is

wrong. Those problems will not go away if Bill 20 is passed.

A second reason Bill 20 should not be supported is that it attacks

the education system rather than supports it. No one on the government

side of this House has tried to defend the record of the previous

Social Credit government in the area of education. It's indefensible.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I've listened to the speeches, and I haven't

heard anybody stand up to defend the eight years of bitterness,

alienation and diminishing respect for educators and the education

system. No one has denied that for five years the public education

system in this province has undergone a major adjustment promoted by

and prompted by unpopular government policies of cutbacks and

centralization. No one has denied that the citizens have rejected the

confrontation which those policies brought when they were forced upon

an unwilling body of teachers and school boards. And yet this

government brings in a major piece of legislation which again attacks

the system, instead of providing it with much-needed support.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 creates new powers affecting teachers in the

educational system. It proposes to establish a college that exists

nowhere else in Canada — nowhere else in Canada. Bill 20 provides a new

role for principals in the administration of schools and the

implementation of educational policies, a management model that exists

nowhere else in Canada.

Bill 20 gives new powers to school boards with respect to the

tenure and job security of teachers, powers which, when combined with

the disciplinary aspects of the college and the new management role of

principals, establish the legitimate basis for fear on the part of

those who work in the educational system in this province; a system

which, if this legislation passes, will be like no other in the entire

country of Canada.

This legislation does nothing to support an education system that desperately needs support.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair]

Madam Speaker, I would like to identify some of those areas of

support that the system desperately needs, that would be of use to the

minister to finally listen to. Representatives of the secondary and

elementary teachers' associations in Vancouver made presentations to

the Vancouver School Board earlier this spring regarding their budget

preparation. I would like to quote a few passages from those

presentations to highlight the real concerns of teachers and parents

and I'm sure the community at large of the city of Vancouver. Madam

Speaker, I'm going to speak about class size and support services

because, as I said earlier, the working conditions of teachers are the

learning conditions of our children. The two go together.

I quote from the educators in the city of Vancouver about class size:

"Problems of class size and teacher workload remain of

paramount concern to members of the association. One of the overriding

causes of declining teacher morale in the past few years has been the

steady climb in the number of students faced each day, for teachers are

well aware that the quality of instruction and the amount of individual

help and attention available decline as the class size rises.

Presently, most secondary teachers meet in excess of 200 students in a

cycle, and find it all but impossible to provide the quality of

educational experience they believe the students need and deserve.

"Provincially, Vancouver remains one of the poorest

districts in the province in terms of class sizes, while it clearly has

one of the most demanding student

[ Page 1010 ]

populations in terms of socio-economic and educational needs.

The BCTF class-size survey this fall has ranked Vancouver seventy-fifth in terms

of combined elementary and secondary class size."

as a second language, and many other grave difficulties that make this

even worse for the children and the parents and the people of Vancouver.

The second area that's not being dealt with, that's not being

supported by this legislation or this government, is the question of

support services. I quote:

"While the primary concern is service to the children

in the classrooms, the role of the various support services must not be

lost sight of. These services deal with a wide range of problems.

Clerical help, for example, in preparing materials for classroom use;

freeing teachers to mark, plan and tutor rather than type, xerox and

collate.

"The second area, maintenance staff: to halt the

steady physical decline of the school plants, and create a more

comfortable, safer environment for all children and employees.

"The third area, professional support: to help classroom teachers cope with students' problems, both academic and emotional.

"The past few years have been marked by a sharp

reduction in these services, and we urge the board to take steps to

ameliorate the situation in 1986."

That's the grim situation in the classrooms in Vancouver, Madam Speaker.

[11:45]

There are problems in the education system in Vancouver, in Langley

and all over this province. This government had a chance to address

some of those concerns — a chance to demonstrate its concern for the

teaching and learning conditions in the classrooms of this province, to

show support for the public education system and to begin to heal the

wounds in a seriously demoralized system. Well, Madam Speaker, the

Premier blew that chance. I believe he blew that chance when he chose

instead to attack the system once again, when he chose, through the

introduction of and debate on Bill 20, to attack the teachers of this

province and, through them, the entire public school system in which

they teach and in which our children team. What a shame!

The third reason why Bill 20 should be opposed, Madam Speaker, is that it provides

a poor model for leadership and a poor model for government in a democratic

society. What is the Premier's problem? Why does he demonstrate such an

intolerance when dealing with teachers and the public school system? Why is

he once again so intolerant? Why can he not follow a cooperative, consultative

model in dealing with legislation related to this profession when he does so

with other professions? I outlined them previously — all the other professions.

There's been a five-year consultative process with the legal profession

— with dentists, engineers, all the other professions. Why have a hit-man approach

with this one profession? Why insist on a heavy-handed, top-down approach with

teachers? Why can he not deal amicably with teachers and their representatives,

whether he agrees with them or not? That's what democracy is all about —

different opinions. Can the Premier not accept that the vast majority of teachers,

and not just their leaders, are opposed to Bill 20? Can the Premier not accept

that the teachers' vote and subsequent actions in this province are a statement

by the vast majority of teachers in this province on Bill 20? Why must the Premier

interpret everything as he wants it rather than as it really is? A good leader

would deal with reality and not confuse leadership with the fanaticism represented

by this vindictive Bill 20.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what a good government would do to

deal with the concerns of those who teach and learn in our school

system. As I said, the two go together: teachers' working conditions

are our children's learning conditions. Good government would be

magnanimous. It would not use the Legislature for vindictive purposes.

It would treat teachers as other groups have been treated in respect to

their professional rights — in a consultative, consensus-building,

cooperative process.

Good government would deal with all, groups in the society it

governs in a fair and reasonable manner. It would govern for all and

would not discriminate against any group in society, even if it did

disagree with its viewpoint. Good government, Madam Speaker, would

commit itself to building the best public education system possible.

It would reach out to all people, to all students, regardless of

where they live, regardless of their economic status and means. Good

government would reach out to all the citizens of this province —

teachers, trustees, education support workers, parents, students and

members of the public — to ask them to work together to build the best

public education system possible in this province, one pledged to

excellence and equality; excellent and quality education for all

students in this system, regardless of academic ability, and equality

of access to those programs and services to all students, regardless of

their economic means. That's what good government would do, Madam

Speaker.

It would unite the people of this province, not legislate against

segments of them. That is the good government that the opposition is

pledged to support. That is the kind of good government we will bring

to this province in 958 days.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, because Bill 20 does not represent an action of good

government, because Bill 20 attacks an education system badly in need

of support, because Bill 20 breaks the promise of peace and cooperation

sorely needed in this province.... It is for these three reasons that I

ask this House to defeat Bill 20.

MR. DIRKS: In light of the time, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada