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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1011 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Provide For Canadian Ownership Of Hydro-Electric Utilities (Bill M202).

Mr. Clark

Introduction and first reading –– 1011

Presenting Reports –– 1011

Oral Questions

Health care for women. Mrs. Boone –– 1011

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Smallwood

Deputy ministers. Mr. Harcourt –– 1013

CNR abandonment of Vancouver Island linkages. Mr. Bruce –– 1013

British privatization program. Mr. Rose –– 1013

Delisting of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 1013

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Dirks –– 1014

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 1015

Division –– 1022

Tabling Documents –– 1023

Dentists Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 2). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 1023

Mrs. Boone –– 1023

Boundary Act (Bill 3). Committee stage –– 1023

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Appendix –– 1024

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, it

gives me great pleasure to introduce residents and visitors from West

Vancouver. I'd like you to welcome Beth and Dave Mathieson. For the

information of the assembly, Mr. Mathieson was a Member of the

Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, representing

Charlottetown from 1947 to 1951. Furthermore, Mr. Mathieson's father

was Premier of Prince Edward Island from 1911 to 1917. Would all

members please welcome the Mathiesons to our assembly today.

There's one more — sorry about that. The Speaker's got a lot of

friends. Hon. members, also from the Speaker's riding, would you please

welcome Mr. John Gregory.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the

Legislature this afternoon a person who was the mayor of Vancouver's

communications assistant for six years. She was also the film

commissioner for the city of Vancouver, and worked very closely with

her counterparts in the provincial government to bring about 47 feature

films to British Columbia and to Vancouver last year — Ms. Jane

MacDonald.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the members' gallery today Mr. Mike Sone. Mike is the author of Pioneer Tales of Burnaby .

This book, which was initiated in 1981 when I was the mayor of Burnaby,

has grown to over 500 pages, with extensive use of historical

photographs, and will be published this month. I would ask the House to

recognize Mike Sone and congratulate him and the many others who

contributed to the publication of this book.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming

the former CCF MLA for Mackenzie from 1952 to 1966: Mr. Anthony — better known

as — Tony Gargrave.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are 180

students from Jericho Hill School for the Deaf in Vancouver. I believe

one group of those students is in the House at this very moment. Would

the House please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the precincts today are my daughter Kim and her husband, Mark Chaisson. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. JONES: I would like to introduce a constituent of mine

today, George McLaughlin, who works at UBC and is a member of the

Canadian Union of Public Employees. Would the House please make George

welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting the Legislature today is a young

lady from Kamloops, now residing in Vancouver. She is visiting friends

here in the buildings and I'd like the House to welcome Michelle

O'Reilly.

MR. S.D. SMITH: On behalf of the first and second members for the great

constituency of Okanagan South, I'd like to ask the House to join me in

making welcome a gentleman from that constituency, Dick Stewart.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR CANADIAN OWNERSHIP

OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC UTILITIES

Mr. Clark presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide for Canadian Ownership of Hydro-Electric Utilities.

MR. CLARK: This is a simple bill which amends the Utilities

Commission Act to prohibit the sale of hydroelectric utilities to

foreign interests. The current act contains no such prohibition. The

immediate impact of the passage of this bill would be to disallow the

sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to Missouri-based UtiliCorp

United Inc.

The purpose of such amendments is really twofold. First, effective

regulation of a foreign-owned utility is exceedingly difficult, if not

impossible; at the very least, the costs of regulation rise with

foreign ownership. Secondly, and more importantly, electric power

represents a vital and strategic

section of the economy. The provision

of abundant and inexpensive electricity can and has been utilized

historically in British Columbia as a catalyst for economic development.

This, of course, was the cornerstone, as members opposite know, of

W.A.C. Bennett's provincial economic strategy. The purpose of this bill

is to ensure the possibility of continuing such a strategy in the

future.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Crandall, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, presented a report, which

was read as followed and received:

"May 7, 1987. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs

leave to report as follows:

"

(1) That the

preamble to Bill PR402, intituled

Victoria Foundation Act, has been proved and the bill ordered to be

reported as amended.

"

(2) That the

preamble to Bill PR406, intituled

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, Amendment Act, 1987, has

been proved and the bill ordered to be reported.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. CRANDALL: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

MRS. BOONE: The question is to the Minister of Health. Women

have consistently been denied their fundamental right under the Canada

Health Act at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, as you're well aware.

The minister claims to have

[ Page 1012 ]

received no request for an investigation, even

though many citizens, including members of the Royal Inland medical

staff, have written with complaints. The official opposition has

repeatedly requested an investigation. Can the minister confirm that he

is stonewalling an investigation because of his own personal and

religious convictions?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that

I'm not stonewalling. I would like the member to know also that I do

not investigate Vancouver General, who perform abortions pretty nearly

on demand, and I'm just saying to the member for Prince George North

that the act is very clear. The Criminal Code of Canada spells out very

clearly what my role is as the minister in reference to abortions, and

I'll repeat it, just in case the hon. member has not heard me the last

four or five times. Under the Criminal Code of Canada an accredited or

designated hospital may appoint a therapeutic abortion committee. This

committee shall consist of not less than three physicians. They will

make the decision whether in fact an abortion may be performed or not.

Are you asking me as a layperson to second-guess a physician and say:

"I will overrule. You must perform abortions." Come on, you don't

really mean that.

MRS. BOONE: What I mean is that the medical staff contends

that the committee is making moral rather than medical judgments. The

minister has continued to ignore the situation in Kamloops because of

his beliefs. He has clearly failed, to uphold the rights of the women

in that particular area, Will the minister now do the proper thing and

resign so that someone unbiased can do the job?

HON. MR. DUECK: I have said in the past, and I'll say it

again: my responsibility as Minister of Health is exactly what I

spelled out to you earlier, and I will not take any action in regard to

the letter from the doctors in Kamloops. Yes, I have received that

letter, and in that letter they state very clearly that they have no

confidence in the board. That does not tell me those physicians are not

operating properly. That does not tell me the hospital is not

functioning properly. It tells me the board has chosen — this

therapeutic abortion committee, who are physicians.... I'm not

second-guessing them. I'm not saying that the three physicians who are

in favour of abortions would do a better job. I don't know. That's not

up to me to decide. I'm telling you we have an abortion committee in

place; they are functioning. Health care is not being jeopardized, and

therefore I have no reason to take any action whatsoever.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health: if the

doctors have no confidence in the board, shouldn't the minister be

taking action forthwith?

HON. MR. DUECK: If I may again, to the opposition, I believe

there are 130 doctors in Kamloops, and 60 of them decided they had no

confidence in the board. That doesn't tell me the hospital is not

functioning. It also doesn't tell me.... These physicians who are not

in favour have no confidence in the board on one item only, and that's

abortion. They are doing their job properly, as physicians would;

that's the oath they took. I understand they're performing their duties

excellently.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House how many doctors it would take for him to finally take action? Would 66 be enough?

HON. MR. DUECK: If you ask me how many it would take, I haven't got the answer and I'm not going to say.

MR. WILLIAMS: It could be the whole 130. What the minister is

telling us is that his own religious beliefs are interfering with the

administration of these statutes in this province. Is that what he's

telling us?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the board has

been duly elected; the therapeutic abortion committee has been properly

appointed. There's an election coming up in June. If the people of

Kamloops do not agree with the present board, they can elect another

one.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Minister of Health, Dr. James

Dewar of the staff there has said that the guidelines established by

the board should be accepted by the medical staff. Would the minister

agree that that's a reasonable request?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the member that we do not run hospitals; we fund them.

MR. BARNES: I just want to ask the Minister of Health one

question. The minister has suggested that the board was elected; that

the abortion committee is duly appointed and is carrying out its

duties; that he does not want to interfere. Would he make a distinction

between the functions of that board and the Vancouver School Board,

which is also duly elected, and which was fired by a minister of this

government? Is there a difference between when you use your power and

when you don't?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I believe a lot of these

questions are not to get answers; these questions are just to show

their bias. They say I'm biased, but everybody's biased. I'm telling

you again that we have a system in place, and that is to elect people

from a society that is formed. This is historic. If it is changed in

the future, it may well be that it's an election at large, but at the

present time it is not, and therefore we abide by the system that is in

place.

Furthermore, I'm really amazed how much effort is put into

performing abortions rather than keeping someone alive. The effort is

just I can't believe the pressure that's put on to make sure that every

women gets an abortion. Really, I do not understand it. Why aren't you

equalizing it? I'm not witch-hunting in Vancouver General. I'm not

going in there and saying: "You have 100 percent abortion.... Everyone

that requests one has an abortion." But you're accusing me of being

biased because I am not taking action in Kamloops. For goodness' sake,

keep it straight. I am not biased. I am being equal. I am being neutral

on either one.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has made

reference to the amount of effort that has gone into preserving the

rights of individuals to safe health care. The point of our concern is

that we have a 14-year-old in this province who has had to go through a

stillbirth. Mr. Minister, at what point does the health of the people

in our communities

[ Page 1013 ]

raise enough concern in your mind that you will go in and investigate it?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am being loved; otherwise they wouldn't be picking on me.

I must tell the member again: I am not the abortion committee. We

have a system in place, and you want me to overrule that. That is not

my job. How many times do I tell you that?

DEPUTY MINISTERS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about deputy

ministers and the Premier's office. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries

(Hon. Mr. Savage) and the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) have confirmed

publicly that the Premier's new centralized system requires that deputy

ministers report directly to the Premier on administrative concerns, staff levels

and review of ministry programs. Further, the deputies have been expressly forbidden

to discuss these concerns with their ministers. To quote the Minister of Agriculture:

"The deputies are the employees of the Premier. There are a lot of discussions

with the Premier; that's not my responsibility."

The question is: can the Premier confirm that this absolute

centralization of authority is the reason for the ministerial

incompetence we have witnessed in recent weeks leading to, for example,

ministers introducing bills they have not even read?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this

question. I was beginning to think for a moment that the only thing

that mattered to the NDP in B.C. was abortions.

Having said that, however, I want to answer the question, because I

think it is of importance that the Leader of the Opposition and other

members across the floor be aware of how the system works. The deputy

does report to the minister. There is that line of authority, and

obviously there is ongoing communication. However, the appointment of

the deputies is by order-in-council, on the recommendation of the

Premier.

CNR ABANDONMENT OF

VANCOUVER ISLAND LINKAGES

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. CN Rail has

applied to abandon a number of linkages on Vancouver Island, particularly one in my riding of Cowichan-Malahat.

Many of these linkages come down to tidewater and are extremely important, I believe, for the economic well-being

of Vancouver Island. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he's aware of the abandonment process by

CN Rail, and what he is intending to do about it if he is aware of it.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The answer is yes, I am aware of it, and I

have protested the proposed abandonment to the Hon. John Crosbie,

Minister of Transport.

BRITISH PRIVATIZATION PROGRAM

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a question of the minister of

intergovernmental affairs and privatization. Yesterday the minister was

asked about the study of the failure of the British privatization

program to resolve worsening unemployment in Britain. The minister

indicated that the main reasons for the failure were "poor white trash

and 10,000 immigrants in that country." I notice the minister winces,

as he should. I wonder if these comments are reflective of the

minister's attitude towards unemployed British Columbians as well as

British workers. Can he advise how it's appropriate to refer to anybody

as "poor white trash"?

[2:30]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'd like to certainly see the quote

that you quote from. I don't take credit for making those remarks at

all. I would be prepared to speak at length in my estimates on my

discoveries on privatization in Britain and other items that were

brought forward, but I don't associate myself with the remarks you

made. If someone has said that I had made those remarks, I

categorically deny it.

DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL

TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. On April 3 of this

year the Vancouver Stock Exchange delisted a company by the name of

International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. It was done only after it became

evident that the company had ripped off hundreds of investors, and only

after $172 million in stock certificates were rendered worthless. I'm

sure the government now has had the opportunity to investigate this

matter. My question is simply this: can the Premier now assure the

House and the public that this was an isolated incident, and that steps

have been taken to prevent a sin War scam in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question

on notice and refer it to the Minister of Finance, and he will provide

the proper response.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. It's

a generally accepted principle in our society today that employers are

responsible for the actions of their employees. For example, if a

government employee does something wrong, the government is held

responsible for those actions. This concept is known, of course, as

vicarious liability.

Is it the policy of the government that the principle of vicarious

liability ought to apply in stock market dealings, in matters with

brokerage houses and their employees?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's a question of legal opinion. I can't respond to that.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of law that I'm

to the directives that it passes on to the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

What is the government's policy with respect to the vicarious liability

of employees working for brokerage houses?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will take that as notice as well, and provide it to the Minister of Finance, and he can incorporate that into his response.

[ Page 1014 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued debate)

MR. DIRKS: I'm pleased to rise this afternoon in this debate and speak in favour of Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act.

I listened to the debate this morning with great interest, and

really, I'm quite amazed at what I heard. This bill has now been

available for study for over a month, yet in spite of all the ongoing

debate, in spite of the media attention to this bill and its

provisions, the Leader of the Opposition this morning revealed to me

that he still doesn't understand either the meaning of this bill or its

provisions. In his speech this morning he deplored the B.C. class sizes

and the lack of support services in our schools. Does he not realize

that for the first time in British Columbia's history, when this

legislation is passed, the teachers will have input as to class sizes?

They will be able to negotiate those things as support services. This

is a right presently denied the teachers under the School Act. At the

present time, teachers are only allowed to negotiate with school boards

on salary matters. This has been an irritant to the teachers and one of

the reasons the teachers, in their brief to the labour review committee

and the brief submitted by the BCTF, requested full bargaining rights.

They wanted to negotiate all matters concerning their workplace. Bill

20 will give them precisely this opportunity.

I would therefore urge that the Leader of the Opposition, while he

is making his jaunts around this province, might take Bill 20 with him.

It is good reading on the airplane. I believe that if he studied this

bill in detail, he would see that it gives the teachers precisely what

they have asked for, and the right to negotiate class sizes.

But it wasn't just the Leader of the Opposition. Listening this

morning to the other Hon. members opposite, and listening to the

pronouncements of the BCTF over the past several months, I get the

funny feeling that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The local teachers' associations in their briefs to the Minister of

Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson), wanted immediate action;

they did not want to wait for the royal commission. They wanted full

bargaining rights, they wanted to be treated like any other public

sector employee, and they wanted it right now. This was also borne out

by the BCTF` brief. On page 33 of that brief they state:

"We hope you will act quickly to implement them,

because the problems we have described are aggravated by the passage of

time. The provision of a basic system of collective bargaining between

teachers and boards has been on the agenda for too many years, has been

sought in too many briefs, has eluded the action of too many ministers."

The announcements by Elsie McMurphy through the media of March 17 and 18 on

behalf of the BCTF threatened job action prior to the end of this school year

unless they had their demands met. The urgency for change certainly came over

loud and clear. This was before this legislation was introduced into this House

on April 2. Yet when this legislation was introduced two weeks after McMurphy's

statement — two weeks after McMurphy had stated there would be job action this

year if they did not get these rights — we see the BCTF again calling for job

action, when the fundamental rights, the basic things that they asked for in

their brief, are found embodied in this legislation. On March 17 the BCTF said:

"Give us what we want or we'll walk out." On April 2 they were

given that, and we still had job action. You're damned if you do and damned

if you don't.

Of course, this is certainly in keeping with the Leader of the

Opposition's statement this morning. He is obviously damning this

government because of class sizes, yet he condemns the very legislation

that will allow teachers to negotiate class sizes.

I know both sides of this House deplore the disruptions that are

happening in education today. Education is our future, and these

disruptions that we see are being played out under the present

legislation. Our present system is not functioning properly. The BCSTA,

the BCTF and the minister all agree on that point, that changes are

needed. Yet the opposition would like to delay changes that will bring

about a better, harmonious situation in our educational system.

You can't ask for things today and then, when you are being granted

them, say: "No, we don't want them." You can't ask for government to

act quickly, and then when it does act in an expeditious manner say:

"Whoa, we need more time."

Why is time being requested? It is my understanding that time was

necessary in order to come up with amendments so this legislation would

be satisfactory and would create the desired results. And yet listening

this morning to one of the Hon. members opposite, because some

amendments are now being contemplated he stated that this legislation

is obviously flawed. Again the old idea of damned if you do, damned if

you don't. The whole idea of debate, which will allow time for the

opposition and the public to make themselves aware of this legislation

and suggest specific areas where changes might occur for better

legislation — that's the consultative process. That's the process that

the minister has carried out. That's the process that he has been using

with the BCTF over the last several weeks, Now, when the possibility of

amendments is being brought up, the opposition says: "Well, if the

amendments are needed, it can't be good legislation." You can't have it

both ways, Mr. Speaker.

Not having it both ways, I think that's a key problem. I believe

that that is the crux of the debate that is going on on the outside

today. Up till now, the BCTF has been able to have it both ways, and I

believe that's a fundamental problem. Up till now, whenever it suited

its purposes the BCTF was able to don its professional hat and appear

as a professional organization. Whenever it suited their purposes, off

came the professional hat, on went the union hat, and they acted as a

union.

This debate has gone on in the BCTF for years. Which side would gain

precedence, the professional aspect or the union-type aspect? They have

been able for years to keep their association fair and healthy and do

whatever they wanted to do, whenever they wanted to do it, by

maintaining that debate rather than having to commit in one direction

or the other. This legislation, however, brings the local teachers'

association and hence the BCTF as an association to their hour of

decision. The BCTF will now have to decide whether it will remain as an

association and represent those local associations of teachers who wish

to remain outside the union, or whether it will want to form itself as

a true union and compete with other unions for the local teachers'

associations that wish to go the union route.

[ Page 1015 ]

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the essence. This is why this debate

is raging on the outside. This is why there is hesitancy out there.

This is why the BCTF is opposing this legislation. It has nothing to do

with the rights of the teachers that BCTF is worried about. It's not

the classroom situation. It's not the education of the children that

the BCTF is worried about at this point but rather which way the BCTF

should go — association or union.

[2:45]

I don't think at this point the BCTF executive are clear in their

minds as to which way they can jump and maintain the majority of

teachers under their wing. Even if they do jump in the right direction,

Mr. Speaker, there is no certainty that they will be able to maintain

those teachers under their wing, as they have in the past with

mandatory membership, unless they are responsive to the wants and

desires of the local association or union of teachers, whichever way

they go. The local teachers' association or union could opt out. This

is the hesitancy — which way to go, union or association — for the BCTF

Which way will they be able to maintain themselves? But just as the

teachers at the local level are now going to have to decide whether

they want to form local associations or organize into a union, the BCTF

has to make that decision, a decision they haven't been forced to make

before.

In my discussions with a pro-BCTF teacher just last week, I asked

him at one point: "What would have been the reaction of the BCTF if the

government, by a stroke of the pen, had simply declared the BCTF to be

the teachers' union and that the mandatory membership clause would

remain in effect?" He looked at me for a moment and then said: "It

would be quite different." I'm sure it would be. But we don't do that

to any other employee in this province. We don't do that to the public

sector employees; why should we do it to the teachers? The teachers

asked to be treated the same as any other public sector employee and

they are getting that treatment under Bill 20.

Much too much, in my opinion, has been made by the teachers and the

opposition about the College of Teachers: that this is something the

teachers did not request, that there is no basis for it, no need for

it. But local teachers' associations will now have the opportunity to

either remain an association or go union; should they go union, they

will no doubt have a choice as to which union they would prefer to go

with. The BCTF chooses one or the other. There will no longer be that

one body in this province that is responsible for the professional

development of all teachers.

When you combine professional development with some of the rights

and privileges that are now vested in the minister — such as

certification, decertification, quality of education of teachers — and

when you put those new rights and powers into the College of Teachers

and also give that college the mandate for professional development, I

believe that for the first time in the history of B.C. the teachers of

this province will have a truly professional organization that will be

able to determine the destiny of teachers professionally. I believe

this is an exciting time to be in the education field. When you couple

the College of Teachers and the professional development that can

occur, that professional association, and when you separate completely

the salary negotiations in those matters dealing with local school

boards and give that to a separate body, under this new legislation

teachers really will have rights and privileges that they never had

before. They will be able to bargain or to negotiate with their school

boards on all matters that they feet are important in the education of

children. Teachers have talked about class sizes, teacher aides,

preparation time; these things have been brought into the public eye a

number of times. But teachers were helpless to negotiate with school

boards on those matters. Now they will have the right to negotiate

those things. They will have the input into the education of the

students of this province which they have requested in the past and

were denied.

I would urge that we move on in the debate of this bill to the next

process, where we can debate it

section by

section and see some of

these amendments that may come forward to create better legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping to keep my comments

relatively brief, but there is a fair bit of material to cover. So in

the event that I need the extra time, I would like to indicate that I

will be the designated speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we've had some interesting discussion on Bill 20 and

the hoist motion for, I guess, the best part of two weeks. Presumably,

much of the discussion was to be on the philosophical aspects or points

of view presented by Bill 20. Unfortunately, much of the discussion and

criticism was about things that were neither directly stated nor even

implicit in Bill 20. I suppose you'd put it in the category of creating

straw men and then slaying these straw men that did not exist and were

not intended to exist; some of us can't find them anywhere in the

legislation.

However, while this public debate has been going on, we have been

meeting with the representatives of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and

the B. C. School Trustees' Association. We have also had considerable

input from parents, students, teachers, superintendents,

administrators, school boards — from almost everywhere. We've had a lot

of input: some expressing concern; some expressing misconstrued

concerns; and a lot of discussion and debate actually fomenting the

misconceptions that have created a lot of unnecessary anxiety. We have

done our best here in the House and through the media, through whatever

avenues were available to me, to try to correct the misconceptions. I

fully appreciate that there may not be full agreement on some of the

philosophical aspects of this legislation; but we had certainly hoped

that people would at least react to the legislation on the basis of

correct information, which was certainly available to anyone who wanted

it. If some of the things that teachers and students were told were in

fact true, I could certainly understand much of that anxiety.

Unfortunately, it was, as I said, unnecessary anxiety, because they

don't exist.

However, I'm pleased with the progress made in those negotiations. I

think we're going to end up with a better bill, a more clearly

understood bill. Those discussions have resulted in a number of

amendments, and I'll be commenting more on that later. I can tell you

at this point that many of the amendments are technically perhaps

unnecessary. But we were looking at going as far as we possibly could

in cooperating to make sure that what was intended in the legislation

was what was in fact understood by everyone — and perhaps I'll give a

few examples later on in my comments. Our objective, therefore, was to

clarify, to improve, and to alleviate any concerns that might come from

misinterpretation of the wording of the bill.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think that as teachers, administrators and the general public recognize what is actually intended by this legislation,

[ Page 1016 ]

much of the furor can die down, will die down, should die down, and

we can get back to what this is all about: serving the best interests

of the students and the public in this province. I think there are many

people who espouse that view. Unfortunately, we get wrapped up in a

number of things. For instance, going back just a bit....

I have been meeting, since I was appointed Education minister, with

the BCTF and the BCSTA. I think I met with some 45 or 47 school boards

in the province, almost all of them through the regional zone meetings,

in that interval. I asked a lot of questions, and heard a lot of

presentations and what I consider to be worthwhile discussions. I can

remember saying on numerous occasions, yes, I can appreciate your

impatience, but judge me in two years when I've had an opportunity to

deal with some of these things that you're concerned about. I might

point out that we had many good achievements come from these

discussions in that period of time. We had the child sexual abuse

prevention program that from the report, to hiring a coordinator, to

putting a program in place and getting it out in a system in less than

six months — which I consider not bad, considering the system.... We

were able to put together in less than six months an early retirement

program that had been proposed. We discussed that and agreed on it, and

that was again to serve the best interests of the students by

rejuvenating the teaching force. We did get a royal commission in

place, not to everybody's satisfaction but certainly underway and

operating, and I think as it evolves we'll find out that it has a broad

mandate and an opportunity to really look at what needs to be done in

education and what direction education should take in the future.

I also consider it a considerable accomplishment that in that short

period of time, with all of the views that prevail in our society about

sex education, we have been able to put together a program that is for

grades 7 to 12 in the schools in September. That is out, and actually

to even procure extra funding for that over and above our budget, as we

put more things into the school system.... I think we can't keep doing

that. So that is on its way and other steps are being taken. In the

meantime, the regular process goes on of monitoring that program and

eventually incorporating it into the original design of a family life

and sex education program, to be fully in place in this province by

September 1989. So that is going along very well.

It might be interesting for many members to note that committees

have been meeting, discussing that and dealing with that while all the

furor is going on. So I use that to illustrate that there is a common

bond among educators, the government and the people in this province,

and that common bond is to try to serve the best interests of the

students and society.

[3:00]

I can tell you that we've made progress in simplifying the Fund for

Excellence program, and that is in the process now of being sent out to

school boards. Many of these things we have accomplished in that short

period of time. We had a problem about textbooks; we were able to deal

with that — not to the full extent, but certainly $600,000 in one year

— by cutting back other functions of the ministry, which I think is

somewhat of an achievement.

On special education, the Leader of the Opposition made the point

that we have ignored special education and ESL — the

budget for ESL in this province went up from just over $28 million to

over $33.5 million in that year, and it's up considerably again this

year.

There have been many improvements of and extensions to special

education, not only the funding that has been accomplished; but I have

said repeatedly that a few years ago this government made the decision

to deinstitutionalize many of the mentally and physically handicapped

students and to incorporate them as much as possible into the normal

streams of society. That has been accomplished in a very short time.

Yes, and the credit goes — as practically everything that happens in

the school — to the professionalism of the teachers who function in

those classrooms. I have never questioned that; I have commended them

and I think they deserve the commendation of our total society for the

way they have incorporated, involved and included some of these very

severely handicapped.... If some of you had the same opportunity, and I

hope you do, to go into some of the schools where you see people who

are almost totally and completely paralyzed except for head movement,

and with the help of equipment and a computer word processor, actually

tapping out and writing stories and communicating with me as I was

standing there — no mean achievement.... Certainly costly, but imagine

what it must do to those people.

So all of these things are going on. Perhaps that's setting the

stage. However, what I was faced with was that while we were making all

these accomplishments or achievements together and for the common

purpose, there was continually the underlying fight for full bargaining

rights. I would have a good meeting, come back and be blasted: "Unless

you do something, we're going to take job action. We wanted the royal

commission." We said: "Okay, we're going to appoint a royal commission

immediately." The B.C. Teachers' Federation and others said: "And don't

you dare bury this business of bargaining rights for teachers under the

royal commission. We'll not have that; we'll not tolerate it, because

we've waited too long already." Yet we've heard a lot of comments here

about: "Well, why not now leave this to the royal commission?" I

suppose in a sense it's because I was responding to.... The royal

commission report and the implementation of that report could be two

years away, and in the meantime we were threatened with constant,

continuing and escalating disruption in the school system in order to

deal with the full bargaining rights. Now I'm told: "Well, why didn't

you just leave this to the royal commission?" Because I didn't want

further disruption for another two years in the education system while

that fight went on. Neither did this government.

So what we needed to do was get that settled, the bargaining rights

issue and all of that, so that we could get back to what we're 0 here

for — and I say "all of us" in the education system — and that is to

make it the best possible education system, so that we could

concentrate on that. Believe me, it was not easy to be negotiating all

the time, to be talking and trying to get these improvements in

curriculum, in funding and all of these things where we're saying let's

work together, and then the fight. Well, you know, that was a difficult

role. I chose to play it, but I suppose I'll have to take the blame for

it, if you like. I guess I lost out on that one.

My last attempt at that was just before the annual general meeting

of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, when I asked them if they would at

least invite the Minister of Education to their annual general meeting

and let me talk to them. Maybe the battle plan was drawn, or whatever,

but I was assured that I

[ Page 1017 ]

would not get a proper hearing. I said: "I'm

willing to take that risk. At least hear my side of it." The answer was

no. To me it was astounding that the organization that claims to be the

primary organization with an interest in education in this province

would not let the Minister of Education speak to the annual general

meeting — and hadn't for a few years — even though I was willing to

take the risk.

I can assure you that that is not why this legislation is here — as

sort of an "Okay, if you wouldn't have it that way, you can have it

this way." The reason this legislation is here is to try to meet the

needs and the requests of the teachers of this province in that they

said they were entitled to full bargaining rights and there were little

arguments left to say that they weren't. If you go to the full

bargaining rights, then certain other things were triggered from that,

and that decision was made. The Labour minister went around the

province, and I went around the province. We all heard this from

trustees and from boards: that we can and should be able to bargain

between our local association and the board, the employer, because that

is the actual fundamental relationship of governance of teachers and

boards in this province.

I might digress for a moment and say that a lot of the discussion

here has been that this legislation, Bill 20, does not deal with

curriculum concerns. I have to commend the members opposite, the ones

who did that, for being very astute. It does not deal with the budget

for education, with curriculum, or with special education. So I have to

grant you that fully. And why so much discussion went on attacking what

the bill wasn't doing.... This bill was dealing with the teachers'

organization in the province and how it functions, and collective

bargaining. Once in a while the discussion got back to that; and

perhaps, in that vein, I should get back to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. I'm just getting back to it.

If I could outline some of the rationale, once the decision was made

to allow teachers full bargaining, as I've indicated, there was quite a

divided opinion among teachers — not just from my opinion, but from

votes they had taken and that sort of thing — about whether they really

wanted the right to strike or not. We felt that the diversity of

opinion should be recognized. It's somewhat unique that we have been

able to do that: to provide for teachers full bargaining rights,

including the right to strike, and at the same time retain a choice for

those people who didn't want it. Therefore we have the two types of

association, the union route or the association route, and both of them

covered.

Once we decided that and allowed for the fact that they then had to

be included under the old Labour Code or the new Industrial Relations

Act, and the fact that the choice was there and the demand.... Really,

the only option is that if the union option is available, then they

have to be able to organize at the local level, which is your basic

unit. From that, in effect, flowed the removal of compulsory membership

in the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

If people would set aside their bias and prejudice for a few moments

and just recognize what was happening here, we were going to give the

teachers the right, at the local association level, to form a union if

they so chose. You could not, by any criteria, then say, without any

reference to the teachers: "Here is your packaged, sealed, signed and

delivered list of members." If that right is to be exercised and the

choice is to be exercised by teachers to form a union, then you can't

have a pre-delivered list before your members even have a chance to

vote on it.

So the compulsory membership in the BCTF is for that reason, not to

destroy the BCTF, as has been thrown at us on many occasions. Because

under what we were offering and the choice that we were offering:

whether the local association formed up as an association without the

strike-lockout provision, but full bargaining rights; or whether they

formed up as a union, which makes them eligible under the Industrial

Relations Act.... In either case, it seemed to me eminently logical

that they would still want a central coordinating body. I suspected, in

my naivete, that that would probably be the BCTF, rather than CUPE or

the Operating Engineers or any other structure, because the common bond

was teaching. So I did not see this as a method to get even with or to

destroy the BCTF As a matter of fact, with this system the BCTF by

choice rather than compulsion could have a much stronger membership.

But remember, it wasn't just the individual choice of each member to

belong or not to belong. That was decided at the local level. So then

the local association by proper democratic vote could decide whether to

belong.

There has been so much said about this destroying democracy in the

education system and destroying the democratic rights of teachers. I

for one, and I am sure many others, can't possibly understand. When you

give people a choice as to which route they want to go, or to whom they

want to belong, or whether they want to stay with the organization that

they are familiar with and are fond of and that has done a great deal

for them over many years.... When you have given them all of these

choices — and, if you like, one more extension of democracy, so that

pressure can't be the tactic, which is a secret ballot so that every

member in the quiet of his or her own conscience can actually vote to

decide what route they want to take — somehow or other that is

translated and thrown back at us as removing democratic rights. That

one is a little difficult to swallow.

As I mentioned, the removal of compulsory membership serves a

purpose in this total package of legislation. The college aspect is one

that, yes, is a little different than it is in any other province, but

we were trying to recognize another interest that had been brought

forth, and that is professional control, professional autonomy of the

teachers in this province. There have been many proposals about the

setting of standards and qualifications and the issue of certificates

which are now the prerogative of the minister. I suppose we decided

that if we were going to go to the full bargaining rights.... You know,

there wasn't 100 percent agreement. There were still some people who

are leery of that, certainly in the public. "My God, why are you giving

the teachers the right to strike when we have already been faced for

two years with work-to-rule, and depriving, and some of these things?"

They didn't want it, but we felt that teachers, like any other group in

society, were entitled to it. So okay, let's go with the whole package

at this one time. Let's give them the professional autonomy over

certification. So that meant then that they said, as they have said in

the past: "We can do both." I don't know. I suppose history will tell

whether they could or couldn't. But there was certainly a strong

feeling here that as you extended the right.... And in many discussions

and meetings that I had, I said: "Can you deal with just disciplining

the few members who need disciplining in the profession by dealing with

them?" I continually got back from the

[ Page 1018 ]

BCTF: "No, these members are paying a fee. We are

obligated to defend and protect them." Yes, I do have some difficulty

with how you can say: "We will deal with you professionally, or we will

set up a committee that will look at misconduct on your part as a

teacher, and then we will hire the rest of our organization to defend

you to the umpteenth degree." That is the thing that we felt could not

be done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We are talking now about professional

autonomy. The school boards always have had and under the new

legislation still have the right to deal with incompetence or any of

those other things. There is no problem that way; that goes on. What we

are saying is that teachers were also asking for professional control

over their membership.

MR. ROSE: By boards.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Boards can deal with the incompetence part

of it; they can deal with misconduct; they can deal with many of these

things. But one of the things too that you have to recognize that

happened in this province is that a board could deal with that and

dismiss a teacher, and if somehow or other that leaked through the

cracks, that teacher could, in effect, teach anywhere in this province

and have to go through the whole routine again.

[3:15]

So yes, there have been some preventive measures that have been

taken, and yes, the minister is to lift a certificate now to prevent

that. Well, how can you say that we want to take over that function

from the minister? Now they are arguing that no, the minister should do

that. But they wanted to take this function. That was in their

submissions. They wanted to take over that sort of thing. So the

professional control over the membership.... And not just control;

remember that much of the debate always ends on these few. The vast

majority of teachers in this province never will face an incompetence

hearing or a misconduct hearing because — I don't know what the

percentage is — 99 percent or 99.5 percent of these people will

function professionally. Many of the things that have been debated here

are to deal with that small minority, but you always have to have the

vehicle to deal with them. So we felt that this could be done

effectively by separating the collective bargaining side so that it was

there and upfront and clear-cut, leaving the common bond between all

educators in this province under a college.

I know these have been proposed in other areas, have come forward,

have been moved back, and all of those sorts of things. We chose at

this time, when we were taking some of these major steps towards

bargaining and all of the other things, that it might be an appropriate

time to do this, and include other people in the province who were not

necessarily members of the BCTF, but who held professional teaching

certificates. Why not? They're all members of a profession, and that is

their common bond. Of course, once you give the college or the

professional organization — like the lawyers or engineers in this

province — the authority to set the standards and to issue or remove

certificates, then everyone who has a certificate must in effect be a

member of that college. So you have, then, compulsory membership in

that college of teachers.

So probably it's a lengthy step, but I think it was necessary to

clear up some of these things that ... this is a political move, this

is a political attack, this is an attempt to destroy the BCTF. The BCTF

can remain and could even be stronger under this system. There's

nothing to take away the BCTF here. The only thing that is removed is

compulsory membership, which, through their local associations, they

can enjoy the support of once again. So when I take these things in —

choice, full bargaining, professional autonomy, and the right to do

this by ballot, by their own decision-making, and run by their own

members — I feel that this has been a very democratic process.

I have touched on the royal commission. I don't know how often I can

say this: despite the fact that the royal commission was set up earlier

this year, now I and the government are told: "Why do you not leave the

bargaining issues, this whole issue of governance of teachers, to the

royal commission.... T' Despite the fact that the commission was there,

at their annual general meeting the BCTF laid out a battle plan of

escalating job action, including withdrawal of services by June 8 as

one possibility, in order to attain full bargaining rights. Now all of

that job action, which was already planned, predicated and organized,

is being blamed on the legislation, which gives them full bargaining

rights and democratic choices as to how they make it.... So it's a

little bit hard to accept that this legislation is what has brought all

of this about.

We have had work-to-rule, instruction-only — whatever name you want

to call it — for two years in this province. For two years we have had

that in this province, and then it was being threatened as of this

March that it was going to spread across the whole province, under

instruction from the BCTF, that everybody should get on this, because

as I think their president said.... I have a lot of respect for their

president as an individual, so I've tried to stay away from any

personal attacks, because I know she's dedicated to her cause, as I am

to mine. Both of us, I think, have been dedicated teachers, and I still

consider myself a dedicated teacher. But from the organizational

spokesmen, we have things like: "B.C. teachers voted overwhelmingly

Tuesday on a course of action that could see them on strike by June."

In their own newsletter, we have things like: "The annual general

meeting, in a dramatic demonstration of teacher frustration, has

endorsed an escalating provincewide job action plan aimed at ending

wage controls and achieving fair contract settlements." To achieve

that, while no right of strike existed, threatening and promising

strikes and withdrawal of services from students.... I could quote ad

nauseam, I suppose, on some of these things to defend the point, but

that's not the point of this.

This morning in debate we were again accused of the legislation

being very faulty, because now somebody has come up with 35 amendments.

We had said that there were 38 items for discussion on the table in our

negotiating meetings, and that we would bring forward amendments to

improve that, and we were told that the legislation obviously must have

been awful, because it has to have so many amendments. I've already

indicated that many of these amendments are only there in a sincere

attempt to cooperate: to make sure that what people are reading into

this, even though I don't feel it is there, is actually not there.

For instance, let me give you one example without getting into a

clause-by-clause debate now. The legislation says, in one section, that

those excluded from the bargaining unit are

[ Page 1019 ]

superintendents, assistant superintendents and

administrative officers, which by definition means principals, vice

principals and directors. The question arose: "You have not said that

supervisors and head teachers are included in the bargaining unit." I

can't for the life, of me see.... When you say that these are excluded,

my logic tells me everybody who isn't named is then included, but you

wouldn't believe how long the discussion went on. But a reference some

other place in the act, which could be a reference to teachers, doesn't

mention supervisors, which could actually mean they are or are not

included. In a spirit of cooperation we said fine, we'll say that

teachers includes supervisors and head teachers, and they are not

excluded.

Those are some of the types of amendments that we brought forward,

which I feel don't really need to be there other than to get the

cooperation of all the parties concerned.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be this great objection to

compulsory membership in the college. While the BCTF is saying that

it's evil and wrong to insist on compulsory membership in the college,

it is good and just and fair to insist on compulsory membership in the

BCTF When you juxtapose them, they are a little hard to understand.

It's actually a bit disturbing how people can translate something into

a problem when a problem didn't exist. For instance, in the

legislation, if they form a certified union under the Industrial

Relations Act, then all of those things apply. So set that aside for

the moment. But if they form an association, there's a clause that says

the association and the board may bargain fully — all terms and

conditions and everything else — and they may sign an agreement.

When the technical people got working on that, they said: "But you

haven't said in the legislation that an agreement binds the parties to

it." I didn't think, when two people voluntarily signed an agreement,

that you had to say: "And each of the parties shall abide by that

agreement." But would you believe that that was used as: "Yes, we said

they could sign an agreement, but we haven't said in the act that the

agreement has any meaning"? When two responsible groups of legal age

sign an agreement, I just take that as a given; but apparently it

wasn't so. One of the amendments is that when they sign an agreement it

shall, in fact, be an agreement between the two parties. So you can see

that some of these amendments are nothing to do with sloppy

legislation; they are simply to say: "My goodness, if that is not

understood, then we'll do that."

Other people have said — I suppose in the partisan debate which

often goes on here — that this legislation is going to damage the

education system in the province. It's going to damage kids, it's going

to damage all of these things, it's going to create ongoing

confrontation forever. I for one don't believe that. I think this

legislation provides the opportunity to get on with the collective

bargaining, to resolve that issue once and for all and say: "There you

are. By democratic vote you can decide that you are all united for a

professional cause in this province, and they will deal with that."

Then we can get back to what I would really like to get back to, which

has been my approach to a lot of things: to solve the problems in

education. Some of it is funding, some of it is curriculum, some of it

is other things. But we can work on those and solve problems if we work

on them together.

A lot has been said about the fact that the taxpayers in this

province overwhelmingly, poll after poll, agree that more money should

be spent on education. I think that is fine, but whenever somebody,

locally or provincially, ups the taxes, they seem to change their mind,

at least for that fleeting moment, about spending more money on

education. My approach to this is that as teachers, as trustees and as

a government we can work together, make the case for education and say

to the public that there is a cost. Somebody pays the bill, and all

we're really thrashing around is who takes the blame for it.

So we can work on that, and I think the public is willing to spend

more money on education. But I don't think that the public is

interested in spending money on education when, as they do so often to

make their point, members of the opposition or some others say: "Our

education system is rotten and no good; now please pump more money into

it." I guess that is one approach. My approach has always been to try

and find the positive side of it — that we have a good basis here and

that costs us some money. Education is a. good investment. We have some

problems, and those problems can be resolved if we put more money into

it. I've always felt that taxpayers are willing to put money more

readily into something that they feel is worthwhile and good and a good

investment than they are into something when they are told it's

horrible, it's a disaster, it's all of these things — pump money at it.

In that sense, when the furor dies down here we can really get back

to that approach and accomplish a great deal in this province. Maybe

not to the satisfaction of many people in here, but in this climate of

educational deficits and everything else, in relative terms the

Ministry of Education has done very well in the budget this year, and

that didn't just happen. We had to make the case in each case. Then

when as a government you are facing a deficit, you say the sex

education program is important but we can't just keep stuffing it into

that, so we need extra money. That has been achieved.

For people to say that I don't care about education, and don't fight

for it as I should as minister, is absolutely erroneous. Second, to say

that the government ignores education and doesn't care about it when

they do.... Despite facing deficits, despite having demands from every

other angle, they have provided money where we have been able to make

the case for it, and I think that happens. In many districts, if you

like, the same thing is happening, With the option of going to their

taxpayers,, many boards in this province have now said: "What we're

doing is not enough. We think we need more, and we're willing, as the

elected representatives of our local taxpayers, to ask the people for

more money — to increase the taxes." You don't hear.... Well, anybody

hates increased taxes, but you actually don't hear that much. I commend

those boards who have taken that route.

[3:30]

I must come back to so many things that were attacked and are being

attacked out in public. So many of the anxieties that teachers seem to

have about this legislation are not about the legislation but about

misinterpretations of it. As an experienced educator in this province,

when we look at this legislation.... One of the things was that since

conditions, including class size.... For the benefit of the Leader of

the Opposition, that's now negotiable. It never has been. It's now

negotiable between the board and the local teachers' association, so

they can reach those agreements. That is negotiable, and anything else

is there and can be negotiated. We've given a great deal of rights to

those boards to bargain.

[ Page 1020 ]

I know the phrase that's been thrown at us so many times about

teacher-bashing, and that is a neat little.... When we said, I guess a

few years ago, that we're facing hard economic times and teachers

should be part of that, you can see how in propaganda terms that could

be turned into teacher-bashing, and then anything that you say fits

that role. We've had that from the opposition; we've had that from some

of the BCTF propaganda machine. Once you get that emotional term out

there, of teacher-bashing, then even the facts don't seem to want to

make the case with some of those people.

For all of this teacher-bashing and holding down wages and so on, as

I've indicated before, the average teacher's salary in this province in

the last four years has gone up a thousand dollars per year.

MR. ROSE: You know why that is, don't you? Because you've got senior people....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Member, I can also show you

scale-by-scale comparisons, and show you that since 1981 they have gone

up. They have not gone up at the rate that people want, but they have

gone up. The spending on education has gone up, and all of those sorts

of things.

I might just touch on three things that the Leader of the Opposition

said in his speech this morning, and in his previous speech as well.

It's kind of handy when you can use the same speech on two occasions. I

guess many of us in this House do; he's learning quickly.

MR. HARCOURT: The truth is worth repeating.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would have been nice, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition, if you had dealt with the truth. Unfortunately, you created

your own version.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You didn't deal with the truth — is that what you want me to say?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That word is a dangerous word in this House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: "Truth"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's the context in which it's used.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would not accuse the Leader of the Opposition of using the truth, then, if it's a bad word.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister mind resuming his seat. He suggested that

he wouldn't accuse the Leader of the Opposition of stating the truth, which

is another way of saying that he's a prevaricator, or that he's misleading

the House. I suggest that the apologetic course for the minister is to say that

he withdraws any accusation, or having imputed any motive to the Leader of the

Opposition. That's the parliamentary thing to do at this point, not to take

a cheap crack at him on his way out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair heard very

distinctly what was said and how it was said. There was a withdrawal;

it was done in a bit of an unusual way. But perhaps the minister would

just clarify that withdrawal, and then we can proceed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I will withdraw that statement. Let me

approach it in another way, Mr. Speaker. I was intrigued by the

imaginative descriptions of what was neither implicit in the

legislation nor directly stated in it. Okay?

The statement the Leader of the Opposition made was that this breaks

the promise of restoring peace. If the Leader of the Opposition had

been listening to the attacks that were coming here, and the fight, and

that sort of thing that was done.... I think this legislation has every

opportunity to deal with this issue, and to restore peace and proper

action to the education system.

It attacks education? I cannot see how it attacks education. It

basically deals with the structuring of the collective bargaining

process and the subsequent amendments that flow from that. So therefore

I think that it has every opportunity to provide a proper climate in

which we can get back to education.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about class sizes, made quite

emotional statements that they will not tolerate large class sizes. I'm

delighted that you feel that way. I feel that now that they have the

right to negotiate the class sizes.... That is part of all the other

The favourite phrase of the Leader of the Opposition was that the

working conditions of the teachers are the learning conditions of the

students.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good line.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Good line, very well put, and I think it

completely confirms what we're trying to do in this legislation: give

the teachers the right to bargain and put on the table all of the terms

and conditions for their workplace. So we are governing for all, as

we've been asked to do.

The disturbance in schools is doing harm, people have said. Yes, any

disturbance like this that somehow or other implicates the students in

the school system does harm. I don't know of anything that I have said

that is creating that disturbance in the schools. As a matter of fact,

the opposition even attacked me for sending a letter out that said to

the students: "Please stay in your classes. Your marks will be assured.

You will not lose your year because of these activities. If you are a

grade 12 student, your exams will be set. They will be marked, and you

will get those marks so that you will have the opportunity to enroll in

a university, rather than lose a whole year because of some of this

nonsense that's going on."

When students were starting to walk out of the schools, when

students were starting to do some of these foolish things which could

only jeopardize their education and their year, by disobeying the law,

I said to them: "Don't do it. Stay in the classes. Concentrate on your

education. We'll assure you of the basic elements." The letter also

said: "I can't assure you of the extracurricular activities, because I

don't have the power to do that." That letter has been labelled as

blatantly

[ Page 1021 ]

political, Some people have even said that the

minister has no right to send it out, and the students have no right to

hear that message — that their year will be protected, that their grade

12 graduation exercises will be protected, that their tests and marking

procedures.... I don't even consider those extracurricular activities,

and yet I am told that that is somehow or other wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the members said something about our

having said that self-interest in teachers is wrong. Everybody has to

have some self-interest; it is the process used to achieve it, I

suppose, that is the problem. I could go on and pick out quotes from

many of the members.

I can assure you that I really believe that as the correct

information becomes known to people.... For instance, this legislation

nowhere restricts the professional techniques and methods of teachers

in the classroom. It was not intended to, and as a matter of fact,

because of my experience in the classroom and the resentment that I

would feel if someone said to me that beyond, say, the basic things,

such as a program of studies, some intended objectives and something to

achieve, which it would be my job to do, so that the kids mastered

these skills, shall we say — if it was a skills course — or these

concepts.... I would have no problem with that; but I would have a

considerable problem with someone coming in and saying, "and here is

exactly how you must do it." I consider that to be under professional

techniques and methods. In other words, if I want to go through that

unit sideways, forwards or backwards, that is my professional right in

the classroom. As a principal I have seen enough teachers who do things

completely differently.... Sometimes you even scratch your head and

wonder why. But you have to wait for the results at the end of the

year, and if those results are there, then you don't care if they teach

standing on their head.

Because of that background and because of that experience, I did not

want government to be able to do this, nor any agreement to be able to

do this. So we specifically put it in the act that there shall be no

provision in an agreement that regulates the professional methods and

techniques of a teacher in the classroom. Somehow or other, somebody

turned that wording around and said, "This legislation will control the

professional techniques and methods of teachers in the classroom," when

it was clearly intended not to do that. I don't know whether even an

amendment will clarify that, because it was certainly not intended,

shouldn't be, and never will be if I can have anything to do with it.

So there were those sorts of things out there. The other major criticism, I suppose, was that because 15 of the

20 members of the council would be elected and five appointed by the minister.... I felt that 15 out of 20 gave

control to those who elected, and they were the teachers in this province. Then there was a working committee

that could be made up of three members. Somehow somebody translated that into: "Therefore, since the minister

appoints five, he can take three of those, put them on a discipline committee and get rid of any teachers he

doesn't like." In the first place, the act specifically says the 20-member council shall appoint these

committees. So I don't think they would tolerate the minister coming in and saying: "But I want you to pick

these three." It seems so obvious, when the council, three-quarters of which is made up of elected teacher

representative, picks the committees, that they would pick the committee. So okay, we are doing an amendment

to say that if that is such a concern, and you don't understand how that control works, we will change that

to make it the elected members, so that the people appointed by me are out. We will include that in the amendments

coming before you.

[3:45]

There's another amendment we are changing. We said that appeal from a council

decision to the Supreme Court should be on legal and jurisdictional items. I

felt quite comfortable with that because I didn't want every case to go

to the Supreme Court — to judge how the person was brought up, how he was trained,

what university he went to, and all of these things that have been used in some

of the judgments. We felt that were the teacher properly or improperly dismissed

by the college, that should suffice.... I had complete faith that the judgment

would be made not by the three members but by the whole council, if and when

the member challenged it — and only if the member consented, so he was not likely

to challenge it. Since that council was made up of the teachers' own professional

colleagues, I did not anticipate even the possibility of a capricious or silly

dismissal, or cancellation of a teacher's certificate to remove him from

the college. I did not even dream of something of that nature. To me it was

clear-cut. However, they say: "But in effect, in the worst possible scenario,

you could do that and then the member has only the right to the jurisdiction."

So we said okay, we'll expand that, and that constitutes one of your amendments.

So those are the sort of things that mean that we end up with quite

a few amendments that in many cases are simply to clarify those sort of

"well, if you do that...." And believe me, I can tell you one of the

amendments as well. In one place we used the word "bylaws" and in

another place we used the word "rules." To me they're somewhat

synonymous — the rules made by the council or the bylaws made by the

council — but when the legal and technical people got at them they

wondered what my Machiavellian plot was behind changing the wording

from "bylaws" to "rules." So we've done everything we possibly can to

make sure the word "bylaws" fits in every possible reference in that

act. To me, I would not waste a lot of time on that, but once you get

people trying to pick holes in something, I suppose they can find holes.

MR. ROSE: They don't trust you, that's why.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: So what if they don't trust me?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What we're talking about is the trust that

they've been asked to place in 15 of their elected colleagues — their

own colleagues, not me. I didn't ask them to trust me. I asked them to

trust their own representatives. And most of these amendments are

nothing to do with whether they trust me or not. Most of these

amendments are.... For some reason or other they don't seem to have any

trust that their colleagues won't, when they get to the council elected

by them, turn on them somehow or other and do all sorts of capricious

and nonsensical things.

Anyway, as I said, we could go on and on indefinitely. I have one

little interesting gem that I must put before you. I think it's

worthwhile, and then I will wind up, I promise you that.

I have here before me a document from November 1974, submitted by

the B. C. Teachers' Federation to the Minister of Education at that

time. It says it is a proposed Teaching

[ Page 1022 ]

Profession Act. This is, remember, a proposal from

the B.C. Teachers' Federation to the Minister of Education. Just a few

selective.... I'm using your tactics now. I will admit this, that they

did say that they wanted all of it controlled and governed by the B.C.

Teachers' Federation. But remember, those were the days before

work-to-rule, work stoppage and illegal strikes, and things of that

nature. So I can understand.

Anyway, they wanted it all under one umbrella. There are some interesting phrases

in this: "We believe that legislation governing the teaching profession

should be separate from legislation governing the school system." Would

you believe that?

"A teacher certification board independent of the Department of Education

should be established with major representation from the BCTF." What is

the college but a board with major representation from the teachers of this

province, rather than the BCTF? Independent, because they're going to take

over the certification role from the minister. So there are some interesting

little gems here.

Another one: there's been so much push now for the primacy of the local

association, and there were submissions to the Labour minister and everybody

else that that had to be it, and there has to be compulsory membership in the

BCTF Their proposal says: "The BCTF should retain its right to establish,

suspend or dissolve local associations." Interesting — at the same time

as they are supporting local associations. There are more things about a teacher

certification board and teacher competence.

And here's a really nice one. Here's a really interesting little gem

about the discipline committee. The BCTF was going to do everything.

"The BCTF discipline committee should authorize one or more panels on

the discipline committee, each panel to consist of three or more

members of the discipline committee to act on behalf of the discipline

committee. The discipline committee should have all the powers of a

commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act." Fairly close wording to

what we have in our legislation here.

Appeal procedures are covered: "The local association should be

authorized to negotiate the salaries of teachers and all conditions of

employment and learning conditions, which should include, but not be

restricted to, hours of work, procedures for grievances, transfers,

appointment of principals, head teachers, vice-principals...." And on

and on it goes.

"Professional responsibilities of teachers"; I like this one: "Every

teacher employed in a public school should be held responsible for the

students assigned to his/her charge and for the education programs and

learning situations designed for the pupils assigned to his/her charge.

In discharging his/her responsibilities the teacher should be required

to consult, if practicable, with colleagues, students...."

Here's the other one: "Professional staff of a school should be held

responsible for all aspects of the teaching and learning activities

conducted by the school, including: assisting with the provision of a

satisfactory learning environment for all students; the general conduct

and discipline of pupils on the school premises and, during

school-sponsored extracurricular activities, off the school premises;

the quality of teaching services offered by the school; the placement

and program of all pupils...."

The concluding paragraph is a real gem in view of what we have heard

now about lack of consultation after all the discussion and

consultation we had. This is a dandy. This is the prize. "We realize

that the writing of actual legislation is the prerogative of the

government. We submit our working paper, therefore." So it's a rather

interesting little bit of history. If you had a copy of it, you could

find out that you could probably selectively say, "But the BCTF was

going to control this," and I acknowledge that, but it's rather

interesting. I even did a parallel of clauses in this one for my own

interest, and you'd be amazed at how many parallels there are, which

probably, if nothing else — despite the lightness of the moment —

points out that some of the goals of teaching in this province have not

changed.

There are professional people operating. They can do it. They can do

it under the system that was proposed then. As somebody said, what

really happens in education in this province is going to be in the

final analysis determined by the teachers at the school level. I fully

agree, and I think that once we can get this war over bargaining rights

and these things settled and out of the way so that everybody is clear

on those rules, then we can get back to the basic purpose of education

in this province, which is to serve the best interests of the students.

Now I will conclude. It has been an interesting two weeks —

sometimes a little boring when it got repetitive, but certainly

interesting — and I'm sure that many members will agree. I will, as

soon as the House provides me the opportunity here, table some

amendments to Bill 20 — proposed amendments, I guess I should say. Just

a brief explanation: we've broken these amendments into two parts.

We've dealt with the concepts of them, but we have been able to put the

section on the college from sections 1 to 41 in the legislation. Those

amendments are ready and prepared to go. The others are also ready in

conceptual form, but we still have people cross-checking them — trying

to get all the cross-references out of the way — and they will be

tabled as soon as we possibly can. And in the interest of making this

information available to members as quickly as possible, I'll table one

with the House as soon as I can, and make copies available to members

through the Sergeant-at-Arms so that they'll get them this afternoon

rather than having to wait until they're printed in Orders of the Day . So those will be there before you.

Thank you very much for your great attention. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill 20.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

Dejong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Peterson

Veitch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Vander Zalm

B.R. Smith

Davis

R. Fraser

Gran

A. Fraser

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Campbell

S.D. Smith

Jacobsen

Messmer

Huberts

Long

[ Page 1023 ]

NAYS — 17

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Boone

D'Arcy

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Bill 20, Teaching Profession Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled proposed amendments to Bill 20.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, prior to introducing the next

piece of business, I would advise the assembly that tomorrow, following

members' statements, we will be calling the committee stage of Bill 20,

which I'm sure will last for some time.

Now, it gives me great pleasure to call a bill that we'll all find extracting,

I'm sure: Bill 2, the Dentists Amendment Act, 1987. In charge is the Minister

of Health.

DENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the Dentists Act was first

passed in 1917. Under the act, the College of Dental Surgeons has the

authority to govern the practice of dentistry in British Columbia. Over

the years there have been minor amendments to the act, but no

significant changes. This bill now before the House represents a

thorough and comprehensive review of the act. The proposed changes will

meet the needs of the college in regulating today's practice of

dentistry. The college and my ministry's staff have had lengthy

discussions toward developing these amendments now before you. I

emphasize that most are of a housekeeping nature. There are a number of

provisions, however, that are worth highlighting, and I draw your

attention to them.

First, the proposed changes would give the college a wide range of

specific rule-making powers. These powers are currently exercised on

the basis of a very general and unspecific authority under the present

act. In addition, rules made by the college would have to be approved

by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. At the present time, such rules

automatically come into force unless disallowed within 90 days.

The bill repeals existing provisions dealing with inquiries,

suspensions and cancellations of registration. These would be replaced

with updated provisions. The most significant of these is a provision

for search and seizure of a dentist's records and the basis of an order

by the Supreme Court. Application for such a court order would have to

be made by an authorized officer of the college.

The bill's provisions would allow for any orders of the college's

council or committees to be appealed. The council will be authorized to

determine whether a person may continue to practise, pending an appeal

of a suspension or cancellation of registration.

This major overhaul of the Dentists Act reflects the present-day

requirements for self-regulation of a major group of health care

practitioners. I look forward to the debate of this bill. I move the

bill be now read a second time.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, the minister — although he looks

forward to the debate on this bill — will be getting a short debate, as

the opposition entirely agrees with it. In fact, it goes back to 1979,

from my understanding, and at that point it was given high priority. I

can only wish that some of the things that are given high priority

today were given the same sort of high priority in 1979. This is

something that the dentists have been waiting for in anticipation since

that time. The opposition has no objections to anything found within

this, and we will be voting in support of it.

HON. MR. DUECK: I thank the opposition for being so congenial, of course.

Bill 2, Dentists Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 3.

BOUNDARY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. MILLER: Thanks for the applause from the other side; I don't often get that.

I have no intrinsic opposition to

section 1, but I want to use the

opportunity to highlight what I think is a serious problem. Others may

not think so.

This country is engaged in some dispute with the United States with

regard to an international boundary. I realize this bill deals with the

Alberta or contiguous boundaries, but nonetheless I think it is

important, because as I've done some research on this, I've discovered

at least two occasions where publications put out by the B.C. Ferry

Corporation clearly give the Americans what they want in terms of

delineating the boundary on a map.

I could just take a moment to highlight the importance of Canada's

retaining the existing boundary — in other words, the AB line — in

terms of the value of that particular area both for fisheries, which is

of considerable value to my community of Prince Rupert and the

fishermen who fish out of that port, as well as the possibility of some

mineral value beneath the sea.

I bring that to the attention of the House. I would hope that the

minister responsible for this bill would instruct the minister

responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation to be a bit more accurate in

outlining that boundary, particularly on tourist brochures that may go

to the United States.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I welcome the member's comments.

Regrettably they don't have anything to with Bill 3, but nevertheless

they are well taken, and I can assure the member that the matter has

been addressed by the government of British Columbia and is of some

concern to us as well.

The matter of the AB line — of course, it's a line of some history,

My knowledge of that tells me that we sort of gave away the whole

Alaska panhandle to the Americans. It was always the position of Canada

that the 60th should run

[ Page 1024 ]

straight across. However, that was not the opinion of the court of the day, and regrettably Canada came out the loser.

The member's comments are well accepted. The AB line itself is a

matter that he might refer to the estimates of the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who is in charge of

negotiating this type of thing with Canada and also further

negotiations with the U.S. With respect to the maps of the B.C. Ferries

fleet, that would be referred to the estimates of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael).

With that said, I thank the member for his cogent and time-consuming debate, which we all need.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Boundary Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that all

Members of the Legislative Assembly are really intrigued with the

amendments to sections 1 to 42 of Bill 20 and will want to get into

these immediately and begin digesting and comparing them so they can

enter into scintillating and informed debate tomorrow in the committee

stage. Also there is a wonderful event beginning shortly hosted by the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) in which all the Vancouver Island

members have been invited, so on the basis of that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Maybe your deskmate can take you along as his date.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you winking at me?

In any event, given the important business of tomorrow, and the

important events of this evening, I move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

Appendix

12 Mr. Clark asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources the following questions:

For each separate discount granted under the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act —

1. What is the projected power which will be consumed?

2. What is the projected revenue accruing to B.C. Hydro as a result of the discount agreement?

3. What is the revenue which would accrue if full rates were charged on the discounted power?

The Hon. J. Davis replied as follows:

"1. The following table illustrates the total projected consumption of

power eligible for discount under the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act ,

as approved to date.

Company

Projected

Consumption

(GW.

h) Bradford-Enercon

300.0

Crown Forest

132.5

Canadian Occidental

134.4

Canadian Occidental

80.0

ERCO

138.0

ERCO

188.3

Finlay Forest

62.4

Gibraltar Mines

150.0

Highland Valley Copper

54.2

Lornex Mining

54.2

MacMillan Bloedel

92.8

Placer-Endako Mine

1,095.0

Utah Mines

78.0

—————

TOTAL

2,559.8

[ Page

1025 ]

"2. The following table illustrates the total projected revenues accruing

to B.C. Hydro as a result of the separate discount agreements.

Company

Projected

Revenues to

B.C. Hydro

($ millions)

Bradford-Enercon

1.7

Crown Forest

2.0

Canadian Occidental

2.1

Canadian Occidental

1.2

ERCO

6.0

ERCO

2.9

Finlay Forest

1.1

Gibraltar Mines

2.3

Highland Valley Copper

1.4

Lornex Mining

1.3

MacMillan Bloedel

1.3

Placer-Endako Mine

15.0

Utah Mines

1.3

—————

TOTAL

39.6

These exclude water rentals which accrue to the Province.

"3. The Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act was designed to make

greater use of B. C. Hydro's surplus. To qualify for a discount under this

Act, a company has to show that electricity on which discounts apply is incremental

and that operations requiring this incremental power would not have been undertaken

without the discount. Therefore, no revenues would have accrued if full rates

were charged."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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