1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

959 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Ms. Marzari –– 959

Mr. Mercier –– 961

Ms. Edwards –– 963

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 966

Mr. Blencoe –– 968

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN :

It is a great pleasure for me this morning to introduce as a guest on

the floor of the House the Hon. Jean Charest, who is the Minister of

to bid him welcome.

Also in the galleries we have several

people from the federal government who are with the Minister of Youth

this morning. Please bid them welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, from another arm of government in the province of British

Columbia is somebody who saw the error of his ways a year or so ago and

crossed to become a good strong Socred — the mayor of Ladysmith. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Alex Stuart.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

At the outset, I'd like to ask leave for two select standing committees

to meet later on today for organization purposes. They are the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts — pardon me, that's next Tuesday.

Just for today, then, the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice

and Intergovernmental Relations. Could I have leave for that committee

to sit today?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MS. MARZARI :

When last I stood to speak to Bill 20, I spent some time discussing the

nature of professionalism, the nature of what it is to be a teacher and

an administrator inside the school setting; something about

collegiality and the relationship between teachers, principals and

parents. I also questioned the motives of the government for bringing

Bill 20 up at this time and putting forward proposals that would, to

the mind of the opposition and to the mind of much of the community,

rip asunder the education system we presently have.

I want

today to go on with some of these thoughts from the vantage point of

being a parent, a member of the community, and very much a part of the

community of interest that is expressing its dismay with Bill 20 at

this particular time. I want to go on to talk about some of the

assumptions and values, and some of the compromises that I make as a

parent with the existing school system, and to discuss my feelings

about what you must be thinking and what your values might be as you

come forward with Bill 20. It's in this way that I hope that I can try

to get some understanding of why you'd bring this piece of legislation

forward at this particular time.

As a parent, then, I have troubles with the education system. Many of us do.

I strongly believe, for example, that education is not something that is imposed

on children from the ages of five to 16; education and enlightenment are in

fact something that happens throughout life. It happens not in a linear process.

Learning, judgment and wisdom are qualities which are developed over a lifetime

of experience through different stages. It's more cyclical and circular

than it is linear. The school system, in the minds of many parents, becomes

an institutionalization of children for a period of their lives which was basically

designed in the nineteenth century to teach children how to become good clerks.

You know that and I know that, because we know the history of education and

the history of public education.

concerns, then, for education, as I send my children through the

Vancouver school system, are that the educational system does not knock

too much out of them; that they come out of the school system with a

sense of fulfilment and a sense of confidence; that they can take on

this life and move through it with reasonable ability and reasonable

self-esteem. I'd also like the school system to open their minds. I'd

like them to become involved with discourse. I'd like them to know how

to deal with the community at large. I'd like them to have their minds

open to new ideas and new ways of looking at things. I would like them

to learn how to do research, how to find information. It's not

important to me that they memorize by rote; it's important to me that

they know where to get information when they need it and how to

question that information with mature minds.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : That's the same objective that we have.

MS. MARZARI : I'm glad you said that, Mr. Minister, because we all

have to make our compromises, do we not, with the education system? Because

systems that we create to help us run a government, to help us create equal

access to services, to help us create democratic institutions that serve the

needs of our population, some of those institutions do become institutionalized

and bureaucratized, and they must, by virtue of the fact that when government

is in the business of regulating and imposing and governing, it develops bureaucracies.

It's not a bad word, bureaucracy. We develop our own bureaucracies, and

then we evaluate them and monitor them as we go. We try to make them as democratic

as possible.

This

is certainly one of the essences of education itself. We have

reasonable expectations of progress as parents, for example. We

compromise our ideas that our children will be the Renaissance people

of the future. We know that our children make their own accommodations

within the school system. But we consult, do we not, with the teachers

and principals as parents. We talk to them at our local levels,

wherever they are in this province, about what might be best for our

children in the classroom. We have a reasonable expectation of

progress. We read the report cards; we comment on them to our

professional teachers, to the people who are guiding our children. We

expect that the school will be responsive to our needs, and in fact

most of us have been very happy in the process that the school is

responsive to our needs, and that the school can be responsive to our

children's needs, as we dress them and feed them each morning, and get

them out the door, whether they want to go or not, and get to school.

We expect certain standards of behaviour from the school system, and we

expect our children to behave in a certain way. We expect that there is

a partnership there

[ Page 960 ]

through

discussion, through discourse, through communication, through the

process that lasts for 13 years with our children — that we're going to

have from this process a partnership.

So those are the accommodations we make as parents — education

being lifelong, education expecting our children then.... We expect of

our children that they'll get through the 13 years and come out better

people, more socialized, able to express intelligent judgments. So we

challenge the system each day as we go, virtually.

[10:15]

There's

a lot of talk about these assumptions from both sides of the House, as

the minister just said. But now that we come to Bill 20, I have to ask:

are we really being pushed around by the same concerns? Are we really

sharing our

definitions of what education is all about? What is really

driving Bill 20? Even more important, how have you handled your

frustration with the education system?

It strikes me that your major concern is not about the institutionalization

of kids and their enlightenment, but Bill 20 tells me you're more concerned

about the abuse that teachers are making of the rights that they have now. You

don't seem to be so concerned in Bill 20 about the lack of textbooks in

the schools and the underfunding of the system.

You seem to be more concerned about competitive wages between the public school system and the private school system.

You don't seem to be engaging in the process of dealing with teachers and

principals as a slow unfolding and a slow process of discussion, research, discourse,

evaluation and slow resolution. You see, that is the stuff of which education

is made, in my mind. You seem to have come out with a process which is exactly

the opposite. This is worth talking about, because as you engage in this process

of pushing Bill 20 forward, it becomes, in my mind, the antithesis of community

education.

The

letter sent out by the minister to the schools last week is symbolic of

this attitude. What did you want this letter to achieve? That you had

won a fight? That the underdog government could beat the big bully

teachers? The promise that you, as the cabinet, were going to be out

there supervising each grad ceremony in the province? That you can use

teachers as conduits for your own individual and personal belief

systems? Are you interested basically in using the classroom as

propaganda and asking individual teachers to forsake their own value

systems to read a letter?

I would like to read it into the record, Mr. Speaker. It's an open letter

to all students in the province, which was read by all teachers, from the Hon.

Anthony J. Brummet, Minister of Education, dated May 1, 1987:

would like to assure all students in the province that examinations and

graduation ceremonies will not be jeopardized this year because of

work-to-rule actions in some school districts. I have been asked by

some students, deprived of extracurricular activities at school, why

they are being punished in this way.

"This appears to be the choice of the same teachers who

have voluntarily provided such services in the past. They have done so because

of a professional interest in enriching the learning experiences of their pupils,

and I expect most of them still feel that way. No one has the right to tell

teachers they can't continue to volunteer their services to provide extracurricular

activities such as coaching, club sponsorship, music and drama events.

"I know it is frustrating for students who are not able to participate in these events, but I would

advise any who are contemplating staying away from school as a form of

protest to remain in their classes and to try to make their case in

other ways.

"I have no doubt that principals

and teachers will see that graduation exercises proceed this year, so

no plans should be cancelled. After 12 years of schooling, students are

entitled to a graduation ceremony. Grade 12 examinations will also

proceed as usual, and students planning to enter college or university

next September should not worry about having their marks submitted in

time.

"I fully expect that common sense and good will will prevail to serve the best interests of students.

Anthony J. Brummet, Minister."

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I might remind the member that you cannot use a member's name even when you're using a letter.

MS. MARZARI : Oh, I'm sorry.

This letter sets us up in a situation where the government is using — abusing —

its power, taking a letter which deliberately throws, it seems to me,

confusion into the students and deliberately provokes the teaching

profession. To suggest that examinations are not a part of your job as

the Ministry of Education, to suggest to the students that they might

not be able to write their examinations, is a deliberate

misrepresentation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Did you read what they said?

MS. MARZARI :

I want to say that you seem to be in the business of bullying the

education system –– I want to ask you, now that you have agreed, now

that you have suggested that we have the same values and the same

definitions of education, which is reasoned discourse, gradual

resolution through dialogue and democratic decision-making to

resolution of problems, why you would get involved with the writing of

such a letter, why you would get involved with the writing of such a

bill; why you would not use instead the democratic decision-making

processes, why you would not use discourse, why you would not use

techniques other than bullying and power-tripping to deal with what you

consider to be our frustrations with the school system. I can only

suggest that the way you are in fact dealing with it creates the

problem. You seem to be doctors who are creating the disease you want

to cure.

What

do you want of my children? Do you really want my children to fear and

obey you? Do I have

anything to say in this? What do you want of me as a parent? Do you

want me to privatize my interest in education, now that I seem to know

you don't want to use processes that in effect are educated processes?

Do you want me to set up a private school where my children will be

taught discourse, encouraged to think and given the supplies and

textbooks they need so that they can hone their judgment? Do you want

me to start a private school so that I can get cash grants and special

textbook subsidies? What do you want of the teachers in my community?

Do you

[ Page 961 ]

want

them to take orders from you and read your letters in the classroom

every morning? Do you really want to tell them exactly what it is

they're going to teach or not teach?

We won't let you.

Letting the narrow interests of a few people run away with a billion

dollars plus in the education budget each year and demolish a

profession is not something that we're in the business of doing on this

side of the House. Making the public and private schools compete for

students, teachers and money, dividing and conquering, is not what

we're in the business of doing. You haven't done it very well, either.

If you'd read Machiavelli, you'd probably have done a better job.

For the sake of getting back at the BCTF —

this agenda seems to have come out much more clearly in the last few

days. Yesterday the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree)

defined professional teachers as teachers who stayed after school, and

non-professional teachers as those who ran off to BCTF meetings. Do you

want to get back at the BCTF that badly — a machinery that you don't

seem to understand very well? You want to get back at Larry Kuehn that

badly? You want to score bully points with the teachers in the

classroom? You want to undermine and kneecap the teachers? The only

person I can think about reading at this point is Freud. Perhaps that

is what you should be reading. Do you really want to hurt them that

badly? What happened to you in your own educational systems when you

were young that would make you want to turn on the educational system

in this manner?

Bill 20 does the following. Sex education

has finally come to the fore and is being addressed both by the press

and by the school administrators and by teachers. It is time that it

came out. It is tragic that it had to come out in the context of AIDS,

which threatens our society and our culture as we know it. Finally we

are talking about family life education and sex education. But Bill 20

basically says that it is prescribed. You are about to prescribe

exactly how sex education is to be delivered in our school system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Show me where the bill says that.

MS. MARZARI :

There is a group called Teen-Aid which has put forward briefs to the

government urging that the Social Credit government adopt the approach

of pushing sexual restraint based on the concepts of postponement and

secondary virginity. Secondary virginity is when you really believe

that you can once again become as pure as once you were, I gather, if

you truly believe it — it is the doctrine of pure belief.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI : Yes, it's something like born-again.

The

ministry committee developing this sex education program, I gather, has

seriously considered the ideas in this brief as the possible basis for

the provincial program. Suppose that the decision is made and the

provincial cabinet decides that postponement is the only approach to

sex education that is to be taught, with no questions asked. What

happens? What are the effects on the teacher of such cabinet

prescription under Bill 20 and under the current law?

Under

both circumstances the teacher has little control over how many

students will be taught, what students will be in the class, where the

course will be taught or what materials will be provided to teach with.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Where does it say that?

MS. MARZARI :

The decisions are made by you with your budget, by the school board and

the administrator with little or any input from the teacher affected.

But

let's assume that the students are already assigned to the teacher and

go back to sex education. Under the old law, the cabinet would approve

a set of goals for sex education and approve or authorize some

materials which would be supplied by the ministry to the school. The

teacher under the old rules would be able to decide what method would

be most effective for reaching the goals with the group of students.

The materials supplied by the ministry might not be used, for example,

if the students had a different reading level than the materials were

provided in. The choice of methods has in the past been left largely to

the teacher — just about the only decision in education over which the

teacher has primary control. But this is taken away with Bill 20.

we are assuming that we have a sex education program with no questions

allowed, Bill 20 moves teaching methods out of the hands of the teacher

into those of the central government. The teacher thinks there might be

a better approach, such as allowing questions. The fundamentalist

parent complains to the principal that the teacher is allowing

questions. The principal responds by recommending that the high-school

teacher be transferred to an elementary school out of the district;

that happens in seven days and without appeal. Then the issue comes to

the school board. Under Bill 20 the trustees simply decide that in the

opinion of the board the teacher is unsuitable for the position held by

him, and give 30 days' notice of firing. Under the old law, firing

requires three reports of incompetent teaching, based on actual

observations of teaching, rather than on the opinion of the board.

Should

the teacher file a grievance, the ordeal is not over. The College of

Teachers then jumps in to carry out its primary function: "getting" the

teacher not already "got" by several previous layers of arbitrary

authority. The disciplinary action initiated by the board against the

teacher must be reported to the college. If an arbitration board

overrules a school board, then that too gets reported. Any three

members of the board of the college may now cite the teacher, call for

a hearing, and suspend the teacher's certification and thus his or her

right to teach.

[10:30]

Mr.

Speaker, what does this government want? What does it want of me as a

parent? What does it want of my children? What does it really want of

the teachers? It is engaged in a process which is the antithesis of the

process of learning and education that we all want for our kids and

that we all like to think is a benchmark of civilized society. We are

engaged in a process of dividing the teaching profession, weakening the

teachers' organization, placing individual teachers' jobs in jeopardy,

weakening the school board autonomy and, worst of all, promoting

confrontation. I speak strongly against Bill 20, and I represent not

just myself; I represent all of Point Grey as I say this.

MR. MERCIER :

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 20, the

Teaching Profession Act. Previously, speaking to the hoist motion, my

comments were

[ Page 962 ]

critical

of the management of our provincial education system in past years by

all of those involved. There are many, including me, who feel the root

of the problem was twofold: firstly, confusion about the status of

teachers; and secondly, dissatisfaction generally with the financing

formula and the restraint program when it was necessary to bring in the

restraint program. Teacher and administrative salaries comprise a very

high percentage of the school costs, so it's clear that teachers, like

it or not, are at the root of the problem, firstly as to their status

as professional or union-paid employees and secondly with respect to

their remuneration.

Previously — say ten to 15 years ago —

for whatever reasons, the conflicts among those involved in education

were minimal, and the system benefited, as did the students. It seems

that the more strident the BCTF became, the further apart those

involved with education became. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the

impact of the recent recession on education costs was, in the view of

some, mishandled –– I referred to that in my earlier comments on Bill

20. The recession compounded the problems that are grown in the system:

uncertainty, lack of confidence, failing trust and respect that each

party had for the other parties in the education system.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

executive of the BCTF is now feeding on the disarray in the teaching

profession. There are many excellent teachers who feel that they were

wronged during the period of restraint, and the BCTF has not seen fit

to lead them past that feeling. The BCTF has not seen fit to accept

that the current Minister of Education is promoting a more positive

relationship among those who are responsible for delivering education

to our children — namely, the school boards, the ministry, the

principals and the teachers. We all know that two wrongs do not make a

right, so why has the BCTF executive ignored the simple logic? They are

losing credibility with the public, because the public know the truth.

They know the BCTF must not hold a grudge for what are perceived as

past wrongs. They must not ransom the system and the children for their

own gains or to entrench the BCTF structure.

Getting back

to my view of the two main problem areas that got us to where we are

today, firstly, with respect to remuneration and the financing formula,

the current government can assure that education is highly regarded and

that, on a global basis, it will continue to be funded as a priority.

Teachers, educated as they are, should be the first to realize that the

province has been through serious economic difficulty. We hope that is

behind us.

I thought in the early 1980s there was

absolutely no reason for a government to make political points when the

restraint program was put in place. The restraint program was

unnecessary in some parts, but very necessary in general; even though

it was unwelcome, it had to be done for the long-term survival of the

infrastructure we enjoy. It was wrong to make political hay, so to

speak, from the imposition of restraint programs — in particular,

programs that affected the school system. It seemed that those in the

school system were among the last to realize the low level the

provincial economy had deteriorated to. A more thoughtful communication

of the facts by the government of the day and the BCTF might not have

us in the fix we are in today.

In order to make peace these

days, perhaps a starting point is to apologize for the part played by

the government with respect to communications in those dark days, and

the BCTF would do well to consider doing the same. Notwithstanding the

wish to bring people together, as I referred to, it is sad that the

BCTF executive are now resorting to misinformation solely to retain

their structure.

They won't distribute the facts of the

case to the teachers. They are not cooperating in conveying the

positive messages that are contained in Bill 20 to their own members.

The BCTF executive has created a propaganda barrier which prevents

teachers from access to important information and consequently results

in distortion of the facts.

In the same negative vein, they

have actually encouraged civil disobedience, and I think that is a sad

commentary for the education system generally. I believe that the BCTF

executive in the future will look back and realize that what they have

been doing these last few weeks was not really for the good of mankind.

It was really their own selfish goal that they want to retain their

organization as they see it.

I said earlier that the second

thing that got us where we are today was the confusion about the status

of teachers. Are they professionals, or are they union members? The

answer before Bill 20 was yes, they were professionals; and the answer

to the second question was no, they were not union members. The answer

after Bill 20 will be yes, they are professionals; and yes, if they

wish they can be union members.

Their professional matters

will be handled by the College of Teachers. The College of Teachers

will be governed by a council. On that council there will be 15

teachers elected from among their own on the 20-member council. If I

was a teacher, I would really like to be on a College of Teachers

council, and I would encourage other teachers to run for election to

that council, because I know that with 15 of us on a council of 20, we

could very well govern our own affairs professionally. We could

discipline our own as they do in many other professions, as the

chartered accountants have an association, and as they have on occasion

had to discipline their own. The democratic part of the system permits

an appeal of any decisions of the association in dealing with the

discipline of members, and I am sure that will be the case with the

College of Teachers.

Their union matters, on the other

hand, for the teachers who choose by free vote to do so, will be

handled by a body of teachers, perhaps the BCTF, set up by the teachers

themselves to handle their collective bargaining. Should teachers not

wish to form a union in a district, they will be able to set up an

association to negotiate their contracts.

The point is that

in either case the benefits currently enjoyed are expected to be

embodied as common sense dictates in the agreements reached with the

respective school boards. The government has heard for many years that

certain teachers wanted the freedom to bargain as a union. Bill 20

permits that freedom and does not diminish any other of the freedoms or

benefits now enjoyed by teachers.

I have been in contact

with a number of teachers, and I have asked them to specifically write

me on any items that they think will adversely affect them in the new

legislation, apart from the structure that is intended to be in place.

I have not received a response; I have not received a telephone call

from any teacher who feels that they have lost a freedom. I would like

to know if they could point out to me any freedom that they currently

enjoy under the structure that is in place that has been taken away

from them.

[ Page 963 ]

There

hasn't been a response from a teacher, or from the BCTF, to

specifically show that their rights have been diminished. In fact,

those teachers that have taken the time to read the bill find that they

have freedoms greater than they had in the former structure.

is time for the BCTF executive to realize they are simply talking

structure. They wish their structure to deal with the professional

issues and collective bargaining. This would continue to mix the

professional status with the union function. The government position,

which we are confident is supported by the public at large, separates

the two functions. It's logical, because the functions are incompatible.

It's

difficult for me to conceive that a professional body would walk out

and take illegal strike action over a matter of structure. They aren't

talking about freedoms or rights that normal union bargaining leads to.

They're talking about "their structure is better than our structure."

It seems very petty, and history will reflect that it was very petty,

particularly because they aren't addressing the matter of the freedoms,

rights and benefits that will be governed inside whichever structure

you would like to choose.

I think it's unfortunate that,

because of the lack of information percolating down to the average

teacher, who's more interested in doing his job than politicking, the

information has led them to that course of action, because it's a

severe course of action. Normally strikes are not taken over matters of

structure. The action taken was regrettable; I don't think it was

terminal. I think it was a political action. The BCTF should know that

if it has a valid argument, it could take that argument to the polls at

the next election. Perhaps they feel the subject will not be an issue

beyond the current debate, so it created the situation of urgency. I

think they're afraid to live with positive change. I'd like to think

that those fears are unfounded.

You know, it was

interesting that the minister sent a notice to the school boards to

communicate to the students his assurance that exams will be set and

marked, and that graduation ceremonies will proceed this year. The

vice-president of the BCTF objected to that notice being circulated by

the minister. Of course, the vice-president of the BCTF is forgetting

that a simple statement of fact like that is perfectly within the

purview of the minister. What it makes you wonder is: does the

vice-president of the BCTF object to the fact that the exams will be

set and marked and that the graduation ceremonies will proceed? I

really can't conceive that he would disagree with the minister with

respect to those two items.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope

that the BCTF can see a peaceful way out of their predicament. I hope

that they can make constructive criticisms of the details in the bill

so that all of the matters contained can come out perfectly, and that

the principle of the bill . . . . I hope they can find it in them to

adopt the concept and the structure. I would leave that responsibility

with them.

[10:45]

MS. EDWARDS :

There's been a great deal of discussion, of course, about this bill,

about whether or not it is open and whether the government is open —

whether in fact the process with which this bill is being considered in

this House is one that follows the promises that the government made

when it came to government.

The government insists that it

is open. It says: "We are an open government, and the teachers

are...." I'm not sure whether they’re saying "perverse" or

"stupid." In some way or another the teachers say this is not what they

asked for, but the government says it is. So the question continues.

is not just the teachers that are arguing this, but any number of

people. I would like to read into the record part of a letter from the

B.C. Home and School Federation to the Minister of Education, a copy of

which was sent to the New Democratic education critic. It's signed by

Carol Tiessen, the president of the Home and School Federation, and it

says:

"While our consideration of this major change in the role of the BCTF is still ongoing" — and she refers to Bill 20 —

"the board wished me to convey to you our concern that this legislation

has been proposed at the same time as the Royal Commission on Education

is just preparing for public input. We believe that the measures

outlined by Bill 20 do not reflect the consultative process which you

stated had led to your establishing the royal commission and which we

believe is instrumental to its effectiveness. Of what benefit is a

commission when many of the very matters that provoked its

establishment are being changed as it is proceeding?

"We urge you to withdraw this proposed legislation and redraft it only after you have reviewed the findings of the commission."

"In

expectation of your consideration, " she says. Well, that expectation

is not going to be reached, because every message that we get from the

government, from the Premier on down, is that: "We are a very open

government, but we will not make changes in this legislation. We have

decided what the teachers asked for, and we have decided that it will

stay as it is. There will be no change in the legislation."

fact, as we listen in the House and outside the House, it becomes

clearer and clearer that this bill is really a bill that is designed

to, if not destroy, then at least diminish the effect of the British

Columbia Teachers' Federation, which as we understand it is not only a

bad organization, it's wicked and manipulative.

We have everything from the member for Langley saying there are problems . . . . Well, you could go on forever with what's in Hansard .

And then outside the House, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Ms. Campbell) said the other day on an interview on CKNW that "the

BCTF has really harassed teachers in a lot of cases, or certainly

intimidated them." She went on to say: "You have to recognize that

there are some philosophical differences in this society. The BCTF in

1983 endorsed the New Democratic Party." That is not a true statement,

Mr. Speaker, but that is what the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey

said. The BCTF has not endorsed any party in this province. She said

they spent $195,000 on an election program that supported the New

Democratic Party. Well, I am afraid that alleging that an organization

— a democratically elected organization, by the way, led by elected

people —

endorsed a party is a very different thing from recognizing that the

aims of that party may well have been those that coincided most closely

with the aims of most of the BCTF.

I think it would be

really . . . . I want to pursue this a bit, because the BCTF has been

very careful not to endorse a party, and their political action

campaigns have been designed to encourage their members to follow up

and to support a party; but whichever party, it is of their choice.

That is probably, Mr. Speaker, because the BCTF is a democratic

organization. All the members have a vote, all the members are able to

elect their executive, and that's what

[ Page 964 ]

happens annually. The BCTF has an annual general meeting at which they are allowed to nominate members and elect them.

I'm

not sure why the government has decided that the BCTF elected executive

does not represent the membership. We hear over and over again that the

teachers in this province want to teach but the BCTF doesn't. I have a

little trouble trying to define who the BCTF is if it is not the

teachers of this province. Sometimes people say "the executive of the

BCTF," but often it's "the BCTF." Well, fine; if the BCTF executive

does not represent its membership, it seems very strange to me that it

has been elected by its membership. I don't know of any democratically

run organization in which there are not a few people who feel that

their interests are not represented because they do not belong to the

majority within that organization. Perhaps that's some of what the

government sees, but if in fact it were not allowed to have majority

votes, then maybe there would be something to it.

What's

going to happen is that this bill, we are told, is going to give the

teachers in this province freedom. All of a sudden they're going to be

free to choose. Well, you know, what that means is they're going to be

able to be free to choose whether they belong to an organization. Great

but it doesn't seem to me to be very different from the kind of attack

that's going on, as if the government were attacking the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture. I know a few members of the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture who feel that the organization doesn't represent their

interests all the time. I know a few people who belong to the B.C.

Wildlife Federation who feel that that democratically elected group

doesn't always represent their interests. I don't know if the

government is going to take after the B.C. chambers of commerce when

they start listening to a few members who feel that that organization —

the democratically elected executive — does not necessarily all the

time represent their interests.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : They have a choice.

MS. EDWARDS :

They certainly do have a choice, Mr. Speaker. I think that the idea of

democratically elected organizations in this province is at risk if in

fact the government can decide that one of those democratic leadership

groups can be attacked because it doesn't represent all of them.

The

issue is not, it seems to me, one of improving the educational system.

The issue is one of control, and if you read the debate you will find

that the words "discipline" and "control" come in from the government's

side on a consistent basis. The government has decided that it must

control teachers, and it's going to do that through Bill 20. How, in

fact, it has decided to do that is by introducing an industrial model

instead of a collegial model. I talked about this when I was talking

about the hoist motion, but I think it would be useful to go into it a

little more deeply with a little more detailed look at what's going on.

heard the industrial model of organization described last night as a

military model, and it became very clear that that seemed to be a good

analogy. The people seemed to understand that if you have that model,

it's like the military model. In fact, it is a pyramidal model. It

starts with a very broad base, and it goes to a single point at the top.

Now

at the top, as we all know in a war, we have to have a chief of staff,

so for efficiency's sake — and that's what the industrial and military

models are for, is the efficiency of the organization —

you have a pyramid model. What happens with this model and in this bill

is.... I wondered, you know, because when you first look at it, it

seems almost as though there is a bit of a sharing below this top peak,

but that's not the case when you begin to go into it a bit.

The

school board, of course, has some power in this model, but in fact the

school board is still regulated by the government, through the ministry

by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is regulated from the centre,

and anything that the college does — the college or the council of the college —

or that the school boards do is still regulated by anything that

happens in the government. So that pyramidal model is very clearly

there.

Now what happens with that model is that whoever is

on any level of the pyramid always has to report up. You've got to know

what is happening up.... There is no responsibility to anybody who, in

that diagram, happens to fall below you on the pyramid. That, as I say,

has worked and has been used many, many times, and the organizational

experts tell us that's how it happens and that's how it goes for a

fairly.... It can be a fairly efficient type of organization.

you try to transfer this kind of model onto education, where the task

at hand is a little different than the task that you probably want with

a military or industrial or commercial model, then you've got a model

that is working against the function that you want to happen. The

function has to be recognized as getting students to learn, allowing

students to learn and having students learn, and in order to think of

that you have to remember that teachers may teach all they like, but

students don't always learn.

the object of this whole

organization, this whole pattern, to have teachers teach as they're

directed from above, or is it in fact to have the students, who make up

the base of this whole model, learn? Now if a teacher stands and

teaches whatever — what's been given from above, whatever

professionally that teacher decides — if the student isn't learning,

the function is not being carried out. In other words — and this is the

crux of the whole issue —

if that teacher is not responsible to that function, if the teacher is

not responsible to the students and to the learning process within each

of those students, then the process, the pattern, the whole structure

is not what matters. When you have that kind of function to carry out,

you should have what we call a horizontal organization, not a vertical

organization.

Most of the moves in Bill 20 are designed to

create a vertical organization, to take away the kind of collegiality

that gives you a horizontal organization among peers — in other words, teachers —

and to deny the fact that teachers and principals are responsible to

the group who sit below them on a pyramid. You can't resist these forms

all the time. If your model is on you and you must constantly be

reporting upwards, you cannot put your efforts and all of your ability

and your professionalism into the effort to be responsible to the whole

group to which you should be responsible if you want learning to occur.

[11:00]

That is my major objection to Bill 20. It tries to take away the

learning that will happen in schools, because it makes every teacher

responsible to a principal who is now a manager who is responsible to

somebody else up there. The whole business is a matter of control that

can go down in the pyramid, instead of a function of learning which

should be happening at the bottom with a horizontal model of

organization.

[ Page

965 ]

Bill 20 were designed for anything other than control, I think it would

have a different model. Let's follow up on the business of where this

bill goes. As I said, discipline is mentioned frequently in the bill.

The discipline parts of Bill 20 are very interesting. The term being

used to describe the position teachers are put in is "double jeopardy."

The double jeopardy is the situation that's going to create the fact

that they will have to be responsible on an upward model rather than a

downward model.

Under Bill 20 any school board can dismiss

a teacher for cause without notice, or they can give 30 days' notice

for professional reasons of dismissal, or five peers can report on a

teacher. If any of those things happen, this teacher is on the way out.

It's no longer three unsatisfactory teaching reports, which is a

situation that was wrestled over for years. Years of experience said

that possibly three unsatisfactory teaching reports would put a teacher

at jeopardy. Now you can be dismissed without notice, or with 30 days'

notice for professional reasons.

After this point, if a

teacher belongs to a union, the union can work with the teacher to

grieve the issue. If the teacher belongs to an association, that

teacher can ask for a board of reference. If that board of reference

convenes and looks into this issue, it's the final word. There is no

appeal to whatever that board of reference decides.

However,

let us suppose that the teacher, either through the grievance procedure

or through the board of reference, was exonerated and it was found that

that teacher should not have been either given notice of dismissal or

dismissed. That doesn't matter, because the council of the College of

Teachers can still call an inquiry into the same issue. This inquiry

can be called not only by any three members of council — and I believe

this has been said before, but I think it's important to restate it.

There are five members on the council who are not elected by the

teachers, and it only takes three members of council to call an

inquiry. They could easily be members of the council who are not

elected teachers, not the peers, or in fact this inquiry could be

called by the chairman. One person could call this particular inquiry.

at the behest of a single person we could now have an inquiry into an

issue that has already been decided at the board level and at the level

of board of reference or grievance. This teacher can now be required to

go into a whole new business of an inquiry. Again, once the inquiry has

been called, the teacher can be suspended by three council members who

agree.

MR. SERWA : That's not so.

MS. EDWARDS :

That's what it says in the act. Why wouldn't it be so if it's in the

act, Mr. Member for Okanagan South? I can't imagine why it would be in

the act. It says that they can be suspended at the insistence of three

council members. Two of them may have to be the chair and another

member of the discipline committee, but they are three council members.

What the council can do in its inquiry is make orders about the professionalism

of that teacher or board matters. It says that the council could lift the teaching

certificate for conduct unbecoming a member of the college, or for having incompetently

carried out duties undertaken by him in his capacity as an employee of the board.

I know this sounds as though it's fairly solid, but what has happened is

that this teacher who has already gone through one process is now going through

another process and could have his certificate lifted because he had undertaken

duties in his capacity as an employee of the board that he had incompetently

carried out.

find that very dangerous, Mr. Speaker, because of the little I know

about teachers and what happens with the duties that they have to carry

out for school boards. Since restraint, there have been any number of

teachers who have been required to teach subjects for which they are

not particularly well qualified. If they want their job, they had

better take this particular subject whether they want to or not. I'm

sure that what you're saying is, "The council should require that

teacher to be totally professional and say: 'I don't know how to teach

phys ed, "' but you know as well as I do that no teacher is going to do

that if that means his whole job. And everybody says: "Oh, sure you can

teach phys ed. We'll give you all the support we can." But if a teacher

does that, that teacher is then in jeopardy, is then under threat. He

can then lose his whole teaching certificate for incompetently carrying

out duties undertaken by him — or her, I would say, but the act says "him" — in his capacity as an employee of the board.

This whole thing also happens, and — as the bill says, "if the bylaws permit" —

we are not sure that this is what's going to happen, because in fact we

are asked to pass a bill that says that maybe this will happen if in

fact the bylaws that the council puts forward. which must meet the

regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may allow this kind

of thing to happen. So in fact we're looking at a very difficult

situation as to deciding where the principles are in this bill.

There

is also in this whole business some confusion of board and council

tasks, and it seems that . . . . Can they both get the teacher cited on

non-professional or non-servant items? The board can notify a teacher

that they would like to dismiss that teacher on unprofessional grounds.

Granted that has to go to the council, but the board is making those

kinds of decisions. Then the council can have a certificate lifted on

the grounds that that teacher did not behave properly in the

master-servant relationship with the employer, who is the board. The

teacher is being told by the board on both cases and by the council on

both cases and can go through a whole process that may have them go

through at least three processes.

That is interesting in

comparison to the government's proposal that the school teachers

themselves are incapable of handling professional and bargaining

matters in the same organization. It's very interesting that the

teachers who have been doing it for 70 years in British Columbia and

the teachers who do it across the country they say can't handle

professionalism and bargaining; however, school boards now can dismiss

and councils can discipline on these bases and the whole thing is fine

for everybody else but the teachers — who of course currently belong to

the BCTF and we don't like the BCTF, so let's get them out of there. It

is a most suspicious direction for the bill to go, the bargaining and

professional separation for teachers.

May I, Mr. Speaker,

again read into the record a letter that was sent to the member for

Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), the critic for the New Democrats on

education? This is from a teacher in British Columbia.

"I'm

very concerned with the proposed legislation. In particular, Bill 20

appears to be a punitive action against the BCTF and teachers in

general. The degree of commitment and professionalism amongst teachers

in British Columbia far exceeds that which I

[ Page

966 ]

encountered

previously in Britain and Germany. I attribute this to the collegial

model that exists in the schools and the leadership provided by the

Teachers' Federation. The new legislation will effectively destroy this

collegiality, with school administrators becoming managers and our

parent organization nullified. I urge you to do all you can to prevent

this legislation, in its present form, from becoming law."

think, Mr. Speaker, that there are more members of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation who think that way than who are dissatisfied. Otherwise I

think that the executive of the B.C. Teachers' Federation would be

someone else. It would be someone who represents other interests than

the BCTF is currently showing that it represents.

Another thing that will happen under this bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the

whole business of advocacy for children. The BCTF has said, and I think has

proven it — and many people in this province believe it has proven it — that

it is an advocate for the children in the education system. There's no question

that they are also advocates for themselves in their professional areas and

in their bargaining areas, but they have been advocates for children. Under

Bill 20, the likelihood of that carrying on is very limited. In fact, you will

have these groups . . . . You will have the College of Teachers, which will

be far more closely represented . . . . In other words, there will be fewer

representatives in that body than there are currently on the BCTF — people who

speak for the whole group.

There

will be only 15 in the college. These people will become the people to

whom most questions of professional teaching and education will be

referred. Everybody, as the government expects, will say: "The BCTF is

just a union, so you don't talk to them about education." What will

happen is that this college . . . . And if you look at Bill 20 and see

all of the things that the college is supposed to do, you talk about

admissions and dismissals and discipline and management and tasks of

vice-principals and so on; all of these things are management tasks.

The whole thrust for the college is going to be control of the teachers

and how they are allowed to do their job. That role will be controlled

by the college, and that will be regulated by cabinet.

MR. R. FRASER : It's regulated by cabinet now.

MS. EDWARDS : Right.

you look at

section 23, "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

disallow a bylaw respecting the training, qualification or

certification of teachers . . . ." So the college will be much more a

body that will be looking at the discipline of teachers instead of

advocacy for children, or the betterment of the whole education system.

The

vice-principals and principals, as we've said, will be separated from

their peers. They will now no longer be able to be members of the same

organization. They will be given specific tasks that will prevent them

from operating in a collegial way with the teachers in their own

school. They will continue to have bargaining and professional

functions, but at the control level again. They will continue to have

to represent the board, instead of representing their peers . . . and

what goes on in the classroom, and the everyday conditions that apply

to the teachers when they're interacting with the children and trying,

if the system is doing what it should be doing, to have the children

learn.

The principals and vice-principals are stripped of their bargaining rights for themselves —

that's fairly clear. They would be excluded from collectively

required to perform primarily managerial functions, including assisting

the board on collective bargaining matters, helping to resolve disputes

between the board and teachers, and making recommendations to the

superintendent of schools on the reassignment, suspension and dismissal

of teachers. They will be subject to dismissal by the board at any

time, with or without cause, and without any right to appeal under the

act. They will be subject to reassignment at any time on seven days'

notice, without the right to a review or an appeal. So their rights

themselves are basically taken away, and they don't have the right,

then, to appeal in the law courts. They will be evaluating their peers.

Again, what you lose is the collegial model.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, Hon. member, your time under standing order 45 has expired.

[11:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'm pleased to take my place in this debate and speak in support of Bill 20. I am

sure that by now everything pertaining to this bill must surely have

been said. I've listened, day after day, diligently to both sides; when

I'm not here, I have the speaker on. I think I've heard almost

everything there is to be said about this bill. I think a few things

have even been invented — fabricated, if you like. When there was

something that wasn't there that someone wished to attack, they

invented it and then attacked it. We heard a pretty good example of

that when the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was

speaking. I'll come back to that in a moment.

It's

been dissected and interpreted, and we have had pyramids built on it

now and horizontal models and all the rest of it. I really

don't think that going into clause-by-clause analysis of this bill is

going to serve any purpose at the moment. We will do that in committee,

I am sure; we will go through it word by word.

For the moment, I would

like to address the overriding philosophy that is pervading this

debate, especially from the other side of the House. A few points first

of all. I do sometimes take objection to the old phrase that we hear

when someone disagrees with you: "You obviously just don't understand."

I hear that coming from the other side with regularity.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it clear to everyone in this House, and for the

record, that I think we understand very well. I understand

Bill 20 as well as anyone, I think. I've been through it clause by

clause, being a member of the legislative committee of cabinet. I have

also had the opportunity to talk to several parents and teachers,

including principals and vice principals, in my own constituency. I

think

many of them are now starting to understand what Bill 20 says. Up until

the last few days, maybe a week, a lot of them didn't understand, but

now that they are getting copies of the bill and starting to go through

it, they are starting to understand. We are hearing the comments from

them that they are really not worried about what is contained in the

bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad, once again, that the,

students are used to fight a political battle. We saw it before, and we

are seeing it again. The students are being the pawns in a political

battle. I don't think there is really any need for the executive

[ Page

967 ]

of the BCTF to do that, but they seem to want to.

Just to make my point, I look at a few of the headlines. "Teachers'

Move Kills Track Meets." Now why in heaven's name would any teacher or

group of teachers, if they weren't directed to, want to kill a

students' track meet? Purely political, so as to get at the politicians

through the students. Let's make it inconvenient and uncomfortable for

the students so that they go home and tell their parents: "Look what

that nasty government is forcing the teachers to do to us."

Statements

such as made by Mr. Myers of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, like this,

really alarm and upset me: "The Fed is also angry that Brummet has

urged students to stay in class." Isn't that terrible — the Minister of

Education urging students to stay in class. And an executive of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation finds that hard to believe. "School

disruption is only a taste of what is yet to come if this bill is

rammed through."

I would like to iterate the feelings of a

lot of people on this side of the House that it is truly sad when these

people have to use the students to fight their political battles. What

we are witnessing here, Mr. Speaker — make no mistake about it — is a

political reaction to a piece of legislation, purely a political

reaction by the executive of the BCTF. It is not a response to a

legislated change or to a solution to long-standing problems; it's

strictly a political reaction. I will prove my point in a moment,

because I'm going to quote from a letter from the president of the BCTF.

This bill is seen, I am certain, as a means of politicking in tandem with the B.C. Federation of Labour on Bill 19. I think

the marching orders are loud and clear. They come from the top, from

Cliff and the boys at the B.C. Federation of Labour, through Elsie

McMurphy on the BCTF, down through to the opposition sitting on the

other side of the House. Those people beat the drum, and these people

march to it. We can hear it in the House day after day after day: "You

get in there and attack this bill."

I sense even a sense of

embarrassment on the part of some of the speakers over there when they

have to get up and speak against this legislation. There must be

embarrassment, because they are now making up things that don't exist

in the legislation; inventing situations, such as the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey inventing a scenario of what would happen to a

teacher, when a great deal of what she invented was not even in the

bill. So I do sense a great deal of embarrassment coming from that side

of the House as speaker after speaker gets up to try to attack what is

essentially a good piece of legislation and essentially what was asked

for by the teachers of the province.

What I want to do now

to prove that point is read from a letter addressed to the hon.

Premier. I want you to make note of the date of the letter, because it

was written on March 25 of this year. Bill 20 was introduced into this

House on April 2, approximately a week later. To the Premier:

"Dear Mr. Vander Zalm:

"I am writing on an urgent basis to seek an early meeting with you.

"Our recent annual general meeting, attended by some 650

delegates elected to represent teachers around the province, made it clear that

continued wage controls and denial of full, free collective bargaining are not

acceptable and can only lead to further disruption in our province's education

system."

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that the disruptive process was already planned

before the legislation was introduced; but not only that, the two points that

Mrs. McMurphy makes — the removal of wage controls and the granting of free

collective bargaining — were given in the bill. Yet the disruptive process still

continues.

"The

delegates overwhelmingly authorized the federation's executive

committee to proceed with a plan of direct job action on a provincewide

basis if these problems are not rectified."

Clearly a plan

of action a week before the bill was introduced into the House. So tell

me it's not purely politics; purely politics coming from the executive

of the BCTF.

"It

is important to make every reasonable effort to avoid the actions

contemplated — our school system needs fair treatment, not further

strife, if it is to be the bedrock of our new economy.

"That

is why I think it is essential that we have an opportunity to convey

the urgency of our concerns to you, our need for a fair, free, full

collective bargaining system, and to ascertain what measures you will

be taking to redress these long-standing grievances."

A week before

they saw the bill.

"I trust that you share my sense of urgency."

Now

when we're trying to pass Bill 20 to give them exactly what is in this

letter, they don't like our sense of urgency. We now have the sense of

urgency, and they want to hoist it for six months and modify it, etc.

hope you will be able to arrange such a meeting in the next week or the

earliest possible date thereafter to try to avoid escalation of this

situation."

A week before the bill was introduced — "try to avoid escalation of this situation."

"I will be available to suit your schedule.

"Yours very truly,

Elsie McMurphy."

I'll

make a copy of that available to the House if you wish, Mr. Speaker,

but I think it points out very clearly what the agenda is. The agenda

has little or nothing to do with bettering the situation in the

education system. It's purely a political thing that's being

perpetuated day after day after day. I heard the member who just spoke — from the Kootenays, I believe —

talk about the philosophy of the teachers' college. The philosophy of

the teachers' college does not suit that member, because it doesn't

suit the BCTF. The BCTF, in my estimation, wanted control of the whole

thing. They wanted all the marbles. They wanted to be immediately

certified as provincewide bargaining agent for all the teachers, and

also have the powers of the disciplinary college — to be able to

discipline teachers and be the professional body. It didn't happen, and

now they're all upset. Well, as has been said by many members on this

side of the House, the two are incompatible. You cannot be the

bargaining agent for a group and also its disciplinary and professional

agent. It doesn't happen with the doctors or any other group that I

know of. The member mentioned that there are going to be members in any

organization who don't always agree with their executive. Of course

there are going to be. But in the other instances she mentioned, such

as agriculture, wildlife federations and chambers of commerce, those

people had a choice, and still have a choice, as to whether or not they

wish to belong to the organization. If the organization makes too many

decisions they don't like, they can opt out. At the present moment

teachers cannot. If they don't like what the

[ Page

968 ]

executive of the BCTF is doing, they can't opt out, because membership is compulsory.

hear a good deal about how we're destroying the collegial atmosphere

among principals, vice-principals and teachers. We've got a new

buzzword now, a brand-new word, "collegial," and almost every member

over there has used it. There can still be collegiality among

principals, vice-principals and teachers. That doesn't mean they can't

be good managers. I know many good managers in business — and I'm not

ashamed to link it with the business model — who have a rapport, if you

like, or collegiality, if that's the word, with their employees, and

they get along very well with them; in many instances they work side by

side with them. But they're still good managers, they don't belong to

the same trade union as the people they're working beside, and it works

very well.

So I don't really see a problem with the

philosophy of the teachers' college. The teachers control that college;

they have by far the biggest say on it — 15 members, so they totally

control it. I think it's a red herring being thrown up and bandied

about by almost every speaker who gets up on the other side.

want to make it clear that I think it's the leaders in both cases, when

we come to both bills, Bills 19 and 20. It is the leaders, the

politicians of their organizations, who are calling the tune. It's not

the rank and file, not from the ones I have talked to. I have had

meetings with tradesmen in my constituency. Yes, I have had meetings

with their leaders too: with the president of the Kamloops and District

Labour Council and four or five others just last Friday. But I have had

individual people come in and say to me: "It's about time you

introduced this kind of legislation."

So I don't think that

the leaders in either of these cases speak for the majority of the

people in their organizations. Many of their leaders are still fighting

the last election, and they see this as a way of keeping it going. The

more I hear from the other side, the more I am convinced that they are

beating the drum, and everyone else is falling in line and marching to

the drum.

[11:30]

Reference has been made to the letter written by the Minister of

Education to the students. I think the letter was perfectly in order,

Mr. Speaker. Having read it, I don't see anything political in it at

all.

The minister clarified for me that he didn't ask

teachers to read the letter, as was said from the other side of the

House; he asked school boards to make sure that students were aware of

this letter, in whatever way they deemed fit. We should clear that

point up, because it was said a couple of times over there that

teachers were forced to read this letter to the students. That is not

correct.

I don't think the letter was political at all.

Having looked at it, I think it really guaranteed the students that

they wouldn't lose a year of school, that they would get their final

examinations, that the examinations would be marked, and that they

would have a graduation ceremony. I don't think that is too much to

guarantee students, especially those who have put in 12 long, hard

years to get their high-school graduation certificate.

is the same . . . . I will repeat as best I can some of the remarks I

made regarding Bill 19. It depends whose ox is being gored here. It is

the leaders of both the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C.

Teachers' Federation that stand to lose a lot of their power and

authority. It is those leaders who are upset, and it is those leaders

who are calling the tune or beating the drum, if you like, and using

the one method that they always seem to use: "Let’s get at the

government through the children. Let's get to the students, therefore

to the parents, and therefore to the government." Instead of fighting

the battle, if they want to become a trade union — which I suppose they

are going to be, a lot of them — then fight the battle on the basis of

being a trade union.

have had several phone calls from principals and vice-principals in my

constituency, and they seem to like the new setup. It is something they

have wanted for a long time. So I don't think the members over there

are correct when they say that principals and vice-principals don't

like the management setup proposed under the new legislation.

closing, I just want to say once again that I think most of us

understand the situation very well — in fact, some of us a lot better

than others would like. I understand

what is happening in the education system in this province, and I was

party to a good deal of the drafting of the legislation and the debate

on it that takes place before it comes into this House, and I'd be the

first to admit — and I think the Minister of Education would be too —

that it's not perfect, and he has offered to clean up any situations

that need cleaning up. He has guaranteed the teachers that their

pension plans and their sick leave would be safe, yet we continue to

see . . . . They keep throwing that up on the television screens as

being one of the things they're worried about, when the minister has

guaranteed them that they have no need to worry. So having said that

the minister will clean up any errors in drafting or any oversights or

any places where the legislation is flawed . . . . But the philosophy

and the intent will stay. It's a very long, complex bill. Naturally

it's not going to be perfect. We will do our best, I'm sure, during the

clause-by-clause debate in committee to make it as perfect as we

possibly can.

I sincerely hope that in the ensuing days

and weeks saner heads prevail and that those on the front lines

teaching the children realize — as I'm sure they do — that the

important thing is the education of the students and helping them

finish out this year, especially those in grade 12, the last year of

their public school education. I have no objection to them continuing

their political fight, but let's do it in the political arena. Let's do

it as any trade union movement has a right to do — and I would defend

that right, as I've said before. Let's do it in the proper arena in the

proper fashion, but let's not do it at the expense of our children and

the students in the schools. So I sincerely hope that saner heads

prevail over the next week, two weeks or months as we go into the

summer, and that we get on with the job, keeping the students in mind,

and get on with the idea of being professionals, of being professional

teachers. I firmly believe that most teachers out there are

professionals. The ones that I know

certainly are. I'm sure that, as we get further into the bill and they

understand it more fully and further, this type of thinking will come

to the fore and we'll get the fight — if that's what is required — out

of the classroom and into the political or labour-management field

where it belongs.

MR. BLENCOE :

Please excuse me today; I've got a bit of a sore throat and a cold, so

I will try and get through the next 25 minutes as quickly as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER : That's interesting.

[ Page

969 ]

MR. BLENCOE : I may not do it all. I'll speed it up.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm concerned this morning, as we have been concerned during a

lot of the debate, during the hoist motion and during second reading,

at the government members twisting, turning and trying to portray those

in the teaching profession as wanting to — on purpose — hurt children.

That is really disturbing. In this House and in the political arena

things are said, twists and turns are made; but when you have a

government and many members . . . . I've heard many speeches. I've sat

and listened to them, either in here or in my office, and I hear, I

think, the vindictive twists of government members trying to portray

teachers, who spend a long time getting their degrees at university,

going back summer after summer to get upgrading . . . . When I hear

many of these members saying that teachers are trying to hurt the

children or hurt the system through their actions and that they're

doing it on purpose, I find that really disturbing.

MR. SERWA : We're not saying that.

MR. BLENCOE :

No? You know, who put the teachers in this position? Who introduced

this legislation? Who decided to confront, once again in the province

of British Columbia, but the Social Credit Party and the government?

Nobody else.

Everybody was hoping for some peace and

tranquillity and consultation, and for some consensus on the critical

issues of our day, issues that make up our future, our children . . . .

There are no others; they are our future. I hear this twisting and

turning by government members that teachers are wanting to do what they

are currently doing now in terms of protecting their profession and

protecting the interests of children and the schools they work in —

that they're doing this to hurt children. I find that absolutely

scandalous. It's shocking, Mr. Speaker, and all these government

members who have twisted this issue should reflect on their comments.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

I've been around this House long enough that when you speak and the

chamber's this empty and when you make certain comments and you get a

reaction, as we're getting this morning, you know you're hitting home

with some truth. They know that they've twisted this bill and turned

it, and what they've done . . . . They didn't have to bring this bill

onto the floor of the Legislature at this time. They could have had

further discussions and tried to achieve some consensus.

AN HON. MEMBER : Tough Guy Two.

MR. BLENCOE :

That's right, Tough Guy Two. Patrick Kinsella and Tough Guy Two are

back. We heard the Premier on the weekend saying: "We can't back down."

We can't achieve what he's saying; we can't achieve consensus in

one of the most critical areas in our province, our education system; and that

is so sad. We debate this piece of legislation. We tried to have it hoisted.

We tried to indicate to the government that indeed the Minister of Education

last Friday said there were some things he wanted to do, and I said to him:

"If you're right in what you're saying, so be it, but sit privately

with those who represent the thousands of teachers and the children of this

province. Sit privately and quietly, not in here but in your office or wherever,

and work this out and achieve some consensus." I think the chance is still

there, but what have we got? We're still battling it out in here, and it's

the old confrontation that the people of the province of British Columbia are

sick and tired of.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : What do we get? We get the inane remarks from the member

for Saanich, the Oral Huberts of Saanich. What does the Oral Huberts of Saanich

say in this House? Some inane remark, when we are talking about

children, our teachers and our future. That's what we are talking about.

have tried diligently over the last few weeks to get this government to

come to its senses, to live up to the great promises that it made in

the last few months. We've had six months of government and a month of

campaigning, with them saying: "Things will be different in the

province of British Columbia. We believe in talking to people. We

believe in working out problems, and we don't believe in confrontation.

The Bill Bennett style of government was totally inappropriate for this

great province."

Well, the tough guy is back. The old style

of government is back. When we have the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Rabbitt), and we have the member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and other

members who say this government is a government of consultation but not

of consensus, that tells the people of British Columbia that we are

still in trouble in this great province.

Why aren't you

consulting without having this legislation in this House right now? Why

aren't you doing it privately and working it out, as you do with other

professional groups? Every single professional group in the last 50

years that has had changes to their acts or changes to the way they do

business has been handled in a process of achieving consensus and real

consultation.

Why the teachers? We've heard the speeches by

certain members. We know the Premier's record on the teachers. I'll

quote him again: "I think the problem is with the B.C. Teachers'

Federation." That's what the Premier thinks. That's what the member for

Langley thinks. I am going to go through the remarks of the member for

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) before lunch. I'll cover some of the

incredible remarks from that brilliant member about his attitudes

towards teachers and their organizations.

MR. REE : You weren't even here at the time.

MR. BLENCOE : Unfortunately for you, Mr. Member, it's in Hansard .

[11:45]

But

why the teachers? Why not take the same approach that has been taken

with doctors, lawyers, orthodontists, chartered accountants and various

other professions — discussions are currently going on with the engineers —

about how they should do business in the province of British Columbia?

Is it because this government feels that teachers are not a

professional organization? Do they have some antiquated, outdated view

of teachers and the education system that belongs back in the frontier

days of the province? Is that the problem?

The B.C. Teachers' Federation and the thousands of teachers it represents are a professional organization. They

[ Page 970 ]

deserve

better treatment by this government. They are on the front line in

terms of teaching our children and giving them the ability to handle a

changing world — and changing very fast, Mr. Speaker; sometimes they're

changes we don't all like. They're there trying to equip our young

people for the modern world, for the post-industrial revolution that is

upon us. They're there every single day trying to help those children

gain the education they need to work in a changing world.

AN HON. MEMBER : You're protecting the BCTF.

MR. BLENCOE : There's another remark. You see, that's where we come . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : What did he say?

MR. BLENCOE :

"You're protecting the BCTF." That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

You cannot get your minds off the floor to think that this organization

and the teachers of this province are part of our great future. You

know, it's time for a better attitude to those men and women who go to

school, go to university, go back every summer and try to equip

themselves for a changing world. Every single year many of them — thousands of them —

go back for their summers. And I know many of them. They give up their

summers, give up their families, and go back to school because they're

concerned about preparing those young people for the future. What does

this bill do to help those teachers equip themselves to help our young

people?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It gives them freedom.

MR. BLENCOE : Oh, it gives them freedom —

the right wing dogma and rhetoric that we have heard over and over

again from worn-out right-wing governments: "It gives them freedom,"

Mr. Speaker, "freedom."

We can see no reason or

justification for this bill other than that a vindictive, small-minded,

ultra-right-wing extremist government has decided to declare war on the

teachers in the province of British Columbia — that's what it's all

about. They're going to shoot the messengers. They're going to take

care of the teachers who try to prepare our young people for the

future. That's what it's all about.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) says the

problem with teachers is the BCTF and quotes some obscure articles of a

committee that says the BCTF is full of these undesirables. Heaven

forbid that a teacher would talk about current affairs in the

schoolroom. Heaven forbid that a teacher would talk about what's

happening in the world and what's happening with this province and the

Social Credit government when it puts 75 percent user fees on old folk.

God forbid that those teachers would talk about what this government is

doing to the people of this province. Well, that's the message this

government is giving to the teachers, to the children and to the future

of our education system.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Somehow, for various reasons — which I will not canvass today —

the BCTF and the teachers have got under the skin of the Premier. And

he's on record as saying: "One day, I'll get the teachers. We'll figure

it out. That's the problem." And it's come right out of the — where is it? —

the west annex over here. That's where it has come from. It's

vindictive legislation. It splinters the teachers. It hurts the system,

and it hurts the kids in that system.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

This government had the opportunity a few weeks ago, if it was serious

about consultation, if it could ever accept that consensus can work —

and when you're dealing with this issue, we need consensus —

to say: "Yes, we've got a bit of a problem." You can't just put down

every single teacher, saying: "Oh, well, it's just the executive of the

BCTF that's upset." You can't sell that; it won't sell. So you had a

chance to step back and say: "Well, maybe there are some problems here

in the province of British Columbia with our education system." Step

back. Maybe there are some things that could be worked out privately

that the teachers could accept in a fair . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Capitulate, that's what you're saying.

MR. BLENCOE : You see, there we are.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Leadership.

MR. BLENCOE : There's the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It comes out of them when we hit home with the truth: they're going to capitulate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It's called leadership, good government.

MR. BLENCOE :

It's win-win. It's like a hockey game to you, isn't it? You've got to

put the puck in the net, and you've got to win every time. You've got

to win despite the kids and the system and the teachers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE :

Yes, that's the attitude. They want to win. Well, that was the attitude

of Bill Bennett; that was the attitude of the Kinsella image and the

tough guy. They've got to win at all costs: don't back down, don't save

face, don't consult, don't achieve consensus. No, Mr. Speaker, the old

government is back. It's a little more sophisticated, this new

government. We've got a Premier today who uses smile and guile; that's

what happens today. A little more smiling, a little more guile than the

former Premier, but it's the same style of government.

Mr.

Speaker, all we're asking for and have asked consistently in this

debate on Bills 19 and 20 is for some reason, for some rationality, for

some consensus and for some consultation. You're not talking about a

minor league hockey association rule change. You're not talking about

that, Mr. Speaker. We're talking here about a gigantic change in the

game plan for how we run our education system in the province of

British Columbia. Whatever you say, whatever the members say — and they try desperately — that they

[ Page 971 ]

consulted

about this.... The minister will get up and say he told everybody it's

fair, and they understood. No, Mr. Minister, you didn't tell the

professional teachers what you were going to do. You didn't.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Yes, I did.

MR. BLENCOE :

Give them the same opportunity you give other professional groups.

That's fair. That's the open government that that smile-and-guile

Premier keeps talking about. That's the open government that the people

of British Columbia want to see. That's what they were hoping would

come with the change of government, Mr. Speaker. Nothing's changed.

Prove

me wrong, Mr. Minister. This afternoon say you no longer want to

continue with second reading debate. Prove me wrong. Say this afternoon

that you will no longer continue second reading debate, that you will

hold it off for a week and you will sit down with the B. C. Teachers'

Federation and actually achieve some consensus, and do the very thing

that you promised you'd do, or your Premier promised you'd do — that

this government would be different. Mr. Speaker, this government is not

different.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE : I am

really disappointed I'm not going to get to go through the remarks of

the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree). I am really

disappointed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REE : I'm disappointed too.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, no. It just points out that this government is on a

search-and-destroy mission when it comes to the teachers and their

organization — search and destroy — as was Bill Bennett and the old

government, and as now is clearly the new government under the new

Premier.

Let me read into the record the motions passed by the Greater Victoria Teachers'

Association, in a large meeting held on April 8 here in greater Victoria. Here,

Mr. Speaker, are the motions by the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association,

endorsed by the teachers from greater Victoria:

"

(1) That we, the teachers of school district 61 . . . at a meeting held

in Victoria, B.C., on April 8, 1987, reaffirm our commitment to

maintain the goals and purposes of the BCTF and to confirm our

determination to continue the BCTF as the democratic organization that

represents and acts for all teachers in all professional, educational

and employment matters.

"

(2) That the

Greater Victoria Teachers' Association expresses its dismay at the

process used by the government to introduce Bill 19 . . . and Bill 20 .

. . without a responsible consultative process involving the BCTF as

our representative professional association.

"

(3) That the GVTA is opposed to the separation of teachers'

professional responsibilities and bargaining rights as reflected in the

proposed College of Teachers; and further, that the Greater Victoria

Teachers' Association opposes changes in the membership of the BCTF

with regard to the role and duties of principals and vice-principals.

"

(4) That the GVTA is opposed to the retention of wage controls over teacher bargaining for another year.

"

(5) That the GVTA is opposed to changes to the Labour Code/Industrial

Relations Reform Act which weaken the rights of all organized workers.

"

(6) That the GVTA is opposed to the proposed arbitrary and unilateral

cancellation of due process, tenure and benefit rights of teachers.

"

(7) That the GVTA call on the government to delay consideration of Bill

19 . . . and Bill 20 . . . to allow the appropriate consultation with

the BCTF to take place."

Mr. Blencoe moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada