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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Prince George forest region. Mr. Williams –– 849

Mr. Kempf

Hospital user fees Mrs. Boone –– 850

Teachers' work-to-rule. Mr. Weisgerber 850

Tabling Documents –– 851

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Guno –– 851

Mr. Jacobsen –– 853

Mrs. Boone –– 854

Mr. Crandall –– 857

Mr. Barnes –– 858

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 861

Mr. Gabelmann –– 862

Mr. Messmer –– 865

Ms. Edwards –– 866

Mr. Serwa –– 869

Mr. Williams –– 871

An Act To Incorporate Mission Foundation (Bill PR404) Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 873

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I have two introductions I'd like to

make today. First of all, in the members' gallery, visiting from

Saskatoon, are Bill and Norma Novak. I last saw these fine people 24

years ago at the Royal Canadian Air Force base at Cold Lake, Alberta,

where I was the base controller and Bill was the principal of one of

our four National Defence schools. Bill went on to become

superintendent of schools in that area, and retired just a year or two

ago. It's delightful to have Bill and Norma with us. I would appreciate

the House extending them a very warm welcome.

On your

behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House three very

fine people that I met at noon today: Margaret Clews, who's from

Vancouver; Valerie Blackmore, who's visiting British Columbia from New

Zealand; and Brian Purdy, from Vancouver. I would appreciate the House

making them welcome also.

MR. MERCIER : In the

Speaker's gallery are Jake Koole, the president of the Burnaby-Edmonds

Social Credit riding association, and his wife Tena. I would like to

ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE : We

have some special guests in the gallery today. My father, Rev. Charles

Blencoe, is here, and Mrs. Freda Cathcart Blencoe. Accompanying them,

as their special guests, are two people from Cornwall, England — from

Falmouth: Wing Commander Beeton and Mrs. Beeton. Would the House please

make them all welcome.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker,

sitting in your gallery is a very good friend of both the first member

for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and me, a member of our constituency executive

and a very hard worker in both of our campaigns. I wish the House to

join me in welcoming Mr. Patrick McCarthy here today.

MS. CAMPBELL :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mahinder Doman, who is a Victoria

resident, and is very active in radio station CFUV, which broadcasts

out of the University of Victoria and does an excellent job of

providing public affairs broadcasts, interviews and discussions for the

people of the capital region. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

PRINCE GEORGE FOREST REGION

MR. WILLIAMS :

We have now been advised that the 10 million seedlings that were likely

to be trashed in the Prince George region are to be planted. Can the

Minister of Forests advise whether funding for silviculture in the

Prince George region has been increased?

HON. MR. PARKER : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question from the member

for Vancouver East, which I'd be pleased to reply to. Forest management

in British Columbia is the responsibility of the B.C. Forest Service. It's

this ministry's mandate, and it's also my operating philosophy, to have

the field managers manage. Those field managers are managing within the terms

of reference of their operating budgets and their responsibilities.

MR. WILLIAMS :

That would mean, then, Mr. Speaker, that they have to steal from other

programs to plant the seedlings. They indicated in their memos that

that was worse than trashing the seedlings, because it would mean they

would not be tending the plantations. Can the minister advise the House

if that is the case? Because that was the only option the professionals

saw, other than more money. They will be doing worse than trashing the

seedlings, will they?

HON. MR. PARKER : Forest

management is basically an objective to obtain a commercial forest crop

in a reasonable period of time. In British Columbia a reasonable period

of time is variable by the growing regions of the province. In some

areas the rotation can be brought down to perhaps 60 years; in the

northern areas it can be as much as 120 years. When you relate that to

an agricultural crop where in British Columbia, in the same area, you

might have 90 to 100 frost-free days, and you have to address the crop

to keep the weeds down or to do any spacing, you might be delayed by a

day or two, or a week, depending on the weather or any other outside

influences. When you draw a parallel to forest management, you're

looking at a 100-year horizon, not a 100-day horizon, and a year or two

to adjust and exercise a little management prerogative makes very

little difference.

MR. WILLIAMS : To everything there

is a season. The professional staffers in Prince George have indicated,

therefore, that this will eliminate all surveys in the region,

eliminate all brushing and weeding, and one-third of site preparation.

Will the minister confirm that? That's the professional decision.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, I guess I haven't had that type of conversation with the

staff. I would be pleased to take that question on notice and certainly

come back with a written reply.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Further to the minister, the former Minister of Forests, the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf), in a letter to the newspapers on April 28, said

that "the people of the province are losing a billion a year" in terms

of legitimate revenues for our public forests, and that studies carried

out by the ministry show how inadequate and incorrect our current

stumpage system is. Will the minister table those studies?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member for Omineca did initiate a stumpage appraisal review and

that's underway now in the ministry. When the report is available we'll

certainly be happy to share it with all the people of British Columbia.

[2:15]

PRINCE GEORGE FOREST REGION

MR. KEMPF :

I have a question to the Minister of Forests and Lands. As many would

know, Mr. Speaker, the Prince George TSA is being seriously overcut.

Part of the solution is to chase the forest companies up the Dease Lake

extension of the BCR, north of Fort St. James and into the Sustut.

[ Page 850 ]

Recently,

Mr. Les Reed, a well-known B.C. forestry professor, said in Prince

George that he felt the forest companies should pick up the estimated

$43 million tab for the upgrading of that necessary line. My question,

Mr. Speaker, to the minister is: can the minister assure this House,

and through it the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, that

if the forest companies do pay for the upgrading — and I would agree with Mr. Reed that they should — no write-off of these expenditures will take place under

section 88 of the Forest Act?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for Omineca, the Prince George

timber supply area is an extremely large timber supply area. It extends

from the Bear Pass in the Sustut River area, as the member mentioned,

down to an area south and east of Prince George. The cut levels in the

Prince George timber supply area have been accelerated in the southeast

region due to lodge pole pine and white spruce beetle kills in those

areas, and the Forest Service, in its management approach to the area,

accelerated the cut in that region of the timber supply area to make

sure that whatever merchantable timber was available in the killed and

infested timber was reaped before it was dead on the stump and

unusable. So we have revenue from that crop, and we also have a

silvicultural cleaning. The way that it took place was a progressive

clearcut — a substantial clearcut — to the south and east of Prince

George, which is exactly what Mother Nature would have done had a

wildfire taken on that dead timber. So we were able to recoup revenue

and keep jobs through the downturn that we experienced over the last

few years.

As for the transportation matters in the upper

reaches of the Prince George timber supply area, the Dease Lake

extension goes from Prince George north on the BCR mainline and

branches off at a place just by Summit Lake called O'Dell, and moves

northwest through Fort St. James and then up along the lake system

right up to Chipmunk, a coal deposit area. The railway from Leo Creek

at the bottom end of Takla Lake up to the top end of the TSA was

constructed in the early seventies to construction standards. It never

really got to the operating standards required by the operating

division of the B.C. Railway. So the point that the member was making

is that there is probably $40 million to $45 million worth of costs to

bring that line up to operating standards. As far as who is going to

pay and when, that hasn't been determined yet, and we'll be happy to

share that information with the member when the time comes.

MR. KEMPF :

Mr. Speaker, this

section 88 question is one of very great importance

to the people of British Columbia, as millions of their dollars are

being doled out in what I consider corporate welfare for

section 88.

new question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Has he decided or is he

considering the abolition of

section 88 of the Forest Act in order that

industry might pay their fair share to the taxpayer of the province of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, some

of my colleagues are coaching me that we are probably dealing with

future policy. But we should talk about

section 88, and I'd be happy to

address that portion of the member's question, with your leave, sir.

Section

88 provides for payment to a licensee by a credit note on their

stumpage and royalty account for capital projects submitted for B.C.

Forest Service approval, being the licenser, for capital improvements

of the public's asset. If the Forest Service deem it not to be

necessary and not to be in the best interests of the public, they

disallow that project. If the project is to continue at that point,

then it's at the licensee's own cost. However, if it is accepted by the

licenser as a suitable capital project on behalf of the people of

British Columbia, they approve the project and the means of payment is

by a credit note on the scale and royalty account as the project

progresses and as each stage is inspected and approved by a

representative of the licenser. During this whole period of time, the

licensee sees no interest on the capital he has laid out on behalf of

the people of British Columbia, nor does he get all of the operating

overheads in those projects.

section 88 has had abuses, but

section 88 has its place.

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. BOONE :

The question is to the Minister of Health. Last night the minister

indicated publicly that he intends to lobby the federal minister for

the return of hospital user fees. Can the minister assure the people of

British Columbia that there will be no return to hospital user fees, or

that the only thing protecting us from hospital user fees is the Canada

Health Act?

HON. MR. DUECK : I don't know what the question was. Whether the only protection is the Canada Health Act — that is true, yes it is.

MRS. BOONE :

My question was, if there were no Canada Health Act and if the federal

government would allow you to, the provincial government here would put

on user fees. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DUECK : That

is a hypothetical question. I think that as far as we are concerned in

the Ministry of Health, we believe that the responsibility must fall on

every one of us. I believe that a small user fee such as we had before

is perhaps a very good way to collect a little extra money and keep

control of health costs.

MRS. BOONE : The minister said he favours, these because they are a deterrent. In my estimation, they are an unfair deterrent on the poor.

What

preventive health programs is the minister working on to reduce health

costs, or is his only solution to health costs in this province the

institution of user fees?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Speaker, that certainly is not the only preventive measure we have

taken. If you want to know all of them, you would have to have more

than 15 minutes in question period; it would take about an hour and a

half to go through all the programs.

TEACHERS' WORK-TO-RULE

MR. WEISGERBER :

A question for the Minister of Education. This morning in Dawson Creek,

somewhat in excess of 300 students were demonstrating downtown to

protest the loss of auxiliary services in the schools because of

work-to-rule, Mr. Minister. Could you advise these students

[ Page

851 ]

and their parents as to what action you would recommend they take?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Speaker, I have heard about that action from one

of the student spokesmen, who tried to make contact. In between meetings I was

able to get through to the spokesman for those 300 students, a very responsible,

rational young man, who was very frustrated about the deprivation of activities

that the students were being subjected to.1 asked him to ask the students to

go back to school. In my opinion, two wrongs do not make a right.1 asked them

to act responsibly despite their frustration, de spite what they were being

deprived of. I said that I felt there was nothing to be gained by them following

a bad example that had been set for them, but I guess their concern really is:

why are we being deprived of these sports events? I don't really have an

answer for that because no legislation ever made any teacher provide that kind

of service; it was always provided because of professional interest in improving

the lives of those students.

I've asked them why the teachers aren't doing it. Some of them said

that they would gladly coach, but they're not allowed to. I can only advise

him of the existence of laws in this province, and 1 don't know of anyone — myself, the ministry, or the BCTF — that has the authority to order a teacher

to voluntarily coach a team, or some other extra curricular activity, or to

tell that teacher that they're not allowed to do it. I certainly couldn't

order a teacher. These were voluntary activities that were done.

They're also concerned about the threat of withdrawal of graduation. I

think I've made my views plain on that. Any student that has gone through

12 years of school is entitled to a graduation exercise in this province. I

assured him that I expected that teachers were professional enough that they

would not stop those graduation exercises. I have full faith that they will

carry them out, and I said to them that they should not be canceling any plans.

It takes a lot of advance planning for graduation exercises, and once cancelled

it would be difficult to reinstate. I said: "Please don't cancel your graduation

exercises. I fully expect that the teachers will do it, and I fully expect that

some way will be found."

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I suppose some of the opposition members really considered this depriving . . . .

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, Mr. Minister. We are not in debate; it is question and answer period.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I'm sorry, I just gathered that we were having Let me then conclude by

saying that I think the students in this province will have their

graduation exercises some way, and I think the teachers will be there

to deliver it.

MR. ROSE : On a point of order, I think we can clearly say that in question

period there are sins on both sides of the House in terms of going on and on,

but I think the other side of the House weighed a little bit more heavily

this time in terms of lengthy answers — which perhaps didn't say a great

deal –– I congratulate the Minister the Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)

and also the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brunimet).

They've been taking lessons and are now taking a Couvelier attitude to the House.

MR. SPEAKER :

I thank the opposition House Leader for bringing that point up. I think

he was reading the Speaker's mind. I think that if both sides of the

House were to read standing order 47A(b), they would see that the rules

were stretched somewhat on both sides today.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the B.C. Railway group of companies annual report for 1986.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled answers to questions asked in the House on April 28, 1987.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Adjourned debate on the amendment to second reading of Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER : I would advise the member that he has 22 minutes remaining.

[2:30]

On the amendment.

MR. GUNO :

I'm glad to resume my participation in this debate and support my

colleagues in calling for a hoist on this bill. When I ended yesterday

when time ran out, I was talking about the timing of the introduction

of this bill, and more or less trying to get a handle on the rationale

for introducing it at this time and with such great haste. I think the

Premier provided some clue as to a reason, if you want to call it that,

why this bill has been introduced now. He was reported to have conceded

that he would never dare introduce such legislation near an election.

He's reported to have said that to do hat would be dumb. I would

suggest that if introducing it three years from now is dumb,

introducing it now is equally dumb. But aside from the underlying

cynicism of that position, the Premier is clearly saying to the people

that this is really heavy stuff, not to be tried in the ultimate test —

that is, to let the people decide and give the Premier the mandate to

radically change direction in the labour and education fields, which

they clearly did not in the last election.

I would suggest

that the Premier is stretching the credibility of the people by saying

that there has been significant and real consultation before

introducing this bill. It might be trite to remind the House that it

was Abraham Lincoln who aid that you can fool some of the people some

of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

People will remember, and the ensuing chaos in the education field, if

his bill is passed, will remind people constantly for the next four

years that it was this government's intransigence in ramming this bill

through without any real consultation. I would suggest that the

government has opened a Pandora's ox. Unless they take this measured

pause for a period of reflection, to consult with the people affected,

it's almost inevitable that there will be nothing but grief for all

British Columbians.

I've listened to the speeches from the government side and am amazed at the complete and total absence of any

[ Page 852 ]

reasonable

arguments in favour of this bill. They have doggedly parroted the party

line, which in effect says: "Yes, this is tough medicine, but it's good

for you. Believe us. Trust us." But they have never shown any

willingness to contemplate compromise, which I suggest is essential to

any system of democratic government. I get the sense that the Premier

seems to equate the process of pausing for reflection, of allowing

people who have serious concerns about this bill.... He seems to feel

it's synonymous with capitulation –– I can assure the Premier that we

would not consider he was losing any manhood if he were to at least

stop once in a while and consider what the differing views are all

about –– I think that that kind of view is rather naive for a Premier

who leads the government of one of the biggest provinces in Canada. It

suggests to me a basic misunderstanding as to the role of government

and, indeed, of politics in our society. It is my contention that if we

are going to conduct an intelligent debate on this issue, or on any

complex issue like this, we must all be aware of the difficulties and

complexities that such issues represent.

I have a

small excerpt to read from Bernard Crick, a political scientist from

Great Britain, who talks about how we have to deal with differing views

and try to accommodate them. He talks about politics. He states:

"Politics arises, according to the great Aristotle, in organized states

which recognize themselves to be an aggregate of many members — not a

single tribe, religion, interest or tradition. Politics arises from

accepting the fact of the simultaneous existence of different groups,

hence different interests and different traditions, within a

territorial unit under a common rule."

He goes on to say

that.... This is appropriate for this government, which seems to have a

penchant for order, but just simple order, without any recognition of

the fact that order cannot be just willy-nilly; that political order is

not just any order at all. He states: "It marks the birth or the

recognition of freedom, for politics represents at least some tolerance

of differing truths, some recognition that government is possible — indeed best conducted — amid the open canvassing of rival interests."

Mr.

Speaker, I think that those words are appropriate to what we're trying

to deal with today. So I would suggest that nothing is as black and

white as this government would like us to believe, and that we have to

be aware of some of the hidden pitfalls that must surely lie in this

bill. It is incumbent on all of the members here in the House, as

legislators, to look hard and well at the decisions that we're going to

make.

Mr. Speaker, in my maiden speech I ended up by

quoting three principles which the leaders of our people, the Nishga

people, usually state at the beginning of deliberations. They're

something akin to this. One of them was, "Sim git wil sim," which

means: "Deliberate, knowing that you have a serious task at hand." I

would suggest that this is appropriate advice for all of us here in

this House, in dealing with this very complex and radical bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch just very briefly on some of the more contentious

sections of Bill 20 just to highlight or emphasize the need for us to take some

time to have a period of real consultation. First there is the issue of the

College of Teachers. It is evident that the teaching profession opposes in the

strongest terms the concept of the College of Teachers that is contained in

sections 1 to 41 of the bill. They feel that such a proposal would splinter

the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, which has, since 1919, represented

and acted for teachers in all educational and professional matters, and that

includes economic and employment interests. I would suggest that this bill would

tend to compartmentalize the teachers and set up artificial barriers. That could

only have a negative effect on our education as a whole.

in view of those facts, Mr. Speaker, there is a significant

cross-section of the educational community who view the proposal as

unnecessary, disruptive and counterproductive. The government has an

opportunity to show real leadership if they were to agree to set aside

this bill to allow for real consultation.

Mr. Speaker, I

want to just sort of speak from a northern perspective. I've been

talking to a number of people from my riding and from northern

communities who are concerned about the fact that the government is

trying to push Bill 20 through without any kind of input from them. One

of the concerns that a particular teacher brought to my attention about

how it would impact on teachers in the north — and I think the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) touched on this — is the concept of double jeopardy which the teachers would be placed in under this bill, especially in respect to tenure.

The concern is that it represents a possibility that teachers can be transferred with virtually no appeal. My source — and this is being borne out by other calls —

feels that this would inhibit teachers from taking stands on anything,

professional or otherwise. He felt that the ten-year regulation under

this bill would eliminate the form of due process that exists now. In

small communities like those you find in Atlin this would raise a

particular kind of problem, in that a teacher's life would be under

intense scrutiny all the time. For example, if under Bill 20 the school

board can on the grounds of immorality have a teacher transferred, it

may well be based on some member of the school board's not being

satisfied with a teacher's lifestyle. That teacher could quickly find

himself transferred to another area, and in many small towns teachers

feel threatened and vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, there are some

strong concerns about the disciplinary powers that are contained in

Bill 20. The establishment of this kind of College of Teachers that's

contemplated under Bill 20 is unprecedented in Canada. It has been

pointed out that it has been proposed in the past in other

jurisdictions, but after consultation with the parties involved, the

proposals were withdrawn because it was felt they were ill-conceived,

impractical, expensive and unnecessarily complex. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that these are valid reasons for withdrawing this particular

bill.

Many people in the north — both teachers and members of the communities —

have expressed their view, as I pointed out, that they have never had

the opportunity to be consulted about education, and there are, as I

also pointed out, particular problems in small northern towns in Atlin

Schools in small communities are generally the centre of 'community

life. Most times we don't have recreational facilities other than those

found in the schools — the school gyms. Generally speaking, that's

where significant community events occur. And teachers play an integral

part in these communities, Mr. Speaker. Many people I have spoken to

from places like Dease Lake, Atlin and Stewart are concerned that this

bill would erode those kinds of community relations. The bill would

relegate teachers to being simple employees and not professionals. That

erosion would move into all areas of the community.

[ Page 853 ]

The

bill is a restraining one. It would create a situation where teachers

would not take risks, and in teaching and dealing with young people as

individuals teachers are continually having to take risks. But under

this bill, with its tremendous kinds of constraints, as I understand it

there would be very little motivation for teachers to be innovators. A

simple mistake can have such a serious ramification on a teacher's

career. So this would render teachers vulnerable. It would make them

more conservative and afraid.

Another example, Mr. Speaker,

which has been brought to my attention and which has application in

some of the native communities in Atfin, is the recognition that where

there is a significant native presence there should be native content

in the school curriculum. For instance, in the Stikine district there

is a native and northern education committee which advises the school

board on various matters pertaining to native education. One of the

more innovative programs or things that they have presented is

introducing or having a more significant native content in the

curriculum. Under this bill, if you run into someone — a principal or a school board —

who feels that that is not appropriate or simply does not feel that

that is desirable, a teacher cannot make a stand and cannot argue in a

professional way, because of this kind of axe that's hanging over each

teacher's head. All in all, Bill 20 would have this kind of inhibiting

effect. Teachers would be afraid to take stands. It is a kind of

atmosphere where creativity and imagination would not survive, I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker. To quote Crawford Kilian from his

article in the Province

yesterday: "The net effect of Bill 20, then, won't be to

professionalize teachers (as if they needed it). It'll just create

another timid, self-serving bureaucracy. Meanwhile the school system

will sink deeper into government-inspired chaos."

[2:45]

Redefining the roles and the duties of the principals and

vice-principals and relegating them to those of administrators would

have serious repercussions in our schools today. Again, in the north,

where schools are generally small, it is a cooperative atmosphere that

makes it work. Often teachers or vice-principals, sometimes the

vice-principal and principal and teacher, are all one. In fact, my

predecessor, the late Al Passarell, was a principal, the only teacher

in a one-room school at Good Hope Lake.

These are the

kinds of situations we find in Atlin. Oftentimes teachers are called

upon to perform duties well beyond their mandate. I think the passing

of this bill would completely eliminate that kind of cooperative effort

on the part of many teachers in the north.

There is no

doubt that this bill will cause the deterioration of the personal

community and professional relations that are so necessary if we're

going to have quality education. In the words of Elsie McMurphy, in her

letter to the Premier on April 14, 1987: "If school-level

decision-making becomes, as Bill 20 requires, the imposition of

management directives in an adversarial setting, rather than

educational leadership and the involvement of all colleagues, it will

be a tragedy for education. Our schools do not need to become

labour-management battlegrounds."

There is a great concern

about the impact of the tenure right of principals and vice-principals

in that removing all possibility of procedural review, of reassignments

of these members and, more seriously, the authority of the school board

to simply terminate by resolution and without right of reinstatement .

. . . I think it is a serious denial of the fundamental rights of a

great many people in our province.

It is high time that we

recognize the tremendous role that the teachers play in our society. I

can't emphasize this too strongly: without their cooperation in setting

policies that affect education, those policies are doomed to failure. I

believe that it is vital that in introducing any radical change there

must be a meaningful consultative process — that we go an extra mile in

avoiding further disruptions and confrontation and trying to rebuild

our educational system so that we do have one that we can all be proud

of.

We ought to remember that we are not dealing here just

with teachers; we are dealing with education. In asking for a period of

real consultation, we are doing it not just for the B.C. Teachers'

Federation; we are doing it for our children. For this reason I would

support, and urge all members to seriously consider, hoisting this bill.

MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to stand up and address this motion.

Before I begin speaking on it, I would just like to say that a couple

of days ago I listened to the opposition House Leader express his

appreciation of a speech made by our second member for Langley (Mr.

Peterson), I believe, and he liked it because it was short. I want that

member to know that he's really going to like my speech today, because

it's probably even shorter. I also wanted to suggest to him that we on

this side of the House have the same feelings as the people on that

side of the House, and I would urge him to try to make his speeches and

his colleagues' speeches likable for the same reason.

Let

me begin by just saying briefly what I see teachers' role in society to

be. I personally think that teachers occupy one of the most important

positions of all people in society. They have a great deal of influence

on the life of our society, the future direction that our society will

take. One of the great occupations, the great professions, is that of

teacher.

We have two small children at home that are just

getting into the school system, and I know the teachers of those

children well. Let me say that they are people that I have every

respect for, and I recognize the significant impact that they will have

upon our children as they grow up and go through life. So the teacher's

role is certainly recognized as being very important.

The

hoist motion that's being presented has no value. I don't see that

there's any reason for doing it; there's no reason why this bill should

not proceed and be debated now. Let's have the arguments now, and let's

finalize them at this point in time.

The merits of the bill

are obvious. It provides to teachers the opportunity to determine their

own direction. It gives teachers the right to decide how they wish to

be represented. It provides for individual teachers a new opportunity

to make their feelings and their wishes known. It allows for local

representation. It allows for organizations at the local level to deal

with the community, and that certainly has to be a very valid point.

was very pleased with the bill when it was introduced. I've gone over

it. I am satisfied that it is very good legislation and serves a good

purpose. But I was interested in hearing what the criticisms would be,

and so I stayed in the House particularly to listen to the member for

Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), the designated speaker of the opposition on

this issue. I thought he would best present the views of the opposition

on the criticism of the bill. I stayed in the House for his whole

[ Page 854 ]

speech

and listened carefully and closely to what he had to say. I sincerely

wanted to know what they felt was wrong with this particular

legislation. Well, I heard him say that the bill is bad; that it makes

collective bargaining a myth; the arbitration clause is no good; it's a

kind of fraud; it's going to have a negative impact on children — and

so on and so on. He went on to say that the government is heavy-handed

and interested in confrontation, but he praised the role of the BCTF as

being conciliatory and creating harmony.

There were some

specific criticisms. I'd just like to mention three of them; there were

several. The first one was the separation of negotiating working

conditions away from the professional responsibilities. Perhaps those

two functions could take place together, but in today's society, which

is preoccupied with conflict of interest and does not seem to recognize

that any person could even give up a little bit of self-interest for a

lot of public good, I think it's important that there be a forum for

people to express their professionalism away from any kind of

suggestion that it is there to represent their own personal good.

Obviously,

with the guidelines we've provided, that becomes a necessary facility

within our society; so it's necessary for the teacher who wishes to

address the problems of education, because it's from the teacher that

most of the suggestions for how the children should be taught will

come. They're the people in the field, and they're the people we need

to rely upon for advice as to how our education system should work.

They need to be able to present their views in a forum that's

completely divorced from any suggestion that they do it for personal

gain. So I think it's obviously essential that there be two places for

teachers to deal: one where they deal with their working conditions;

another one where they deal with their professional responsibility.

The

second thing that was mentioned was the Royal Commission on Education.

They asked what that royal commission would now do, with this bill

being passed. I could hardly believe that there's a suggestion on the

part of anyone in this House that the only issues that matter to

education are the questions of teachers' working conditions and

salaries; that that would be the paramount issue facing education in

this province. There are many things that the commission needs to

consider. I'm certainly not qualified to begin to list very many of

them, but there are some. For instance, we live in a world where

knowledge is doubling every few years; where skills that are learned

today may be obsolete ten years from now; where conditions are changing

so rapidly that society can hardly keep pace; where the young people of

today will have to be able to compete in a very tough, competitive

world in the years ahead. Certainly it becomes paramount now that we

decide what kind of education is required and how that education will

be provided.

The average young person that enters school

today has spent thousands of hours sitting in front of a television

set. They've seen the bodies on the streets of Beirut; they've seen the

violence of South Africa; they've seen the dying children of Ethiopia;

they've seen the rockets roaring into space and men walking on the

moon; they've seen the mushroom cloud from a hydrogen bomb, and they've

been told that one day such a device may extinguish all life on this

planet. And then we take them into a classroom and we tell them to pay

attention because this is important: "See Spot run."

I tell

you, there are a lot of things that we have to address. We have to

address the question of the environment in schools and the tremendous

growth of the independent school. Let me tell you that anyone here that

thinks that there's a relationship between the private school of years

gone by and the independent school of today makes a very serious

mistake. The private school of yesteryear was a place where the wealthy

sent their children for superior education. The independent school

today is a school where parents who are neither elite nor wealthy send

their children for protection, because they are concerned about sending

their children to school to have the moral and the spiritual fibre of

their children lost during the time that they are trying to obtain an

education.

We have to address the question of protecting

young people in our institutional facilities. That's why independent

schools are growing; that's why they are in such demand today. It is

because people are insecure in sending their children to the public

schools. We, the people concerned with education, have to address and

answer that problem.

The other thing that was mentioned

was, of course, that the legislation should even have reference to a

clause that deals with the ability to pay. Now that was considered to

be something that should not exist, the ability to pay. I can

understand that view coming from the opposition because that is

consistent with the policy that they have advocated in every

legislation that goes before this House. There is no concern for the

ability to pay. But thank God there are people who stand up in this

House and are concerned about the impact on the taxpayers of British

Columbia. Somebody has to do it, and I am pleased to say that it is the

Social Credit Party, the government of this province, that has taken

the responsibility for it.

Yes, I say there is no reason

for the hoist motion to proceed. It is time to move this bill forward;

move it now and let the legislation prove itself in the working arena.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the words from the speaker behind me

here. I am a little shocked at them but I am not surprised, I guess. I

was surprised though when Bill 20 came out. I think we were all very

surprised, and we were not expecting it. I talked to many people in the

BCSTA and the BCTF, and no one really anticipated those changes at all.

They thought that they were going to be given the right to bargain.

They thought they were going to be given the right to strike, and the

news indicated that that's what was going to be given to them.

The

election campaign that was run in November indicated that this was a

fantastic province and these were fantastic people, and we had a

fantastic future. A fantastic future for some people in this province,

but not for the working man and woman. What this bill has done is push

people into a comer, and I am not surprised that they are coming out

fighting, because when people are cornered they do come out fighting.

Nowhere

else in Canada has such

an act as this been put in place. Nowhere else

in Canada do they have a college dealing strictly with the issuing of

certificates.

This bill should be hoisted and it must be

hoisted. It should be hoisted because it is going through far too fast.

One has to ask oneself why. Why is this going through so fast? Why now?

Why at this particular time? Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be a surprise to

you to hear that we were a little taken aback when this was put on the

order last week. We didn't expect this to happen, but it came at this

point, and I think it came because of a deliberate attempt to push the

[ Page

855 ]

teachers into doing something radical while the talks were still going on.

find it interesting that one of the provisions in Bill

19 indicates that there should be no strike vote before

negotiations start. I have heard a lot of people say that they think

that is a good idea, and it is a good idea. However, right now we have

put Bill 20 on to the order paper and we're giving it t second reading

while negotiations are going on, which is exactly the same thing as

taking a strike vote beforehand. You are pushing them into a comer. You

are holding a gun to their head. You are telling them to do something,

and then you act amazed when they actually do perform, when they do go

out.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This is happening, and it is

happening not because of anything that the teachers have done. It is

happening because this government has deliberately put the teachers

into a situation where they must react, and they have reacted.

have a royal commission going on right now. What would be wrong with

waiting until the end of that royal commission to take some action on

this? Why is it necessary to put in a college of teachers at this time?

What is the reason for this attitude? I don't know. I have no idea

other than surmising that I imagine it is here in order to break the

BCTF We've had some members from the opposite side that have just about

said that.

What's happened in education since 1983? Since

1983 we've seen a tremendous amount of cuts. We've seen classrooms made

larger. We've seen cuts in supplies, cuts in curriculum, and we've seen

the Compensation Stabilization Act. As someone who was directly

involved with the Compensation Stabilization Act, Mr. Speaker, I can

tell you that that was one of the most frustrating times of my life,

dealing with a group of people, or a man — I don't know what it was —

and having to go through negotiations, renegotiations, arbitrations,

rearbitrations, all at a cost to the taxpayer and all at a cost to the

associations. It was a futile situation and it was a sham. It was a

sham because there was no way that we could negotiate. There was no way

that anybody could do anything in that situation. What it ended up

doing was costing everybody money. Had the government been honest at

that time, they would have put a freeze on the teachers' salaries,

which is what they wanted to do initially but they didn't have the

nerve to do that. So they came up with the compensation stabilization

program which virtually did that anyway.

I think all of us

wanted a breather. Every single, solitary one in this province wanted a

breather at this point. Nobody wanted to get back into the disruption

that took place in 1983 or at any other time. There has been a

disruption in our classrooms. There's been a tremendous disruption in

the whole system. We've seen teachers who have been moved about. We've

seen teachers doing jobs that they sometimes aren't even qualified for,

but because of seniority clauses and because of cutbacks, and ways and

means that they had to get back their staffing requirements, they were

doing things that they weren't able to do to the best of their ability.

This was not their fault. The system pushed these teachers into this

situation, and the children suffered as a result of it.

We've also heard some talk about people . . . . I've heard some pretty

rash statements regarding competency of teachers and how there are incompetent

teachers out there and you can't get rid of them, and they do this and they

do that, and that the BCTF supports these teachers. Now if there are incompetent

teachers out there, and I think there probably are, as there are incompetent

lawyers and incompetent doctors and everyone — I think there are probably incompetents

in every profession — it is up to the professionals in that group to do their

homework, to make sure that they get the necessary reports done on those people,

to make sure that hey get those reports in on time, and that the situation can

take care of itself. Those reporting procedures, I feel, should have been revised.

That's something that I know as a trustee; many people were hoping to see

some of those revised. But nobody expected the type of things that came out

here — firing on 30 days' notice without cause. That's a little radical,

going from having approximately three reports done six months apart. It goes

from one extreme to the other.

The

system was there. If people chose not to use the system, then that is

their fault and the people should have been reprimanded for it. But you

cannot blame every teacher out there and say that every teacher is

incompetent or that every teacher is abusing the system. Because for

every teacher that goes out, leaves the classroom three minutes early — as one of the members said yesterday — there are 100 out there who are staying four and five hours overtime in order to keep their classes going.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : One of your members did.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : No, he said some were incompetent — very few.

MRS. BOONE : That's right.

The

teachers were tired, the boards were tired, parents and students were

tired, basically everyone was tired. And you know what? In October a

lot of those tired teachers, contrary to what you people seem to think,

actually went out and voted Social Credit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We know that.

MRS. BOONE :

Sure they did. These radical teachers who are out there as a front,

these radical BCTF members, actually went out and voted Social Credit.

I do not think that the BCTF is a radical organization. The BCTF is not

a front for any left organization whatsoever. The BCTF is entirely

representative.

We heard the second member from Quesnel

indicate yesterday that there were . . . . His teachers frequently had

difficulty getting a quorum at a teachers' association meeting. If

these teachers fail to turn up for a quorum and can't turn up to a

meeting, how can they object then when their teachers' association does

something that is not in line with their thinking? It is a democracy.

In a democracy people have to participate. That means turning out to

meetings. That means voting at meetings and making sure that your point

of view gets across and that your people are representing you.

to say, and with pride, that "my people don't turn up for BCTF meetings

and we don't get a quorum in my area, " I think is a shame, and I think

it should be a shame on his association that those teachers are not

turning up, because they do have that opportunity. This is a democracy

and they do have the opportunity to make sure that the BCTF represents

them. So when I hear people saying that the BCTF does not represent the

teachers, I say that is hogwash, because it

[ Page 856 ]

does. If teachers choose not to vote, then that is their problem.

They are saying that they are radical teachers . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Some of them are busy working.

MRS. BOONE :

You're right. Most of them are very busy working. Radical teachers,

they're saying. I hear this a lot and it is not true. These are very

difficult decisions and the fact that so many of them turned out

yesterday, and the fact that so many of them turned out in '83 on the

streets, was something I found really amazing, because I know a lot of

these people and I know for many of them it was actually a

gut-wrenching experience. I had a friend phone me, and she said: "I

just couldn't imagine ever walking a picket line in 1981." I don't know

what she did yesterday. But those are the situations that people are

going in. They are not doing this on the basis of radicalism; they are

not turning out on the streets because of some radical movement. They

are teachers who are concerned about their profession, about what's

happening in the teaching world and about what is happening in their

classrooms. That's the difference between what you believe teachers are

doing and what I think they are doing.

One of the things

that I'm finding really difficult to understand is why we are pushing

so hard at this point. There are so many other things going around that

are being studied to death. We have a liquor review committee that's

going around the province. We had one two years ago, and nobody acted

on those recommendations. Now they've got another one coming around,

and Lord knows what they're going to do about that. But why all of a

sudden these two bills? Whomp, these are gone and they're into the

action, and that's it. There is no studying going on, and no chance for

people to digest it. It does not make good sense to me. This government

could have introduced those bills, taken them around for study, and

produced a White Paper that would have given people a chance to review,

to have some action on these things. We've had enough White Papers and

bills on education for so long; surely one more, that you really

intended to enact, wouldn't have hurt. We had "Let's Talk About

Schools"; that cost a fortune. We had the "green apple" from the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith). We have masses of these reports out

there. Why is it that all of the sudden this is the one thing we are

adamant about putting through in a month or a month and a half?

Why

not give the people a chance to digest it? Why not give them the

opportunity to take it back into their communities and say: "Maybe

there are some changes here; maybe we can live with it"? But when

you've got people and you're pushing this through and we're into second

reading, that's when you get radical action. You do not get radical

action when people know that they've got the time there, when they know

that they have the ability to react and that they've got the time to

study something. If you immediately push this thing on people, you

shouldn't be surprised that you're going to get radical reactions.

I've

heard that everybody says the teachers got everything they asked for.

They didn't get everything they asked for, and they got a lot more

besides that. They got the right to strike, and then Bill 19

effectively takes it away, so there's no right to strike in there. I

don't think teachers really wanted that right to strike. Three years

ago . . . . It went to the BCTF three or four times before it actually

got passed, and it got passed because of actions of this government

against teachers. It got passed because time and time again the

teachers were put against the wall. They were being beaten by the

Social Credit government every year, and that's why they went for the

right to strike. Five years ago you wouldn't have had this happen. Five

years ago the teachers wouldn't have thought about wanting the right to

strike or the right to bargain.

[3:15]

One of the interesting things I find is that people are talking

about the self-interest of teachers. I find this really strange,

because there's a contradiction in terms here. We have loggers and

miners that come and talk to us, and they're negotiating on their own

behalf, and that's certainly self-interest. But when it's somebody

who's doing something that should be in the public's interest — a teacher, a social worker —

all of a sudden it becomes a dirty word to be talking in terms of your

own self-interest. You shouldn't be mentioning that; you should only be

thinking about the value of the total product; you shouldn't be

thinking about anything but devoting yourself to your profession. The

teachers did this for many years. In fact, when I originally started

teaching there were very few males in the teaching profession, because

they were so underpaid that nobody would even go into it, because they

couldn't support a family on a teacher's wage. They negotiated and got

their increases, and now there are a lot of males in the profession — and a lot of females. Of course, females are better, but that's okay.

What

people fail to realize all the time is that there comes a time when

people must stand up for their own selves, and it's not wrong to do

that. It is not wrong for a company to promote the best interests of

its stockholders, and it's not wrong of individual teachers to look in

terms of the best interests of themselves as well.

I heard

the member before me talking about teachers' working conditions and

salaries having nothing to do with the quality of education. I find

that absolutely amazing. I don't know whether he realizes what working

conditions are. Teachers' working conditions take into consideration

class size, library size, the equipment they're using, the size of

classrooms — all of those things. For anybody to say that teachers'

working conditions do not affect the way a class behaves or the way it

achieves is, I think, very naive. To suggest that salaries aren't

important either is also very naive. In the past three or four years we

have lost many top-quality people to other areas —

to other provinces where salaries are better and to the U.S.A. where

salaries are better. And this is not just in this one profession. This

is actually in many professions in B.C. — in the health care

professions as well. So to say that working conditions and salaries do

not affect the children is extremely naive — and wrong. There's no other word: it's wrong.

I just want to mention in my closing remarks . . . .

HON. MR. DUECK : I don't believe it.

MRS. BOONE : Believe it.

The

very essence of this bill . . . . The fact that this bill is creating

such problems should alone be enough reason that you hoist this bill

for a time. Give the people in this province a chance to sit back. Give

them a chance to reorganize themselves. Give them a chance to accept

it. Give them a chance to maybe point out to you some changes that can

be made. Do not push this through. Do not push this province further

into more confrontation. We really can't afford it. We

[ Page

857 ]

can't afford it in terms of our own personal

commitment. We can't afford it in terms of what it's doing to our

children in the classroom. We can't afford it in terms of what it's

doing to the morale of our teachers.

I don't care what

anybody says, when our teachers feel they are being trodden upon, when

they believe they are being mistreated, that affects what happens in

the classroom. That affects your children and it affects my children. I

don't believe that that's what anybody in this province wants. We want

to see some sanity in our classrooms. We want to see some sanity in the

education field. We want to see some sanity in the labour relations

field. And we can only do that when people are not pushed into comers,

when they are not held up to ransom by a bill such as this.

There

is no need to push this through. You have the time; you have the power.

You're not going to change. You have the numbers over there. There's

nothing we can do to stop this bill from going through. We know. We're

still going to be here next year. You're still going to be there in the

fall. Give this thing a chance to breathe. Give the province a chance

to get itself on its feet again. Don't push us to the edge, where we're

going to have teachers doing instruction only. Give them the chance, so

that our children will be given all the possible extracurricular

activities at this time of the year, which teachers really spend a lot

of time on. Do not push this through right now. We need to have some

time. You need to have some time.

MR. SERWA : What for?

MRS. BOONE :

I just told you: so that we don't have this confrontation. If there is

no consultation, if you don't intend to change anything and you don't

intend to listen, if that's what the minister is saying, then I guess

we are saying there is no choice.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : We are talking about Bill 20 right now, not Bill 19, thank you.

really do think that this is a chance for you to save some face. I

think you do have a chance to sit back. The Labour minister did. He sat

back for a while. Give yourself a chance. Take this back. Look at it

again. Review it with the teachers in a nonconfrontational attitude at

a time when we are not pushing them to the edge. Give them that

opportunity.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, I just want

to speak against the hoist motion this afternoon. My impression is that

Bill 20 represents some very significant improvements to the

educational process in this province, and I know that a lot of people

in this province support this bill even though they have not been

vocal, they have not been walking out on strike, and they have not been

doing things like that.

I was just having a meeting with a

fellow today, who in the course of discussion brought up a "by the way"

point. He said: "By the way, I'm very much in support of this

legislation. I support it strongly and encourage the government to pass

it." He went on to say that he hoped that other professionals who have

similar organizations to what we are proposing for the educational

system would step forward and support this legislation at this time,

when the government is considering it.

The previous speaker

has said that it's creating such problems. I want that speaker and

other members of the House to know that in my riding, at least, there

have been very few representations — in fact none — to me on Bill 20 by

people asking us to delay it. I spent all day Monday in my riding, and

the people of the riding whom I talked to about this issue, virtually

to a person, were suggesting that we carry on, pass it and improve the

educational organization in this province.

I want to

mention that the teachers we have in this province are an extremely

fine group. We know that the workers in this province. regardless of

occupation, are for the most part professional and good at what they

do, and our teachers are no exception. The organization we are

proposing, however, would make that organization work better, and I'm

anxious to see it.

I'm very concerned about this hoist

motion, and this is the second time we've seen one. I guess I'm

concerned partly because I'm a new member and have to be concerned for

the business side of what's happening here. Perhaps it's natural that I

would be concerned, because I do have a business background. The

previous speaker mentioned that with the numbers in the Legislature, of

course, this legislation is going to pass. She also mentioned that if

there were some specific changes made, maybe she, the opposition and

the members of the teaching profession in this province could live with

it. Out of those two points — my concern for the business side and the point that if changes are made, it could perhaps be acceptable to all parties — I would like to mention that I can't help but disagree with the strategy of putting forth a hoist motion.

have 69 members in this House who are going to have to be here for a

longer time because of this motion. We went through the exercise on

Bill 19. This House has to be an expensive operation to run, and I'm

concerned to know whether or not the people in this province would be

willing to purchase several extra days of operation of this House for

us to consider this hoist motion. I would like to see the opposition — who incidentally have had this bill since April 2 — and

any people in the province who disagree with it give us the specific

items they would like to see changed, and the minister and the

government will consider those changes, I'm sure, as we have indicated

with the previous bill as well. We can then get back to the business of

running our province, running our schools, educating our children in

the way that we should.

Instead, because we've got this

hoist motion, we're going to go through several extra days of debate.

I'm not sure that the end quality of the legislation is going to be any

better. Again, I say, because of these costs . . . . I recognize that

we're in a democracy and that we all need to have a chance to make a

point, but I think what's happening here is that we're delaying the

process for a very questionable result, at an expensive cost. I don't

think that the taxpayers of this province are going to benefit by the

extra expenditures that this is going to take.

The debate,

if it were going to be substantial, should be of substantial meat and

potatoes. We would see the galleries full; the newspaper people, the

media people, would all be here. Today in question period, Mr. Speaker,

I counted 17 media people up in that bench. You know how many I count

now? I count exactly zero media people up there, and that tells me that

this debate that we're carrying on about this hoist motion must not be

of sufficient quality that it's newsworthy,

[ Page 858 ]

and

I would again suggest that the people of this province would be better

served if we would get on to the clause-by clause study to get to the

stage of improving the specifics of this legislation so that it can

make the necessary improvements that we see for our educational system.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL :

I guess I might mention, as my good colleague for Yale-Lillooet is

mentioning, that not only are there no scribes here in the.... I'm

sorry; we now have one media gentleman to hear this debate on the hoist

motion. Not only do we have few with only one member of the media

here.... Wait a second, we've got a second one coming in, and a third,

and they now exceed the members present from Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition by one. There are now four media here, so there are now

twice as many media people here as there are opposition members. Maybe

if I speak just a little bit longer, we might have even more.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL :

I recognize that my colleagues from the media have their offices closer

than the opposition. I should mention I didn't catch the first member

for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) who was sitting at the Clerks' bench. The

score is now 4 to 3 for the media in terms of the opposition.

[3:30]

MR. GABELMANN : Better than 27-7.

MR. CRANDALL : Yes, it is. In any event, my point and it's a serious one —

is that the quality of the improvements in this legislation as a result

of this hoist motion is not of sufficient value to extend this debate

by these several days, and I am sure that if the opposition would

proceed to second reading, we could get down to the important business

of the consideration of this legislation in its other forms.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL : I've got to hand it to the opposition; you're now ahead 3 to 0. The media has left us.

I'm

anxious to get on, as I've been saying, to the advanced stages of

debate in this bill, and I'm sure that when we do, we'll find a bill

that meets acceptance from the teachers in this province. The last

speaker said that she may well be able to accept it, and I'm sure that

the opposition will as well. I'm sure that down the road one, two,

three, four years, and at least down the road a generation, people will

think that the legislation that we're bringing in now and the new

environment that we create in the educational system in this province

always should have been here.

I'm sure that it's going to be positive improvement. I speak against the hoist motion.

MR. BARNES : I join with my colleagues in the opposition in supporting

the hoist motion which would allow those in the community an opportunity to

consider the implications of the bill in terms of the details that so many members

have already tried to clarify. I feel, however, that the details, as important

as they are.... It's sort of like putting the cart before the horse.

The Premier has suggested to the opposition and to teachers that if we are prepared

to suggest specific amendments to the bill, he's willing to listen, but

he's not prepared to consider anything that would change the philosophy

or the principle of the bill.

Well,

I think that is the question. The member for Dewdney indicated in his

remarks that many parents were unhappy with the public school system,

and that was why the independent schools have been growing and

developing and becoming so popular in this province. That is, as well,

one of the questions that we're concerned about in the opposition. Why

is the public school system coming into such disrepute, and the

proliferation of independent schools is becoming very much in evidence?

This is why we are saying that Bill 20, in tandem with Bill 19,

constitutes an initiative by the government that is quite perplexing

and causes us a great deal of consternation and concern about just what

the government's agenda is. I realize that when I suggest that the

government has an agenda which perhaps is hidden, immediately there are

going to be cries that I am becoming cynical, negative and suspicious

and being unfair in prejudging the motives of the government. However,

I can assure you that I am attempting to be as objective as I possibly

can in trying to understand why the government has decided at this

particular time to take such a drastic departure from tradition and

practice in this province, with respect to providing education

opportunities to the public, to students.

What has Bill 19 or 20 to do with students, the education of students or the quality of education of students?

MR. RABBITT : Everything.

MR. BARNES : Somebody yelled: "Everything." I don't know who it was over there on the government side.

There

was one little interesting comment by the Premier that Bill 20 in a

large measure was motivated by the fact that there is child abuse going

on by teachers in the schools. Imagine that! All of a sudden we're

going to throw out one of the best public school systems, destroy an

organization such as the B.C. Teachers' Federation that has been around

for almost three generations, and create a whole new playing field

because of the unfortunate behaviour of a few out of thousands of

teachers. That is the reason. I don't think that's a very good reason.

MS. CAMPBELL : He didn't say that.

MR. BARNES :

Yes, he did; here it is. Somebody's yelling: "He didn't say that." Now

they're trying to defend themselves. Here it is right here. In the Times-Colonist ,

April 23: "Premier Blames Child Abuse. Bill 20 Splits Discipline of

Child-abusing Teachers from Union Activities." Read it and weep, my

friends. You know what that term means in poker: that means it's down

and dirty. And that's exactly what you are doing now: you are looking

for any excuse.

Some of the teachers are saying that the

government is vindictive, but "vindictive" suggests that there is

something to become triumphant over, that you have to be vindicated for

something. What's wrong? What is it about the teaching profession that

upsets you so much? Teachers, hon. members, are a vital link to the

future, with respect to our youth in generations to come. I know that

you are saying that they should be responsible as professionals. But

how many professions do you know where you are required by virtue of

your work to work for the public? There are very few teachers I know of

who are independent, who are privately employed,

[ Page 859 ]

who

are working in their own business. They are working for the public.

That is the nature of their job. They should be treated equally and not

discriminated against because they are teachers. That's something we

should come to understand: they can't help the fact that they are

teachers in a situation that requires them to work for the public, for

the government, for the people. Do they not deserve any more rights?

Are we to say that, oh, their service is essential and therefore we

have to discriminate against them and give them no power, no

opportunity to fair representation, no opportunity to

self-determination?

Mr. Speaker, right across this country teachers' associations — in Quebec, in Manitoba, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, right across this province —

are opposed to this legislation on principle. They're not opposed to

your desire to try to streamline and improve the processes by which we

deliver education to our youth; they're not opposed to your trying to

economize, trying to pay for those things that we can afford, in terms

of the most basic and essential services. But what we are saying is

that it has to be a cooperative venture. It requires participation by

all parties, especially when there is no emergency. There is no valid

basis upon which to move this legislation at the rate that it's being

moved.

To the member — I think it was Columbia River, North Peace, wherever —

who suggested that the media are uninterested: it's not that the media

are uninterested. The point is that we are trying to get you to come to

your senses on a fundamental principle. And you're trying to tell us

that we should be debating details, when we're saying that you are not

seen to be believed anymore. You are not believable in terms of your

idea of cooperation and consultation. This is a drastic departure; it

is a retrograde step; it is undemocratic; it is unfair.

know teachers are out there on the lam, and everybody is going to say

that they are letting down the students. But you know, fair is fair. We

all know that our students should be well educated and that teachers

are in the profession to do that job. But let's not try to escape our

responsibility to a profession of people who are covered under the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms the same as everyone else in this

province. We can't have a class system that treats one group of

workers, one group of people in a certain occupation, one way and

another group another way. They are all equal and they should all be

given fair treatment, not these kinds of games that you are playing.

You

are saying: "Okay, you want the right to strike? No problem." Now why

would you give them the right to strike if it wasn't fundamentally the

right thing to do, Mr. Speaker? Why give them the right to strike and

then come back and give them a catch-22? That's fine, but if you do,

here are the conditions. You must form a different organization and be

a member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. We are going to have to

change the game; you are going to have to join the college on the one

hand, or you can have certain privileges if you don't; but you can't

have it both ways. You are going to have to have a professional

organization on the one hand; you're going to have to have a union on

the other hand. You can't have one, even though you feel you have used

it for years successfully, that is going to do the same thing.

Look

at the heads shaking. They don't like this, Mr. Speaker. But the point

that I am making is, how can you arbitrarily, unilaterally, from on

high come down and tell these people how they should organize

themselves? What other professions do you do that to?

The

next thing I want to ask you is: why is it that you haven't given the

private members an opportunity to sponsor this so-called new teachers'

profession bill which brings in a college? Why not give the teachers an

opportunity to draft up their own bill and present it and have us

approve it through committee, which is a normal procedure for matters

like this? Why not?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Teachers present legislation?

MR. BARNES :

Why not? That's happened in many cases. How did we get Trinity College?

We have professions right now that are asking to become recognized. I

can tell you some health workers who are trying to do it right now, Mr.

Speaker. They would like to have some of the members sponsor a private

member's bill.

This is an unusual approach to dealing with

a problem that you claim is urgent, and we on this side of the House

are having a great deal of difficulty finding out why you have to act

in the way you are acting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to

you some of the things that people are saying across the country, and I

know that you have heard this before. The Alberta Teachers' Association

at their annual representative assembly supported the following action

by the provincial executive council on April 3:

"Resolved: that the Alberta Teachers' Association affirm

the principle that occupational groups have a right to choose their own organizational

structure and express its support for the teachers of British Columbia in their

struggle to maintain the B.C. Teachers' Federation as a unified, professional

organization in the face of the blatant efforts of the government of British

Columbia to destroy that collective right; and further, that the provincial

executive coun cil be authorized to allocate up to $100,000 . . . ."

Now think of that. They are prepared to put up money in order to defend this principle. This is not something you take lightly.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : They don't understand it either.

MR. BARNES :

They do understand it. They understand the fundamental principle that

if you are going to be able to do this to one occupational group, when

does it stop? We are talking about rights. We are not talking about

your desire to run a good system, but how can you run a system by

imposing? This is the part that alarms the opposition. This is why we

are saying the bill should be withdrawn. Teachers should participate;

they should have a right to participate in a democratic society, and it

should be seen to be believed.

[3:45]

should be seen to be done. Fair is fair. I can tell you that personally

and politically I don't mind defending the teachers on this because of

the principle. I know that all teachers are not perfect. I know that

even among the teachers themselves they have problems in trying to

maintain the very highest standards that are possible. But that is not

unique to teachers. It is the same thing in the legal profession. It is

the same thing in the medical profession. It is the same thing in any

profession or in any trade, and certainly is true among politicians.

Maybe we should have a college of politicians, and let us regulate

ourselves and let us organize. Let's face it; I think, to

[ Page 860 ]

be quite candid and quite fair, we all want the very best for our fellow British Columbians.

But

you know, there is one thing that we sometimes forget, and that is that

when you violate fundamental rights and freedoms, certain principles

that make the democratic system work, you throw everything out because

people get their backs up. They become reactive, distrustful, and they

simply don't want to cooperate, because they realize that what you are

doing is not fair. That's why this won't work. You can't impose your

will upon people in a democratic society and expect it to go smoothly.

Ever since the Premier was elected, it seems as though we've had

nothing but confrontation with this new government.

Do you

realize the atmosphere out there today as a result of this? Thousands

of teachers are beginning to rally around a principle, not because they

want to neglect students — and some of the students, I believe, are

being used to try to create the view that we don't care about students

or that students are the losers. I'll tell you, students are going to

be the losers, families are going to be the losers and we all are going

to be the losers if we don't support teachers, encourage them and give

them the facilities they require.

There are serious

problems in the school system. Just three or four years ago you brought

in your restraint program. Who did you hit? The first people you hit

language in this province where nearly 50 percent of the students do

students? You escalated the whole approach to testing — made it more

difficult to get by in the core curriculum that you came up with, and

many of these students do not have a mastery of the language. Where is

your initiative there? Where is your budget to support new Canadians

who are coming to this province? Where are the multicultural programs?

Where are the opportunities for those students? These are the kinds of

things you should be addressing. Where are your commitments to youth in

terms of their years immediately after graduation from secondary

schools and their plans to go to university, college or some of the

trades institutes? Where are the guarantees? Where are the real

opportunities? Do we realize, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia

suicides among teenagers are the highest in the country? Some of you

members over there may not realize that even in places like Surrey

they've got what they call the red-coded area. It's coded that way

because the incidence of suicides is higher than in any other place in

British Columbia. They've shown that is a problem in British Columbia

on some kind of demographic map.

So I think that those are

the things we should be talking about in the public school system. We

should be concerned about delivery of quality programs, realizing that

schoolteachers are a unique species in our overall system of service to

people. They are unique because they are professionals expected to do

professional work; they're expected to be competent, and to keep

themselves educated and up to date with respect to the changing times.

It's a pretty challenging job. Most of them are in there because they

care and because they believe in what they're trying to do. They do

believe that they can make a contribution to the future. I don't

believe a teacher goes into that profession to get rich. It's just not

the profession you'd go into to get rich. I think they go into it

because they have a compassion for young people. They have a desire to

try to make their mark by, so to speak, positively affecting young

people. I think we should be complimenting, celebrating, encouraging

and supporting them, rather than doing something like this.

seems to me that teachers, as mild and gentle as they are, have

demonstrated in the last few days that even though they appear to be

singled out and even though it looks as though they don't have public

support . . . . That's what makes it even more dramatic: they are

taking the action they're taking despite the fact that politically it's

quite risky; they leave themselves open to the charge of having

neglected the youth. The politicians, especially the government side,

can, get behind that and say: "Look, what about the young people?

You're not doing your job. The law is the law. You should be obedient."

But the point is that they're in a catch-22 situation. When do the

teachers become political and when do they just remain passive? I think

that the strength of a democratic society is everybody feeling the

right to exercise their political muscle, and I don't think we should

deny any group that right to free political expression.

had hoped to make a case with respect to the uniqueness of this

decision. I haven't been able to get all of the research I wanted, but

I asked just how many pieces of professional association legislation

had been government bills as opposed to how many had been private

bills. I wanted to know just why it is that the government has decided

to make this a government bill and not a private member's bill. Why not

allow some time for the bill to fly around? It was just curious to me

that.... I've sat on a few standing committees. I recall one to do with

Trinity Western College not too long ago, and that was a private bill.

I'm sure that many of you can think of all kinds of private bills with

respect to other trades, where there has been plenty of time for

everyone to come to appreciate the implications of the bill. But here

you wipe out an organization that has been functioning, that the

teachers themselves did not want to lose. You catch them in a whipsaw

kind of situation, where you say: "You want the right to strike? Fine,

you have to give up something for it." And you start playing politics

with it. Right away they're suspicious of your motives. You've taken a

backwards step. It's more than a backwards step; it's a bit of a slap

in the face.

It's a bit of a mean act, especially when you

can't defend it on the basis of having had genuine consultation.

Teachers are not known to come out and blatantly state an untruth, but

they have issued a pamphlet which quite clearly outlines that what

teachers asked for is not what they got. There is a whole list of items

in this blue pamphlet, with the government's response in the contrary — implications: "disaster."

They're

saying what the government is doing, and why would they do this. You're

going around saying: "Oh, well, we consulted with them." You consulted

with them to find out what they wanted and found a way to use it as a

leverage to get what you wanted. As I said initially, this is a major

transformation of the public school system as we know it today into

something else. Okay, it's cynical. You accuse me of being negative and

doubtful, but I suspect that the member for Dewdney who said that the

public school system is not as popular as it should be.... That's why

the independent schools are growing — because the government sees this

as a thing of future. Those who can afford good education will get it

and those who can't, ultimately, will find themselves struggling in an

understaffed, under-resourced public school system. That's what is

going to happen; that's my suspicion.

I think it's quite

clear that there is a political agenda, and I think that the Premier is

the architect of it. I'm not sure if the cabinet knows half of the time

what the Premier is going to

[ Page 861 ]

do.

He's entitled to his own personal views, as we all are, but I think as

government he has a responsibility to ensure that whatever decisions

his government makes, there is never any question as far as the

democratic process in terms of the government's commitment and the

government's responsibility to be fair and to be seen to be fair.

I would say the main reason for wanting to hoist this bill is that it

is fundamentally contrary to those processes. It was introduced without

adequate input, and practically every teacher association across the

country has expressed opposition in writing and quite vocally to the

methods by which this bill is being brought in. In terms of what the

bill will accomplish to assist students in getting a better education

and helping teachers to do their jobs better and maintaining the kind

of collegiality that they require in order to do their job, there is a

great deal to be desired.

One has to only suspect that the

government is prepared to throw down the gauntlet on this bill, to take

its chances politically and gamble that in the end it will win out and

be able to get on with a whole new style of providing public education

in this province, the same as we have suspected they were doing with

respect to the social services and those cutbacks and the whole

initiative towards privatization, the whole idea that those who can

afford services will pay for them. We just believe that there are

diametrical differences between what the government is saying and what

the government is doing. We believe that this is really the issue.

Don't

forget the politics; don't forget the government's hidden agenda and

the stridency of the Premier to push this bill through. I don't mind

reminding you that he has said time and time again that "the larger the

crowd, the larger the protest, the greater the numbers who are

demonstrating, the more convinced I become that I'm on the right

track." This is why I join my colleagues in opposing this bill; I don't

think the Premier is prepared to listen.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Just to correct a statement by the member who just spoke, I believe you

there were 13,399 pupils registered with a budget of $28.2 million; In

1985-86, we had an increase to 15,304 pupils and $33.5 million. It's up

again this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly rising to

speak against the hoist motion. I believe that this government is on

the right track with Bill 20, and I think we are acting in the best

interests of education in this province and of the teachers. I have

talked to a number of teachers in my riding, as recently as half an

hour ago. I have had a great amount of input relative to what they feel

happened yesterday. I believe that some of the comments that came

forward are to be recognized.

In the district that I

represent, along with Walter Davidson, my fellow MLA . . . . Our

district was closed yesterday. The school district was shut down. I

don't believe Delta School Board acted responsibly in so doing. They

are elected representatives of the people of Delta. Their

responsibility is to leave the schools open.

[4:00]

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

do know for a fact that a number of teachers attended schools with the

intention of going in to teach a class. The doors were locked, and I

think that is totally irresponsible. These people went conscientiously

to work to perform their professional responsibilities.

The

couple of questions that I think have been tossed around about what

will happen to the teachers . . . . I really believe that by and large

what we have given in this bill is exactly what the teachers have asked

for. A number of questions were fired out as to what is going to happen

to a number of areas. I can think of one right now, and that is that a

lot have phoned me and asked me, for example: what happens to sick

benefits? Well, the boards will really be the ones that will negotiate

the sick benefits. They will carry on. As government. we will encourage

boards to carry on with those benefits.

A couple of other

ones that were asked . . . . What will happen to teachers who do not

choose to join unions, or who conscientiously, because of religious

beliefs, do not wish to belong to a union? That is their choice, but if

50 percent plus one decide that they wish to belong to a union, then

that district shall be unionized. I see nothing wrong with that.

They

asked questions of me this morning about their rights relative to

seniority. There is no question in my mind that if people in seniority

have some desire to attend professional days, those rights are there

also. I was asked by a caller this afternoon: what happens to medical

and dental care benefits that have been accrued over the years? Those

will be negotiated as a result of the new bills. There is not likely

going to be any loss relative to those benefits.

The other

question asked of me, oddly enough, was: what is the average teacher's

salary in this province? The average teacher's salary, to the best of

my knowledge, is in excess of $36,000.

AN HON. MEMBER : Plus benefits.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Plus all the benefits; that is correct. I think that is not too bad,

when you look at the average income of a number of other professionals.

In the issue of . . . .

MR. BARNES : A shameful amount of money for the work they have to do.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : That's your opinion.

MR. BARNES : Don't you think they deserve more?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I think that is debatable, on qualification.

Under

Bill 20, local associations can in fact continue to support the BCTF.

There is a question about whether the BCTF would be gone. That's not

necessarily so. If the teachers decide to support the BCT17 and stay

with it, that is their decision. But it now gives local associations

some of the authority they wish to have.

A number of people

who phoned today . . . . I did a poll today because I felt it was

worthwhile to come to the House and relay some of the results of that

discussion. There was a number who say they prefer what we have done in

giving local autonomy to the districts. There are a number of teachers

who say that's exactly the way they wish to have it. So I feel that we

are on the right track, and I think this government will see that

education will do very well by putting Bill 20 through this House.

At this time I certainly wish to speak against the hoist motion. Let's get on with debating the bill.

[ Page 862 ]

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to hoist the bill. I wish the

government would of its own volition take this step, and I'd like to

argue a few reasons why I think they should.

First of all,

I want to pick up on some comments made by the member for Columbia

River (Mr. Crandall) half an hour or so ago in the Legislature. He

described what we're doing as stalling. He also described the process

as being.... I wrote the words down: "House is an expensive operation

to run." I just want to deal for a moment or two with both of those

points.

The first is the question of stalling. Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced on April 2, and today is April 29 —

a total of 27 days. Dentists in this province have had a stall granted

to them that's lasted for several years, while their legislation has

been held up, first of all for review and discussion to incorporate

into their professional statute the language that they wanted. That

legislation, in fact, was stalled for so long.... Mr. Speaker, so I'm

not out of order I don't want to comment and reflect on legislation

that's in front of the House. I'm talking about the process, in case

that's what the Clerk is advising you at the moment. Without getting

into or reflecting on that legislation, the process involved is one of

lengthy consultation, one of a respect for the views expressed by the

professional organization. As a result, amendments some years ago....

This is not reflecting on legislation in front of the House, because

this is legislation in front of the House a couple of years ago. A bill

was introduced, and the dentists decided that there were some elements

in that bill that didn't entirely meet their needs, so the government

allowed the bill to die, and then introduced it again in the 1986

session, and for a variety of reasons did not proceed to passage at

that time. I won't reflect at all on the fact that it's been introduced

again this session; I'm reflecting on a bill that was introduced in a

different session, Mr. Speaker.

The point, however, to get

off that, is that when it comes to stalling, there's been a stall of

several years' duration. No one is dreadfully concerned about it. The

stall has allowed for complete discussion and a satisfactory resolution

of the issue. But now, 27 days into this legislation — 27 days since its introduction —

the government somehow feels that there is an urgency and a need to get

on with it in a hurry, and if opposition members wish to take a few

more days to talk about why there's some merit in delay of debate,

there is a charge of stall, less than a month into the bill. It's

curious, and it makes one believe that the government deals differently

with one professional group than it does with another.

I'm

going to get back to that point in respect of other professional

organizations later in my comments, but I wanted to just deal with that

analogy in terms of the member for Columbia River. He also said....

There's no verb in this, so I have to read it the way he said it:

"House expensive operation to run." Democracy is damned expensive, Mr.

Speaker. And to suggest that MLAs should curtail comments they wish to

make in a serious vein about a very important issue, to save money,

flies in the face of all the democratic traditions that I thought we

should espouse and have espoused in this House. If hon. members on

either side of the House wish to take what they feel is the appropriate

time to I express considered and important views, then no cost is too t

high. Democracy does not have a price.

I hope that that comment from the member for Columbia River comes simply because

of his length of time in this Legislature, and perhaps his enthusiasm for getting

on with it; or, as Mussolini used to say, making sure the trains run on time.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why the trains shouldn't run on

time, because sometimes the train runs over a few people in its efforts to get

to the next station on time, and it might be quite appropriate for the train

to stop, let the people get out of the way and then perhaps arrive a few minutes

late at the station. So getting on time to the station is not always the appropriate

objective.

Mr.

Speaker, we're talking about a hoist motion, which is a parliamentary

device that we have at our disposal. If we had any device at our

disposal — if we could move any motion to achieve the objective — I'm

sure it wouldn't be this precise motion, but we can't move the kind of

motion that would be appropriate. What would be appropriate would be

that the bill be returned to this Legislature when the parties affected

by it have reached an agreement. And when I say the parties affected by

it, I mean the public as represented by the government, the cabinet; I

mean the trustees; and I mean the teachers. When the parties have

reached an agreement, then the bill would come back. It may be in less

than six months or it may be in more than six months. I'm not

particularly tied up with the six-month provision, except that that's

all that's available to us on this side of the House to make the

argument that what is required now is some proper discussion, some

proper process.

I don't understand why the bill was

called for debate last Friday at approximately the same time that

discussions were begun with the parties to see whether or not the bill

was appropriate or to see whether or not the bill could be amended. I

guess this point has been made by a number of speakers on this side, so

I won't belabour that point; but it's hard to understand. Either the

government is intent on pushing the bill through in its present form,

with perhaps minor amendments not reflecting what they might call

matters of principle, and for that reason we're having debate about

principle that will remain unchanged following the discussions.... If

that's the case, I wonder what those precise principles are that are

not negotiable at the table. Is the proposed college non-negotiable? Is

that a principle in the bill? Are the powers that are contained in that

particular college the principle, the extensive and excessive powers

contained in that college? Or is the government prepared to say: "No,

we are prepared to talk about those principles"? Or are they

principles? We don't really know that from the way his debate has gone

to date, as far as I can ascertain from reading some of the Blues.

collective bargaining per se a principle? Is it a principle of the

government that bargaining certification takes place district by

district? Is it a principle of the government that head teachers shall

not be eligible for collective bargaining? We're on difficult ground in

knowing, Mr. Speaker, what principle we're addressing in this debate on

second reading and what principles are up for negotiation over in the

Douglas Building or wherever the talks are taking place at the present

time. If in fact some of these major components of the bill — principle or otherwise —

are subject to possible amendment, how can we ever have a debate in

principle about those changes if they're introduced after the debate in

principle?

It's an insult to legislators to require us to have a debate about he principle

of a bill while the principle may be being changed in private negotiations.

I applaud the government in attempting to sit down — if it's what they're

doing — to change some of the principles in the bill; but if they're doing

[ Page 863 ]

that,

then they should have respect for this Legislature, sufficient respect

that would allow this Legislature to deal with the principles as

they're finally enunciated following the discussions.

[4:15]

I just don't know what's going on. I don't know whether the

talks that are proceeding are a sham, that we in fact are debating the

principle and what we debate here is what we will end up with; or is

this parliamentary debate a sham? Which is it? Because I don't think

there's much room in between. Either the debate is a sham because we're

not talking about the principle of the final legislation, or the

discussions are a sham because they're not dealing with the principles

that need to be discussed, As I say, I find it insulting that we would

be asked to debate this bill in principle when potentially significant

changes may be made in meetings outside of this chamber.

The

next point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is one that my colleagues have

made, and I just want to touch on it so that I'm on the record on this.

I think it's tragic what's happened to children in this province over

the last seven or eight years. The characterization by Crawford Kilian

of School Wars as being

what's gone on in educational areas for the last few years is really

quite appropriate. You only have to go into classrooms and spend time

talking to kids, and go into staff rooms and spend time talking to

teachers, and go into parent meetings — as I do frequently in all three cases, year after year — to discover that in fact we've been in a state of war in British Columbia in education. There are a whole variety of issues —

which I'm not going to canvass now; they're better canvassed during

Education estimates. I think no one would argue this point: there has

been a state of mind in education that has not been stable. There has

not been a stability that's required. Teachers have felt it necessary

to divert their attention from the classroom — which is where they would prefer to put their attention —

to political issues, political issues raised not by their organization

but by government, through successive ministers. It has been a constant

battle.

Teachers are losers to a certain extent: the

stress, the burnout. The dropout rate among teachers is alarming to me.

I see friends of mine who have quit teaching simply because they can't

handle the stress or the fact that they're not allowed anymore to

provide the kind of education they feel qualified to provide. So they

get out and go and do something else, from selling stocks to driving

trucks to retiring early. The stress is clearly there.

it's hard on them, and it's most particularly hard on children in this

province. I have some personal experience in that, too, having a

daughter who graduated two years ago and a son graduating this year. To

see the difference in their educational levels, going to the same

schools — not always the same schools, but generally — through the last

half dozen years . . . . It's been tragic to see what deterioration has

occurred as a result of government activity. Here's yet another

intervention by the government that does nothing for ensuring peace in

our schools, does nothing other than ensure that the school wars

continue. If for no other reason, it would be useful for the government

to hoist this bill and work out a peace plan rather than a continuation

of its war plan.

A few minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) said — and I'm quoting again —

that this bill is "giving teachers what they wanted." If it's giving

teachers what they wanted, then I would have thought that you would

have allowed them to draft the bill, as you have allowed other

professional organizations, in effect, to do — to draft their own

legislation. If it's giving teachers what they wanted, why the outcry?

All you have to do is look at both the representations to government

and the statements made over the years by the BCTF It's quite clear

that the bill does not give them what they wanted at all. It gives them

a truncated version of collective bargaining for a limited number of

their members, but it doesn't give them the collective bargaining they

talked about. They've asked for some things in collective bargaining

that I don't agree with. They've asked for the unilateral right for

arbitration, for example; I happen not to agree with that. But that's

what they've asked for, and you haven't given that to them. So for

government members to argue that this bill simply gives teachers what

they wanted is obviously wrong. The College of Teachers is not

something that the BCTF has asked for; it's not something that teachers

anywhere in this country have asked for. For their own reasons, they've

asked for a unitary organization. In my view, that's their choice.

Other organizations of self-described professionals — engineers, doctors, architects, lawyers, dentists, nurses and many more; I just cite a few —

all have had the right to participate in the decision-making about the

legislation governing their professional organization. Why is it that

only teachers, as a professional group, have been denied the right to

be involved in the design of their legislation? Only teachers. All

these other groups have been involved in full consultation.

Reference

has been made to nurses. Nurses have two organizations and so therefore

should teachers, goes the argument. Nurses under the RNABC decided some

years ago to set up the B.C. Nurses' Union as a parallel but separate

organization to deal with collective bargaining concerns. That decision

was made not by government arbitrarily but by nurses. It has been a

decision that they feel has worked well. It's a decision that, from a

practical point of view, has worked well. But educational issues are

different from nursing issues. Teachers decided — and by majority decided — not to opt for that route.

the government is prepared to reflect, by passing legislation, the

views of all of the other professional organizations and groups, why

won't they do it for teachers? The only conclusion one can draw is that

there's a vendetta against teachers. The minister shakes his head, but

I can think of no conclusion, other than that there is a vendetta

against an organization that the government, for some reason, feels

uncomfortable about. If there isn't a vendetta, Mr. Speaker, then the

same procedures would have been used in developing legislation

affecting a professional group in respect of teachers as it has for all

of the others.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Ms. Campbell) yesterday in the House talked about the registered

nurses. She said, for example, registered nurses are a self-governing

profession and they are a good analogy to teachers because many of them

are public employees. They have the B.C. Nurses' Union that bargains

for them, but the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C. is their

professional association, the college that determines their curriculum,

etc. That's what they've chosen to do. But they chose to do that. The

government didn't impose it on them, and that's the important

difference in this case.

I want to talk too — time goes quickly — about the bargaining unit. Again, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey yesterday talked about the teachers. She said they

[ Page 864 ]

wanted

full bargaining rights and they wanted other provisions of the Labour

Code to apply to them, but they did not want to be subject to the

certification rules of the Labour Code. I assume by that she means she

wanted for teachers the same thing that happened for government

employees back in 1973, which was certification of the existing

organization which had clearly demonstrated itself to be the

organization representing public employees, at that time the B.C.

Government Employees' Association. Because it clearly represented

government employees, it was named the bargaining agent when the PSLRA

was passed in this House. I assume by that that she's making the

argument that that was long in principle, although if my memory is

correct the Socreds of that day supported that particular approach. But

nevertheless it's arguable; this is a new day and a new House. So it is

an arguable point whether or not the group representing the people

should be given the certification if they've never actually formally

had a vote about that; but that vote could take place very easily.

The

member for Vancouver-Point Grey said they did not want to be subject to

the certification rules of the Labour Code. There's another side to

that issue that she didn't talk about, and that is that under normal

procedures a group of employees makes an application to the Labour

Relations Board, presumably in the future to the Industrial Relations

Council, for a group of employees that they wish to have certified for

collective bargaining purposes. They may include in that group people

who the Labour Board may decide are inappropriate for collective

bargaining, and therefore should be excluded from collective

bargaining. But that process is one that's available to be debated

between the employer and the employees in front of the Labour Board and

a decision is made. This legislation sets out ahead of time by law who

can be in and who can be out of the bargaining unit. It's not left to,

as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey would put it, the certification

rules of the Labour Code. It's not left to that. Passing a law defining

a bargaining unit is a fundamental contradiction with labour law as

we've come to know it in North America.

Apart from that

concern, which in many ways is a more technical one, I have some

very real concerns about the decision to exclude from participation in

the employee group principals and vice-principals. The term "principal"

is really not a noun but an adjective. The term "principal" is an

adjective modifying the word "teacher." These people are "principal

teachers." Or to use the word I would prefer, "head teachers." That's

what they are. That's what they should be. That's what they

historically have been, and we are beginning to find in some school

districts a move away from that, a move that leads us into the

direction proposed by the current Premier some years ago when he talked

about perhaps hiring "administrators" to run our schools. I don't have

the direct quote but I can paraphrase what he said three or four years

ago. He referred to people who have the administrative abilities to

manage the school, people who aren't necessarily educators or teachers.

That's the wrong principle in an educational institution. The kind of collegiality that has been developing in many schools — not all but in many schools —

between teachers and their principal teachers and their vice-principal

teachers has been, in my view, quite beneficial to education. To create

an artificial separation, to give powers to these people which will set

them across the table from their fellow teachers, is wrong in

principle. It is completely wrong in terms of educational value and

educational principles. It will not lead to better education in the

classroom, and that's what we should be doing.

My objection goes further. I have always argued — and I don't know whether all members of my caucus agree with me or not, but I'm going to say it anyway —

that every principal and every vice-principal should teach at least one

course constantly, should constantly be in touch with the classroom.

Furthermore — and I'm sure that people who do this for a living won't agree with me about this —

five years is enough as head teacher: back into the classroom after a

period of time, and rotate the job. Make it a collegial model. Have

people work together rather than this . . . . Have a horizontal model

rather than a vertical one, which I think is the way labour relations

are going in general terms these days, which is to try to get rid of

more managers and more bureaucracy, and try to have fewer. What we're

talking about doing here is adding a whole level of bureaucracy to the

management functions of school boards. We're adding another 10 percent — or more, I guess — in the management category.

[4:30]

I've heard arguments from the other side of the House that we've got

too many managers already in the schools. There are arguments against

having assistant superintendents, directors of curriculum or

instruction, and a whole variety of offices that school boards have

established over the years. What this legislation envisions is another

whole level of bureaucracy at the beck and call of the superintendent

and the school board. It just seems totally inappropriate from a

management point of view, from an administrative point of view, but

most importantly, from an educational point of view. It's one that I

hope the government will pull back on and recognize that if they want

administrators to run the technical part of the school, fine. If the

school board doesn't have enough resources at its disposal to do that,

then make sure they have enough resources. But the head teacher is not

the administrator. Those are two totally different concepts. We're

moving away from the whole idea of head teachers and into an economic

analysis of the classroom. The school or the classroom is not a

factory. These are not widgets we're manufacturing. The factory analogy

is inappropriate in education.

Mr. Speaker, I'm getting

short of time and I've got much to say. The first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) yesterday talked about CSR She

said: "It's also the case that the government wishes to remove teachers

from the compensation stabilization program. Teachers were the last to

enter the CSP. They will therefore be the last to leave.... Who's

leaving CSP? We've got CSP back in spades. CSP is bigger and stronger

and more effective, from its point of view, than it ever was — under

the other bill that we can't talk about at the present time. So for

members in this House to talk about teachers coming out of CSP, even

though a year late . . . . They've got CSP with a tighter definition of

ability to pay than they had before. I would have thought that the

member for Vancouver-Point Grey was more knowledgeable about these

matters, but clearly she isn't.

Another issue, in the few

minutes I have left, Mr. Speaker, is scope of bargaining. Again, the

same principle relates to the bargaining unit. Scope of bargaining

should be a decision to be made by the parties. The parties should sit

down, if they're autonomous — and the government seems to want to say that school boards are now going to be autonomous — and argue about what the scope of bargaining is

[ Page 865 ]

going

to be. But one

section of this bill eliminates the possibility of

having seniority lists. Seniority lists are a traditional right that

can be bargained. I don't want to get into committee-stage stuff, but

section 72 effectively wipes out any ability to establish meaningful

seniority lists by collective bargaining, because this act will

override it.

Section 53 allows a complete override of the collective

agreement by the School Act. So the scope of bargaining —

and I'm going to get into this in more detail during second reading

debate . . . . Many of the arguments being made by the government are

just not so. They don't reflect the reality of the language. It's

important to remind members of the House that it's not what we in this

House say it means that matters; it's what the language says it means,

as interpreted by courts or boards, and clearly there is wide-open

interpretation here for scope of bargaining to be severely limited. I

will get into that in detail in second reading.

Another

issue is that there are 10,000 forgotten people in the discussions

going on, wherever they're going on next door. The entire non-teaching

staff, who are affected by this bill, who will now have principals as

their bosses in the schools, and who are represented mostly by the

Canadian Union of Public Employees, are not involved in the

discussions. I don't understand why. We allow 30,000 of the 40,000

employees to participate in talks, but we don't allow the other 10,000.

That should be something that the minister addresses very quickly while

those talks continue.

My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as I run

out of time, is that we have a royal commission in British Columbia

today; Barry Sullivan is there to do that job. If we want to start the

peace process instead of a continuation of the school wars, the very

best way of doing that . . . . Despite what the teachers may have said

a few months ago or last year — that they didn't want bargaining issues to be referred to the commission —

at this stage, in my view, that would be the appropriate way to go to

get the thing off the table here, to put all educational issues into

the hands of the commissioner, to depoliticize this whole educational

war that has gone on, to get it into the hands of a commission and

allow for some rational, quiet, level-headed discussion outside the

political framework, where it's been for too long. I think the

destructive effect of that has been too damaging to our kids in this

province.

MR. MESSMER : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

speak in favour of Bill 20 and against the hoist motion. The hon.

member for North Island suggested that the other backbencher from our

side suggested that we were having a stalling tactic, and that

democracy is not served unless everything is said. I would like to join

with the other back-bencher from our side, who again suggests that it

is a stalling tactic. Really, both sides of the House realize that the

second and third readings give us ample opportunity for both sides to

speak on the issue. At the rate we're going, it's certainly going to

take a considerable amount of time for this to go through. Looking

back, I notice that in 1973, when the NDP brought in the Labour Code,

from the time of introduction until proclamation it took 44 calendar

days. I don't know how we're doing on those days, but certainly we're

running short of time.

I believe that Bill 20 is good

legislation. This bill will enable all of the teachers to do what they

do best, and that is to teach. I think we can all look back as students

and . . . . Certainly the teacher was the person whom we probably

respected most in our community, and who probably ended up being the

person who best moulded us into what we did with our future. I think

that attitude probably still holds true in our schools today.

However,

education has become a very serious profession, in that in the days

when we went to school, we respected the teachers. The teachers earned

that respect, but at the same time, I believe, had the support of the

parents. Today teaching is somewhat different. Today we have drugs,

alcohol and other things that happen within our society, which we fend

off and turn part of the responsibility for over to the teachers of our

children. I think that this bill gives us an opportunity to change a

lot of that feeling that we have within our communities. It gives our

teachers an opportunity not to have to be part of a solidarity

movement, which reflects the attitude of the profession within the

community.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I would

like to quote a couple of things from the education audit put out by

the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It says: "Community sniping at teachers

has become a sport. A hefty segment of the population has bought the

apparently government-endorsed line that teachers are an incompetent,

overpaid, overindulged elite that needs to be put into its place."

That's certainly a statement that is not true within each community; it

is a statement that is true and has been caused because they've been

linked with such movements as Solidarity.

Another one: "Two groups of secondary students were questioned about their

attitudes towards teaching as a profession. The second group was made up of

teachers' children, all of whom were students at a junior secondary school.

Unlike the first group, in which some of the students expressed interest in

a teacher career, none of the teachers' children expressed such an interest."

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a sad situation when children who happen to be

children of teachers within our schools also realize the attitude that is happening

within our school system.

This

bill provides for the teaching profession to become a profession within

itself, through the teachers' college. It also allows the teachers to

have their own bargaining unit, and that bargaining unit can decide

whether or not they wish to become part of the Solidarity movement. The

teachers' college will not perform any bargaining functions, the same

as the province's nurses have today. It will be a professional

organization.

I'm a little surprised that the opposition is

opposing this bill and coming out against the teachers' college,

because I'd like to read from their 1966 convention. The NDP supported

the establishment of such a body: "The B.C. College of Teachers. In

consultation with B.C. universities, the B.C. School Trustees'

Association and the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the New Democratic

government will establish a B.C. College of Teachers whose

responsibility it shall be to supervise the certification of B.C.

teachers." That was in the provincial convention. So I think that . . .

HON. MR. BRUMMET : It can't be true.

MR. MESSMER :

Yes, it is true. If it was fine for the NDP government back in the year

1966, I'm sure that they must have the same feelings today. It's also

interesting to note that in addition the NDP passed a resolution in the

[ Page 866 ]

provincial

convention supporting collective bargaining rights for teachers, and I

hope the members of the opposition can explain these apparent

contradictions. Mr. Speaker, I rest my case.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm here to say what I said about Bill 19 when we were talking on the

hoist motion. The same thing applies. The bill has been introduced to

be pushed through the House in a big hurry, and the only explanation

is: "Come on now, guys, it's costing money." I don't know what this

House is for, but I was under the impression that this House is here so

that we could give broad and general consideration to the legislation

that is brought before the House, and that every person here is

representative of a constituency of people and has the right to make

that representation.

It's time to say again to the

government, as we said on Bill 19, that the bill should not be rushed

through the House. Let's wait, let's look, let's consider, let's talk

and let's take a length of time. The member has just pointed out that

the previous labour legislation that was brought in by the New

Democratic government in