1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

889 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Water quality of Okanagan Lake. Mr. Harcourt –– 889

Health care for women. Mr. Miller –– 890

Environmental Appeal Board. Ms. Smallwood –– 890

Student loans. Ms. Marzari –– 891

Pharmacy dispensing fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 891

Royal Inland Hospital board of directors. Mr. Miller –– 891

Sale of Dome Petroleum. Mr. Clark –– 891

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Skelly –– 892

Mr. D'Arcy –– 894

Mr. Harcourt –– 897

Mr. Jones –– 899

Division –– 913

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the galleries today are some very distinguished British Columbians

whom I hope this House will bid welcome to. They are the directors and

senior staff from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation: first,

the chairman, Tom Toynbee; and the directors, John Wittenberg, Doug

McCallum and Gordon Robson. Also, we have with them Dennis Truss, the

vice-president of administration and chief financial officer; Peter

Dolezal, the president and chief executive officer; and Mike Grannum,

the corporate secretary. These people serve British Columbia in a very

real and meaningful way, and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. CLARK :

Yesterday a number of high schools participated in milk runs for Rick

Hansen, and I was proud to participate in a very successful run at

Notre Dame Secondary School in my constituency, with over 500 students

— the school which happens to be my alma mater. I'd ask the House to

acknowledge today the contribution of all those who participated in

this very worthwhile endeavour.

MR. R. FRASER : Mr.

Speaker, in your gallery today we have about 15 students from Lewis and

Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who are here with their professor,

Dr. Donald Balmer. They're up in British Columbia learning the

parliamentary system from a practical and observation point of view.

They visited with the University of B.C. and University of Victoria

people. In fact, this is a very special year, in that it celebrates the

thirtieth anniversary of the trips that Dr. Balmer and his students

have made to the provincial Legislative Assembly. Would the House join

with me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

This past weekend in Victoria and in Oak Bay, these two communities

played host to a very successful jazz festival, and I would like to

personally thank Mr. Lorne Whyte and the hundreds of volunteers who

made it possible. I think the House, and especially the members from

this area, owe them a huge vote of thanks.

Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, this year it was truly an international event, with bands

coming from Scotland, from Australia and from Guatemala. I'm pleased to

announce today that in your gallery we have the band with us, in its

entirety, from Guatemala. I would like to introduce Paco Gatsby and

their leader Bob Porter. I ask this House to make them welcome.

MR. SERWA :

Today I'm honoured to make an introduction on behalf of the second

member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Messmer). In the public galleries,

on a school tour, are some grade 11 students and their teacher from the

Antioch Christian Academy: teacher Chris Guenther; students Kim Weger,

Twyla Southwick and Lisa Henniger. Would the House please bid them

welcome.

MR. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, in this Volunteer Week there are two people

here from Kamloops today who really epitomize the spirit of volunteerism. They

are Erna Huff and Bette Berst. I would ask the House to join with me in making

these two very good volunteers welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

In the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we have two members from my

constituency: Neil Klassen and Richard Griskevich from Fort Langley. I

would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER : I've been given notice that the Minister of Finance would like to make a ministerial statement.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to rise for the purposes of

extending an apology to the House for the manner in which I presented

the details surrounding Bill 37. I stand before the House, in my

nakedness, asking for forgiveness for this oversight.

The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 37, as anyone who peruses

its contents will know, deals with a variety of relatively minor

taxation amendments dealing with various taxation statutes — nine in

number. It had slipped my mind that tucked into one of those sections

at the end of the bill was a reference to a memorandum of understanding

struck between the province of B.C. and the federal government. By way

of explanation of that, the House might like to know that those

memorandums, or similar memorandums of understanding, have been struck

between the federal government and eight provinces, so that the

inclusion of that

Section in the act really merely formalized an

understanding that has been reached and, indeed, we are not unique in

that respect. However, it was an oversight and I did tend to mislead

the hon. member, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), the

opposition critic, and lulled him into a false sense of security for

all of 24 hours, and I am sorry for that.

MR. STUPICH :

On behalf of the opposition, we accept the apology in the good grace

that it was offered. When the minister spoke to me about this, I

reminded him of an incident that happened when I first entered this

place as an MLA in January 1963 when a then veteran, Leo Nimsick,

cautioned me: "Never listen to a minister's explanation of any bill and

never pay any attention to the explanatory notes. Read the

legislation." I think maybe we will both remember.

I'm more

concerned about the nature of the amendment, but of course there will

be other opportunities to discuss that. I'm also concerned, though,

that this is not the first instance of ministers not being aware of

what actually is in the legislation. We've had both the Premier and the

Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) admit that they were confused and

surprised at some of the things included in Bill 19, and I wonder

whether the House Leader is taking any steps at all to make sure that

ministers are better informed and at least have an opportunity to read

the legislation before it comes in. There will be other opportunities

to pursue that.

Oral Questions

WATER QUALITY OF OKANAGAN LAKE

MR. HARCOURT :

I'd like to ask the Minister of the Environment about the water quality

of Okanagan Lake. I understand that the water quality is so poor that

many Social Credit Party members are contemplating civil disobedience.

As a matter of fact, there were also a number of other members of the

Save Our Lakes group in Vernon who have collected 6,000 names on a

petition for the Vernon city council to stop the construction of the

sewage outfall that I'm sure you are aware of, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 890 ]

question is: has the minister done anything at all to try to postpone

the construction of the new sewage outfall by the Vernon city council

until a detailed report, which includes recommendations for action on

this problem, can be done by his ministry?

[2:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'd like to thank the Leader of the Opposition

for the question. Needless to say, this concern has been at the forefront of

my ministry since I came into the ministry. At this point I am not counselling

or recommending that the municipality of Vernon delay at all the deep water

outfall project. We have approved it, and any decision to delay would be up

to the corporation of the city itself. I can tell the members, though, that

the ministry is giving active consideration to other methods of spray irrigation.

We are going to be putting some funding into a poplar tree project which we

understand will take up a lot more water in spray irrigation.

With

respect to doing any more studies, it is my advice that the situation

has been studied to death since before 1980 and an awful lot of money

has been spent on studies, and I really can't see the value of

expending any more on more studies.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, a supplemental then to the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

because this problem is one more example of the failure of the

government to provide adequately for municipal infrastructure upgrading

so as to prevent further deterioration of municipal infrastructure. In

particular, Mr. Speaker, there is a specific problem with what the

minister has . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Question.

MR. HARCOURT :

Well, I'm laying it out so that some of you can understand more clearly

the question. I have to do that with some of you. For some of you, I

may even have to bring in a blackboard, but I will try not to do that

too soon.

The problem is that for the sewage outfall

approach the funding is 75 percent provincial government and 25 percent

local, and to do exactly that poplar project or the alfalfa project, it

is the reverse. There is an disincentive to do it, because it is 25

percent provincial and 75 percent local. I would like to know if the

Minister of Municipal Affairs is prepared to do at least one more study

on equalizing the treatment for a better on-land treatment than

throwing more sewage out in Okanagan Lake.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the question from the Leader of the

Opposition, and, as he has been made aware, the jurisdiction lies with

another ministry inasmuch as the area is ecologically very sensitive.

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

never have any objection to doing further research if it appears that

it may be beneficial. I would be pleased to look at that.

HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The minister

said Tuesday he was not aware of the difficulty that a 14-year-old girl

had in obtaining an abortion at the Kamloops hospital. I am sure the

minister is now aware of that. Could the minister advise whether he is

taking any steps to ensure that the girl's family, who had to spend

$3,000 to obtain that abortion, both in going to Kamloops and

ultimately going to Vancouver, will be reimbursed for that amount?

HON. MR. DUECK :

As I said the other day in the House when this question was asked, I

had the information from the news media but not from the hospital or

from anyone else involved in this particular case. I must say it's

always a sad situation when an unmarried woman, especially someone 14

years old, gets pregnant and asks for an abortion. However, I must give

you the same answer as I did the other day: there is a duly elected

board operating in Kamloops, they have appointed a therapeutic abortion

committee under the Criminal Code of Canada, and they've acted in their

wisdom, or unwisdom, as you may see it. To that point I can only say

that the ministry will not get involved unless there's a risk to health

or the hospital itself is not operating properly. I do not have

evidence of that.

MR. MILLER : Would the minister not

agree that the situation is clearly getting out of hand when the

members of the board make statements such as that they don't believe

anybody should have an abortion at any age, and when the minister's own

appointee says that he would have difficulty approving any abortion,

and that's politics and that's the way the wheel turns? Does the

minister not feel he has some responsibility in regard to what is

happening in that hospital and the denial of medical services to

people, which is their legitimate right under the Canada Health Act?

HON. MR. DUECK :

To begin with, we have not got a government appointee at the present

time, so I don't know where you get that information from. Secondly,

the hospital board is operating. I don't know what their policy is.

They have doctors on that therapeutic abortion committee. Would I, as a

lay person, second-guess physicians who have the responsibility of

deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not? I would say

no. We have a policy in place under the Criminal Code of Canada, and I

would not second-guess a physician.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I have a very simple question to the Minister of Environment and Parks.

On April 24 an order-in-council was passed which permits the chair of

the Environmental Appeal Board to accept written briefs only. Such

rulings, when made, will effectively end public participation and

cross-examination in public hearings. Is this the way the

administration defines an open government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's a very open-ended question. The order-in-council has three facets

to it. Number one, we introduce a filing fee of $25. Two, we do allow

for written submissions as well as oral submissions, but the director

can make that decision. I believe it really opens the hearing process

up more if someone can send in a written submission, as opposed to

having to appear at a hearing. In other words, we are offering more

availability for people to make their concerns known to the appeal

board.

Thirdly, the order-in-council states that the mandatory time-limits of six and 12 weeks are done away with, allowing

[ Page

891 ]

for

an immediate appeal, if someone wishes immediate action; and those who

wish to gather more evidence to go to appeal don't have to worry about

the 12-week time-limit. They can take longer to gather witnesses or

information to come to the appeal board.

So in answer to

your question, I believe it is open government; I believe it's

effective legislation. If it proves not to be effective, if there is

genuine concern expressed by the courts, as was earlier, or by people

throughout the province, then I'd be happy to review those orders I

signed the other day.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Supplementary.

I'm glad the minister is prepared to review his decision. However, what

the amendment to the regulations does, in essence, is bring the law

into line with practice. The court case that the minister referred to

instructed the government to hold public hearings and allow people to

speak at those public hearings. What this law does is circumvent what

the court instructed the government to do. Can the minister not clarify

for us what the intent of this regulation is, if indeed it is not to

bring the regulations into line with practice?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That's an excellent restatement of the first question. You'll simply

have to read my first answer, because the second answer would be the

same.

STUDENT LOANS

MS. MARZARI :

My question is to the minister acting for the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen). In the government's new

student aid package, students who can't find work will be required to

do fulltime volunteer work over the summer in order to be eligible for

full assistance for a loan. What does the government intend to

accomplish by undermining the basic concept of volunteerism by

enforcing it in this way, and forcing unemployed students to work for

nothing, and who are they going to work for?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take that question on notice for the minister.

PHARMACY DISPENSING FEES

MS. A. HAGEN :

My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing.

Yesterday the minister announced that seniors on GAIN will receive an

additional $125 in income assistance per year to help them cover new

charges for prescription dispensing fees. Can the minister assure the

House that this increase in the total income of these seniors will not

affect the amount they receive for SAFER or rent supplements, so that

the hardship of increased drug costs will not just be transferred to

them as increased rents?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Speaker, to the member, yes, I can assure the member and the House and

all the seniors in this province of that; and I appreciate the

opportunity just to set the record straight in that the measures I

announced yesterday were simply the mechanics of carrying out what was

promised to seniors in the budget speech.

MS. A. HAGEN : Another question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. The $125

yearly amount will be received in monthly payments, but that extra money will

not be available to seniors until cheques that they will receive from GAIN in

late July. Can the minister explain to us the reason for this delay, and what

provision he has made so that those persons who do not have sufficient money

to pay for their prescription drugs will be helped in the meantime?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, it has just taken the staff a little time to work it out

so that we do it properly. That is the only reason for the delay, and

it was spelled out clearly in the press release that it would be

retroactive. As I've said before, in this ministry we do not turn

anyone away who is in desperate need of medical care or subsistence

allowance. Anyone who is truly in need will never be turned away, and

anyone who falls under that category will be looked after by this

ministry.

MS. A. HAGEN : Will the minister assure

this House then that the information regarding procedures that would

assist seniors who require dollars to purchase their drugs will be

uniformly and consistently available throughout the province to

seniors, to pharmacists and to advocates of seniors? That is not the

case at the moment. Can the minister assure us that that will happen,

and of how he intends to carry out such an information program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The information will be available from

all of the Social Services offices throughout the province.

ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MR. MILLER :

Further to the Minister of Health. In view of the seriousness of the

situation in Kamloops with respect to what's happening in that hospital

board, and in view of the fact that the head of the medical staff has

said there's a danger to patients' health in that community, would the

minister agree to send his deputy minister up to Kamloops to compile a

report, bring it back and report to this House on the situation?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, I must tell the opposition member that I have had no

evidence, no correspondence, that there's a danger to health or a

health hazard in that area whatsoever.

SALE OF DOME PETROLEUM

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Energy regarding the sale of Dome

Petroleum to Amoco. Since that proposed sale has been announced, there

has been much concern. . . . Even Alberta's Energy minister has spoken

out about protecting Canadian interests. Since Dome is B.C.'s

fourth-largest producer of natural gas, has the minister decided to

make any representations to the federal Energy minister or to

Investment Canada regarding this sale?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the federal Energy minister, and he has

assured me that the national government's concern primarily is

employment and secondly is security of energy supply. With those two

concerns in mind, the takeover by Amoco will probably occur.

[2:30]

[ Page 892 ]

Orders of the Day

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

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY :

Just to recap what happened prior to the lunch period, I was discussing

the merits of hoisting the bill that we're currently debating for six

months, to allow the government full process of consultation and to

allow the government to reconsider the contents of the legislation

that's before the House; and expressing a bit of my pessimism, I

suppose, as to the attitude of the government towards motions like this

and towards the intent and the good faith of the opposition in

presenting these motions.

As I pointed out before lunch,

it's very rare in the history of this Legislature that a hoist motion

is presented, and when a hoist motion is presented by the opposition,

it's done only when the opposition has grave concerns about the impact

of the bill on the public good of the people of the province of British

Columbia.

We're very concerned about the attitude that's

been demonstrated by the members opposite. It seems that they're simply

waiting for the debate to expire. At that point, we'll get back on the

main motion itself. They'll wait for the debate to expire on that

motion, and then they'll proceed in exactly the way they intended to

proceed in the first place. It seems that the government's attitude

toward consultation and cooperation both with the opposition and with

other groups in society in this province is really a sham, and that

they have no intention of consultation or cooperation at all, no

intention to give a full look at the concerns that people have about

this bill and to suspend debate in the House until that full look is

taken.

Now it seems to me that this bill, along with Bill

19, is simply another battle that this government has taken over the

last six years, as far as I can recall, against the teachers, against

the B.C. Teachers' Federation and against the public school system. It

seems to be a part of a continuing attack, and for that reason the

government really has no intention of backing off in the intent of this

bill. The bill, I suppose, is a part of that whole program of attack

against the public school system, and in this part they are attacking

or pursuing their vendetta against the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

wonder why the government has the attitude that it has towards the

public education system in the province. It seems that they have the

same attitude towards public education that they have towards the

legitimate opposition in the Legislature: that they're simply a

problem, that they have to listen to them for a while and then they go

about doing their business regardless of the debate on this side of the

House.

It seems that this government has the same attitude

towards the public education system that the Conservatives have towards

the Post Office — begging your pardon, Mr. Speaker, as to your former

political affiliation and probably some of the speeches you made in the

House of Commons relative to the Post Office and its efficiencies. But

it seems that the Conservatives in this country like to use the Post

Office as the whipping-boy, and the more inefficient they can make the

Post Office, the more they get to whip it. It's a good thing for the

Conservatives that we do have a public postal system in Canada;

otherwise they'd have to go and attack something else.

seems to be the same with the Social Credit Party here in British

Columbia. The thing they love to attack is the public education system.

That was reinforced . . . .

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY :

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis)

says he wants to start his own Post Office. Well, maybe they'll whip

him for a change.

The Social Credit Party in B.C. seems to

have the same kind of attitude towards the public education system. I

was interested to read from the statements made by the new member for

Okanagan–Similkameen . . . .

MS. CAMPBELL : No such riding.

MR. SKELLY : Okanagan–Boundary . . . .

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY : Boundary–Similkameen — one of those ridings. I'm mixing my Conservatives with my Socreds.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to mention a few of the words that this member spoke

when concern was expressed about the private school system by one of

our members, and the fact that in the Victoria school district the

provincial government is now spending more money per pupil for students

in private schools than they're spending for students in the public

school system. It was suggested here that the reason the Socreds

support the private school system is that they're concerned about the

moral fibre of their children. They send their children for protection,

because they're concerned that they should send their children to a

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

during the time that they're trying to obtain an education. It seems to

me that that member was suggesting that by sending children to a public

school their moral and spiritual fibre is in danger. That seems typical

of the attitude that Social Credit members have towards the public

school system.

I was offended when the Premier of this

province attempted to link this bill and his concerns about the B.C.

Teachers' Federation with the case of Mr. Noyes, who was charged and

convicted of sexual assaults on children under his care while he was a

teacher in the school system.

It seems to me that this is

the kind of attitude that is reflected in the bill that we are dealing

with today. It's a very unhealthy attitude towards the public education

system in the province. It seems to me that Socreds value those kinds

of things that are done for private interest and private gain and for

the benefit of private groups of citizens, and they seem to attack

those things that are done by all of us together for the benefit of all

of us together. The public education system is one of those things, so

they constantly attack the public education system. One of the ways you

attack the system, of course, is to question the motives, the

capability, the competence and the morals of teachers in the public

school system. This has been a constant theme throughout the Social

Credit speeches that have been made both in this Legislature and

outside the Legislature. It is a matter of concern to me that this bill

represents that kind of attitude on the part of Social Credit members .

. .

[ Page

893 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY : . . .towards teachers

and towards the public education system that seems to be shared by the

first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) as well.

MS. CAMPBELL : Shallowness is unbecoming.

MR. SKELLY :

In fact, the word "unbecoming" was even used by the Premier to describe

teachers who have decided to embark on an instruction-only campaign.

was interested in a question that the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Ms. Marzari) asked in the House today, where the Minister of

Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) is now suggesting that in order to

qualify for student aid, students in this province are going to be

expected to do compulsory labour — but phrased in these terms:

compulsory voluntary labour. This country did away with compulsory

voluntary labour back in 1833 when we, along with the rest of the

British Empire, abolished slavery. But it seems to me that this kind of

approach is being taken by the government — and it is representative of

an attitude by the government in their approach to the public school

system — and that is why we have this bill on the floor today.

I pointed out before the lunch hour, I have had connections, as has the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I have been a school trustee in

a school district on Vancouver Island. I have also taught in schools on

Vancouver Island and on the Queen Charlottes. I have found over the

years that teachers in general, the vast majority of teachers, are

among the finest citizens that this province has to offer. They are

willing not only to commit the time that they put into the classroom

and are paid for to their students and their communities, but they are

also always willing to commit time beyond that to the things that they

do voluntarily for their students and for the community.

would just like to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that in my

own family, my daughter is a pianist and plays . . . . The first member

for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) was drawing attention to the jazz

festival that took place here on the weekend in Victoria. My daughter

plays for a school jazz band and a school vocal group. Now she goes to

practise at 7:30 in the morning — all voluntary; she doesn't have to do

it — and the teacher is there at 7:30 in the morning to coach that jazz

band. Two teachers commit a great deal of their extracurricular time on

a voluntary basis to make sure that those students get the training

outside of school that they are not getting inside of the school. As a

result of the amount of time those teachers have put in, their jazz

band has won the West Coast Jazz Festival, and they are now entitled to

go on to Ottawa and to compete nationally in a national music festival.

The government of the province did not put a nickel into their travel;

it didn't provide a cent to their travel back to Ottawa. To those

students who were representing the municipality of Esquimalt and the

people of British Columbia and putting the best face of British

Columbia forward to those other people in eastern Canada, the

government of this province didn't contribute a nickel. But I will tell

you what happened: teachers, parents, students, supporters in local

business, supporters in the professions and individual supporters

throughout the community got together, and as a result of that

volunteer effort on the part of those citizens and those teachers,

those kids will now be able to go to Ottawa, and I suspect they are

going to win the national festival and bring those honours home to

British Columbia.

I will guarantee you one thing, Mr.

Speaker: there's going to be a government politician to meet them when

the plane lands, taking advantage of all of that volunteer effort that

was contributed by teachers on behalf of their communities — that very

profession that this government loves to attack. When they bring

honours back to the province and to their school and to their students,

then the government is there to take the credit. I think that is

hypocritical. The teachers have been forced under constant attacks by

this government to withdraw the labour that they do voluntarily on

behalf of the people of this province and on behalf of the citizens of

this province. What a shabby approach to take to a group of citizens

who make such a fine contribution both in terms of the hours they spend

in the classroom and the quality of instruction in the classroom and in

terms of the amount of work that they do voluntarily outside the

classroom on an extracurricular basis for the students that they serve

in this province. If this kind of legislation so outrages the teachers

that we're deprived of that volunteer work that they do on our behalf,

I think there's something definitely wrong with this legislation. If we

could have avoided that kind of confrontation by sitting down with the

teachers in advance, by discussing what the requirements of the

legislation would actually be, what would be acceptable to them and to

school districts and to the government, it would have been a far more

fruitful effort at achieving the kind of agreement, the kind of

cooperation and the kinds of results that we want in this province.

Instead, the government has seen fit, bull-headedly, to attack a group

in our society which does a great deal of service to the people of our

society; has seen fit to attack that group, using this kind of

legislation, when they could have achieved what they need to achieve

through other means, by using a process of consultation, a cooperative

process that was acceptable to all of the people involved.

Mr.

Speaker, nobody is more embarrassed by bad teachers or by inefficient

teachers or by problem teachers than are the teachers themselves. If

there was a way to get those teachers out of the procession and to

direct them into some other line of work where they might be more

effective and efficient, I'm sure that the teachers would be fully

prepared to sit down with the government and to sit down with school

districts, and to develop those mechanisms, provided at the same time

they don't make every teacher in the province vulnerable to the kind of

firing without cause that this government seems to endorse. The method

of developing those kinds of mechanisms is available to us, but it's

only available to us if it's done on a cooperative and consultative

basis. It seems that this government has rejected that kind of approach.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I know the back-bench member over there, the brand-new rookie from wherever it is in the province.

Interjections.

MR. S KELLY : Are you denying that he is a rookie or that he's from someplace in the province?

Interjections.

[ Page 894 ]

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear who it was, so I can't really refer to him by constituency.

MR. ROSE : It's the rookie from Richmond.

MR. SKELLY :

The member complains about the suggestion that we develop a mechanism

that's acceptable to all parties in the province; yet, Mr. Speaker,

that's exactly the kind of processes that we've seen developed when

people get together in a collective bargaining situation, when they

know what the problems are and they know what the roadblocks are, and

they know that they want to achieve a solution that's to the benefit of

all of the people involved, as well as all of the people in the

province.

[2:45]

1 know, Mr. Speaker, that the government back-benchers, and that

member for Richmond as well, have been instructed as to how they should

deal with this bill. They've been given their marching orders, and

they're following their orders. When they're told to speak, they speak.

Today we found out that when they're told to shut up, they shut up. We

know how government back-benchers operate, because we've seen the

Tories do it in Ottawa.

MS. CAMPBELL : You are offensive.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY : I take that as a compliment from the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Mr.

Speaker, I know you, as well as many other people in this House and

many other people in the province, are getting tired of the constant

warfare that's taking place with our school system; of the constant

kind of attacks that have taken place over the last many years by the

Social Credit government against the public school system in the

province of British Columbia; that this legislation represents only a

continuing part. We've had it in terms of restraint; we've had it in

terms of cutting back on expenditures for textbooks; we've had it in

terms of cutting back on making counsellors and librarians and other

services available in the school system, which this government

considers frills and therefore should be cut back. We've seen the

constant cutbacks that have been taking place in grants to school

districts over the years, and the constant cutback in the teaching

staff, so that many teachers are now overburdened in terms of the

amount of students they have in their classroom and in terms of the

amount of class work that they're forced to do. As a result, teachers

in this province, Mr. Speaker, have been driven to the point of

frustration, where they don't know where to turn. We've seen that

children in this province have suffered as a result of what this

government is doing in its attack on the school system.

The

reason we moved this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is not to delay, not

simply as an attack on the legislation, but simply another offer to

this government, to allow the promised process of consultation to go

ahead, without having this bill on the floor of the Legislature as a

gun to the head of the teachers; to allow this process of consultation

to go ahead, free from any of the kind of pressure that this bill

represents. We're asking the minister, we're asking the government, to

stand back a little bit, to pull back a little bit, to give the process

of consultation that has started between the minister, the trustees and

the teachers an opportunity to work, and to work well, and to deliver

the kinds of results that we hope it will deliver. I think that can

only happen if this bill is pulled from the table and if we allow an

opportunity for teachers, trustees and government to get together to

put together the kind of legislation which will achieve the kinds of

results that they all want. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will use your

influence on the members of this Legislature to see that this bill is

hoisted for six months, to allow the government to proceed with that

process of negotiation.

MR. D'ARCY : I think it's unfortunate that so few of the government

members take this particular motion seriously. I think it's most unfortunate

indeed that so few are even at work today. I certainly have no trouble seeing

the wall opposite, where sometimes there can be a sea of heads; I see lots of

beautiful marble over there.

MR. SKELLY : And that's the heads.

MR. D'ARCY : However, the minister is here, and I give him credit for that.

There

has been an awful lot of rhetoric and writing in the press about this

particular piece of legislation. My concern is for the educational

community, if not the entire community, in the constituency that I

represent. That's why I have a concern about this bill, and that's why

I would like the minister and his cabinet colleagues to take some time

to study it. In my constituency, I suppose, it would be easy to say:

"Oh, the teachers have a lot of concern about this." Well, they do, of

course, but parents also have a lot of concern about this, and the

students themselves — and when I say students, I'm not just referring

to high school students; I'm talking about children from the

kindergarten level on up. They're not quite sure what is wrong, but

they're aware that something is wrong, because they know there's a lot

of discussion about it.

There was, and I think still is, an

expectation of a favourable attitudinal change on the part of the

present government relative to the last few years. This kind of

legislation, whether or not it is fully understood out there in the

communities that I represent — or that you represent, Mr. Speaker . . .

. There is a feeling that confrontation never really died, that it's

back with us, that there has been inadequate consultation, even among

those of my constituents who agree with some of the principles of this

particular bill before the chamber today.

I'll just give

you some of the concerns of school board members, who are duly elected

just as we are duly elected, and some of the concerns of parents,

especially those with children in the system who have special needs.

And let's remember, special needs does not necessarily mean learning

disabilities, but may mean a particular brilliance in some area;

perhaps it's just a need for some remedial work. In the two major

junior secondary schools in my riding, Mr. Speaker, they have annual

library book budgets of $200. That's all that the board can afford. We

know what a volume costs. If you ever look in the bookstores, you know

that these days a volume of anything costs $20 at least. You might get

a paperback for $10 or $15, but a bound volume costs at least $20. So

we might liberally estimate that that $200 might be good for ten books

a year — not new books, but ten books to replace those which wear out

or which go missing, and as anyone who has ever had anything to do with

libraries knows, some material goes missing one way or another.

There is some money for supplies. I am advised by school board people and by educators that while they can get money,

[ Page 895 ]

especially

through Excellence in Education funds, for buying things like

computers, they've got several computers facing the wall because they

don't have anybody to teach the kids who want to learn something about

those computers. That's another interesting thing: you can get money

for hardware. I've got two schools that have recently had computerized

telephone systems installed. Nobody realized there was anything wrong

with the old system. Nobody wanted any money for new phones, but there

was money for computerized telephones.

While this is going

on, the libraries, as I said, are falling apart. School libraries are

not staffed anymore in my constituency. They used to have

teacher-librarians. Now it's "teacher" in capital letters and boldface,

and the "librarian" is a little tiny bit, because the teachers who used

to be teacher-librarians now are spending their time teaching all the

time and they're never in the libraries. So the students and the kids

who need those libraries as resource centres and need to use them are

on their own — unsupervised, no assistance, no direction as to where

they can find the material they need. When they want to work toward

what, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you and everyone in this chamber I hope

would agree is what we all want — the pursuit of excellence in our

schools — the pursuit of excellence with our young people, the pursuit

of excellence in our province in all fields, the children out there are

not even being allowed to take advantage of the limited resources that

are there already, already bought and paid for by the taxpayers of B.C.

Mr.

Speaker, I have two school districts. We have a couple of district

resource centres which are sort of a general nonfiction lending library

of material — computer material, graphics. They used to have trained

staff. Now they don't have those anymore; they each have part-time

secretaries, who by the way do an excellent job but part-time

secretaries can't find material. They can't order it. They can't

replace it. What they do, Mr. Speaker, is if a teacher knows and can

find what they want that's already in one of those resource centres,

they will send it out to the appropriate school or deliver it. Once

again specialized facilities bought and paid for can't be used the way

they should be.

I give one example of an area of special

needs for remedial work, maths. Hardly to some members on the opposite

side an airy-fairy subject, mathematics. It is a very important subject

in British Columbia. We all know that some students have difficulty

with mathematics. It doesn't mean they're dumb, it doesn't mean they

have a learning disability; they just have trouble. Maybe some people

here had difficulty with math in school and needed some remedial work.

Mr.

Speaker, in one junior high school where they have three classes of

remedial math students, they only have one teacher to handle that. So

two of those classes don't get their remedial math training from anyone

who has a specialty of working with mathematics on a remedial basis.

After all, all teachers, no matter how well qualified — just as in any

other field, medicine, law or whatever — can't be all things to all

people. They can only have so many specialties. The fact is the school

district and the local teachers' association are not in a position to

provide the people with the specialized needs that the children have

for remedial math, and that is through the entire subject range of

compulsory courses, Mr. Speaker. I only use math as an example, but it

doesn't matter whether it applies to physical education or physics or

We all know that there are

larger class sizes in British Columbia. We all know that all of the

arm's-length professional assessments that have ever been done in this

province or any other jurisdiction south of the 49th parallel or in the

provinces to the east of us would indicate that an ideal class size is

around 18 students. Even if one knows that some classes, especially in

smaller districts, are going to run up into the mid-20s, high-20s — we

have a situation where we have many classes in my constituency with

over 30 . . . . And it's not just the sheer numbers. Teacher after

teacher after teacher, whether elementary or high school, has told me:

"You know, Chris, it's not just the numbers of students; it's the

numbers out of that 30 or 35 who have special needs, and out of those

numbers with special needs it's the numbers that have severe special

needs."

Now I'm not one who says our society is getting

worse, but I do know that there are a lot more children in the system

who didn't used to be there when I was in the system. When I was in

school in the 1940s and the 1950s, any kid that had any particular

problems wasn't in school. They either left school early, or they were

taken out, or the school system said they couldn't handle this

particular person.

[3:00]

Now,

thank goodness, we're much more humane, much more Christian in our

attitudes, and society as a whole has accepted the fact that the

educational system has a responsibility for all people. But those

individuals who require special attention put special strain on

teachers. This particular piece of legislation — and this is why I wish

the minister and the government would have a look at it — to a

considerable degree demoralizes the people who are doing their best

professionally to deliver the educational services that they know the

students in the system need. Because that after all is the bottom line

on any bill pertaining to education in the province of B.C. It's not so

much what I or a teacher or a school trustee might think of it; what's

important is, does it help or hinder the delivery of quality education

services to the students of British Columbia? I would like the

government to delay passage of this bill, because I am firmly

convinced, from speaking with educators and elected trustees from my

constituency, that this bill does not serve that.

Mr.

Speaker, the teachers did not particularly ask for these provisions in

the bill. The school trustees say they didn't. One cannot escape the

impression that we had with earlier pieces of legislation discussed in

this House: that to the government consultation meant taking 100

particular proposals, picking out the one or two you want and trashing

the rest. The teachers and school trustees, as near as I can tell,

anyway — other members may have heard what they wanted to hear or heard

differently — asked for the same responsibilities, the same duties and

the same privileges as have been enjoyed for decades by other

occupational, professional and trade groups within the province of

British Columbia. They didn't ask for special treatment; they simply

asked to be treated the same as anyone else under the collective

bargaining legislation in the province.

I know of no other

occupational group, whether self-employed professionals or

professionals employed through public sector employers, that had a

particular piece of legislation forced on them by the government of

B.C. — any government of B.C. When the medical people want amendments

to the enabling legislation that allows them to set up their various

controlling bodies, they come to government and suggest amendments.

Usually, eventually in some form

[ Page 896 ]

another, those amendments are passed through the Legislature, whichever

government is in office, in a manner that is acceptable to that

professional or occupational group. The same is true with accountants,

dentists and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no other group

that's had something forced upon them that neither they nor their

employers — who are the school trustees — have asked for. That's why I

would like the minister — who I know cares about education, and I don't

say that speciously; I know he does care about the quality of education

in B.C. — to have another look at this.

This particular law

proposal is creating a lot more problems in the schools right now than

it would solve. Let's think about the last few years. We've had

continuous reductions in the real amount of funding per student,

adjusted for inflation, made available to the schools of British

Columbia. We had the former member for Prince George North, in his

program of consultation which he called "Let's Talk About Schools." It

created hope; it created a feeling that perhaps the government is going

to listen and understand some of the problems that exist out there in

the schools. There was at least an attempt at a certain consultative,

consensual and collegial attitude. But nothing really came out of that,

out of improving the education system in British Columbia. Nothing

really came out of that that would give hope to parents, students and

teachers.

I don't believe that teachers are just like any

other organized occupational or professional group. They are not really

into spending a whole lot of time, or any time at all, in radical

behaviour or confrontational tactics. In my experience, teachers —

certainly in my riding — want to teach. They want to teach and they

want to help the community. I don't believe that teachers are

confrontational, and I don't believe that school trustees are. But I

think the government is.

I think the government is because

the government has not accepted the reality that there is a major

difficulty within the school system of British Columbia that, in major

part, is a result of government policies over the last few years. Now

we have

an act which further demoralizes those professionals in the

system, of which the overwhelming majority really do fundamentally

care, first and foremost, about the young people in their classes.

Mr.

Speaker, once again I have to use an example from the local level. A

while ago the schools board set up something they called an individual

program, which was a program of taking young people who were defined by

professionals in the community, not by educators, as having particular

individual needs — in other words, needs that could not possibly be

satisfied in the classroom, no matter how professional the teacher was.

. . . But we have, with the one class that could be set up in the

Castlegar School District, a waiting-list, which is larger than the

class, of people who were not defined as difficult by teachers or by

the school board, but were defined that way by professionals outside

the educational system.

Mr. Speaker, education is one of

the major visible expenditures. It was one of the former British Prime

Ministers — I think it was Anthony Eden - who was fond of saying . . .

. I don't know whether I am quoting correctly, but he was fond of

saying: "Everyone is in favour of general economy but particular

expenditure." Of course, what he meant was that we would all like the

government to be parsimonious with our tax dollars, except on those

things which are near and dear to us as individuals. That is only

human. Government spends money on a whole lot of things. I use

government with a capital G; here we are speaking of the province, and

I suppose the school boards as well.

Education is one of

the most visible areas of government expenditure in any community. I

know it is natural for everyone, out of their tax dollars . . . . Lord

knows, we are all taxed heavily enough that we can see and appreciate

the efforts of municipal government to provide fresh water and sewers

and paved roads, and of the Highways ministry to provide highways

between communities. Of course we all know the need for good health

care and effective law enforcement. But one of the most important areas

to the citizens of this province is education, because you can see the

schools and you know the kids, whether or not you have any children in

your own family in the system. Everyone has relatives or friends with

children in the system.

There is a strong feeling among my

constituents that we are not getting the bang for our bucks out of the

education system. They don't blame the school boards, and they don't

blame the teachers. There is a feeling that the system does not have

the tools to do the job. I said earlier that everyone would agree that

we want to aim for excellence in our young people, excellence in our

economy. That really is the most important natural resource that we

have: the human resource.

Mr. Speaker, we are not getting

that. I use another example that can happen in a classroom, at any

level in the school system, to a teacher who has to spend several more

hours marking and preparing course work. Because of the size of the

class and its special needs, what happens is that the teacher does not

use the time before school or during the breaks to help individual

students who need special help. They don't have the time at noon hour;

they don't have the time after school. It's not a case of working to

rule. It is simply a case of a teacher getting to school, putting in

their number of hours, having some time that they must use for

supervising, and spending their entire time on either marking,

preparation of courses or actually teaching. They don't have the time

that they used to have, even when I was in school, to work for 15

minutes, half an hour or an hour with students in their classes who are

not in a hopeless situation, but who need some special time. They don't

have that time anymore.

I would hope that the minister and

the government would step back and have a look at this piece of

legislation. I have been told by a great many teachers, administrators,

superintendents, directors of instruction and so on that there are a

lot of special needs in the school system that don't necessarily

pertain to education, that certainly don't pertain to the training and

education that the teachers got.

These are teachers who

have master's degrees and are very experienced. They say: "Gee, Chris,

I was taught to teach physics or math or a language. I wasn't taught to

be a child psychologist. I wasn't taught to be a special elementary

school counsellor." Some people may say that those things are frills.

You don't need those; you didn't need them when I was in school. You

don't need them now.

Once again we come back to the fact

that there are a number of children in the school system at any level

who, in fact, need special services outside the realm of the kind of

excellent training that teachers get and have when they graduate with

their bachelor's or master's, or whatever degree they get. So teachers

are being told to provide services — or being required to; it's not a

case of their being told. They know professionally that they have

children under their care who

[ Page 897 ]

need psychiatric and, in some cases, even medical assistance, which they are not trained to give.

Recently

the school boards in my area financed a school improvement seminar

along with other school districts from the Kootenays and the Okanagan,

and this was something that we could all support. It wasn't a

boondoggle; it attempts to improve the system as it is, and to do that

cost-effectively by taking the resources that are available, however

limited, and trying to improve the system as it was. They talked about

making the schools work better individually internally, within the

school. The emphasis, I was told by the elected people and by teachers

and administrators, was on such things as consensus, consent,

collegiality, how principals and vice-principals play a key role in

operating the school and delivering the services.

We know

what this bill does to that. It separates the principals and the

vice-principals from that atmosphere which can be built of consensus,

consent and collegiality within the school.

[3:15]

Mr.

Speaker, those administrators who are now directors of instruction,

directors of curriculum and superintendents of schools in most, if not

all, cases came through the system with a great deal of effort on their

part to improve their education degrees and have virtually universally,

in my experience in my riding, the respect of the principals below them

and the teachers and the elected school board members, whatever the

political feeling of the school board members. You must remember that

school board members are primarily concerned with the educational

services; otherwise they wouldn't have run for school board in the

first place.

Those people are not happy with the separation

of the administrators, principals and vice-principals, from the

teachers on the line within the system. What I'm hearing is that where

the hope of consensus and consent and collegiality was there in making

the schools work better internally with the financial resources as they

exist today, it has been and is going to be replaced by confrontation

and coercion.

I hope that the government moves back on some

of these things. We read in the press that perhaps the government is

considering some amendments to this bill, as they are to others. I can

only say that it's tremendously important, not just to teachers as an

occupational group. One, I guess, could easily get the impression that

whenever anyone feels that their situation is not going to be as

favourable as they once saw it, they're being hurt.

concern is for the entire educational community and in particular the

students in my own riding. Teachers have politics like all of us, and I

would assume that there are almost as many . . . . It's none of my

business how teachers vote, but I would assume there's almost as many

who supported the government party as myself in the last election.

One

of the things that has been said quite frequently to me is that while

they don't have anything personally nasty to say about the member for

North Peace in his capacity as Minister of Education, they have a

tendency to look back at previous ministers, such as the former member

for Prince George, in a relatively fond way, because they say: "We

thought we had it bad before, and it's getting worse again." It's

almost like the old good guy, bad guy routine. When things get bad and

you get some hope that things were going to get better — and I believe

everyone in the education system had some hope that things were going

to get better — what they find is even more of a confrontational

attitude than they had before and less of a consultative attitude on

the part of government than they had before. They say at least they

knew before that their suggestions were considered favourably by the

government in the last year or so. Even though very little came out of

it, at least they knew that their suggestions weren't rejected and

replaced by suggestions that nobody knows whereof they came.

I'm

happy to have had the opportunity to make a contribution to this

debate. I hope that the minister and his cabinet colleagues will take

the remarks that we have from this side of the House, and hopefully

members from the other side will have on behalf of their constituents

and their children in their ridings, and that we can get on with having

a good second look at this particular bill.

MR. HARCOURT :

I would like to reiterate the three reasons why our caucus feels that

Bill 20 should be hoisted. I'll summarize them. I won't put them on a

blackboard, I'll just summarize them.

The first reason is

that it does nothing to address the real problems in education today in

British Columbia. That's the key reason. The second is that the process

for development of the Teaching Profession Act has not followed the

cooperative, consultative process that has been used in drafting all

the other professional acts. Thirdly, Bill 20 is a recipe for continued

confrontation and disruption in education. Those are the three reasons

that we have been trying to make very clear to the people of British

Columbia why this is such a disastrous intrusion, negative intrusion,

into the education of our young people in this great province of ours.

The

first reason I said is that it does not address the real problems of

education. I want to make it very clear that the essence of why we feel

that this is a negative — I won't even use the word "initiative"

because that would be the wrong word to describe this piece of bad work

. . . . The real issue is that a teacher's working conditions are a

child's learning conditions. That is the essence of what we should be

looking at.

When a teacher fights for improved working

conditions, they're fighting to improve learning conditions. I want to

go through some examples of where neither this act nor the budget

address the problems I want to talk about.

The first is

class size, because the two are linked, and I want to show it. A larger

class for students, such as we have in this province, very large

classes, means a greater workload for teachers, more marking, more

energy in student management, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But the result of overloading teachers with students, with those extra

responsibilities, is that it creates an unsatisfactory learning

environment for students. There is less individual attention. There is

lower student achievement.

This correlation is borne out

clearly in research. I would like to quote the Smith and Glass

Laboratory of Educational Research paper of 1979: "The effects of class

size on classroom processes, pupil effect and teacher satisfaction are

strong and consistent. On all measures, reduction in class size is

associated with higher-quality schooling and more positive attitudes."

This bill and the budget did not deal with that central problem.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT : They did not deal with that whatsoever.

[ Page 898 ]

MR. D'ARCY : Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARCOURT : The question that smaller class size improves student achievement....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Pardon me, hon. member. The member for Rossland–Trail rises on a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY :

Mr. Speaker, I would like the members on the government side to know

that they're quite welcome to join this debate once they have been

recognized by the Speaker.

MR. HARCOURT : For the

past chairperson of the Vancouver School Board this has struck a

sensitive nerve, and rightly it should; I'd be embarrassed by this

piece of legislation myself. And I'd be embarrassed to represent a

riding like Vancouver–Point Grey where education is a very proud part

of the fabric. I'd be embarrassed, too, because as the site for Jericho

school . . . .

She should be particularly interested in

this quote from the "Report on Education Research" by the national

education centre, April 1986, that says that smaller class size

improves student achievement, particularly for economically

disadvantaged students, and it boosts teacher morale. For a number of

years, from the Bill Bennett government's deliberate policy of

systematically increasing class sizes in B.C. until they are now the

largest in Canada, and for many years before, when the now Premier

became the minister of miseducation in this province and started the

legitimacy of attacking and savaging and belittling the teaching

profession and others associated with that, we have taken this province

back in a time warp. No wonder the school systems are in trouble,

because this bill does not address this concern of class size. I would

hope that the hon. member from Vancouver–Point Grey would see fit to

deal with Vancouver's situation, where we have 60 percent of the

instruction. And we have larger classes. We have classes with 35 to 40

as a second language.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT : I see that we have struck many raw nerves here, and you should be embarrassed.

have a teacher in a classroom with 35 to 40 students where the students

are trying to learn the language, the culture and the way of life in

this great province and country of ours. We have on top of that two or

three mainstream young people with disabilities. We have on top of that

a number of young people who, as the hon. member for Rossland–Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) has said, we used to kick out of the school system. We now

keep them in the school system, but there are not the backup resources

to help those young people with their emotional problems and the trauma

that they're suffering at home, particularly in this time of very high

unemployment and the depression that that brings to families and to

family life, particularly with the number of single-parent families

that there are. We are overloading the school system. Having larger and

larger classes in that climate is a tragedy in this province, and this

bill does not deal with it.

A second example of how this

bill doesn't deal with the real problems in our education system is in

the whole area of teaching resources. There is a shortage of teaching

materials, textbooks and other up-to-date resources, and this creates

more work for the teacher. Members on the other side may say: "That's a

good thing." Some of them who aren't here have belittled the teaching

profession and needled members of this caucus who are proudly teachers,

and they say teachers should work harder. Well, again, there is a

relationship here, because when you do not have those materials and

resources as a teacher, it also negatively impacts on the learning

opportunities for the students, because what kind of a learning

environment is provided when we have outdated materials, inadequately

stocked school libraries, and textbooks that are not available on a

per-pupil basis? Yet in a 1986 survey of teachers that was done by the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, 62 percent rated the adequacy of textbooks

as poor or totally unacceptable. Almost two-thirds of our teachers said

that the resources that were there — not for them but for our young

people — were totally unacceptable. That does not deal with this

economy . . . .

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT :

Young people, Mr. Minister, had better have a decent education or

they're going to be in more glue than they are right now. And you in

particular shouldn't be smiling about students being in that dilemma.

You should be concerned about it, instead of smiling about our young

people not having those resources. No wonder the school system is in

trouble, with that kind of an attitude.

Bill 20 does not address that concern.

MR. LOENEN : We have a royal commission.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, we heard about this royal commission; I heard it raised.

This royal commission — a prosecutor; you send out a prosecutor to

prosecute the education system. It's bad enough that it's a lawyer, but

to send a prosecutor is really atrocious.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : So is your comment.

MR. HARCOURT : I don't blame you for commenting, members of the government for the next 976 days.

want to tell you about the third example of real problems in the

education system that this bill does not address. Support services —

counselling, library and administrative time, and teaching aides to

help in the preparation of materials and lessons, and to assist in

marking — give teachers more opportunities to work with individual

students, to spend more time on teaching and determining methods and

plans. Yet over the last . . . . Turn your back, Mr. Second Member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen). Turn your back; that's what your government's

doing to the education system. You've been doing it for the last five

or six weeks.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, over the last five years

dramatic cuts in these services of counselling, library and

administrative time, and teacher aides have made it very difficult for

teachers. Hence, again, it's linked to the learning conditions for our

young people. It inhibits the services to our students — not to

teachers, but to our students. We're once again pushing headlong, gung

ho, back into the past. Bill 20 does nothing to address this need. What

we're talking about is that teachers' working conditions are a

student's learning condition; the

[ Page 899 ]

two are inextricably linked. This bill does nothing to deal with that.

have a school system with serious problems. When is the government

going to address them? When? You didn't do it in the throne speech; you

didn't do it in the budget; you're not doing it with this legislation.

When are you going to address it? What you are doing instead is

creating a demoralized teaching force and diminishing the learning

opportunities for our young.

In a teacher survey conducted

by C.Q. Research Corp. in 1986, nearly 80 percent of the respondents

stated that teacher morale in their school had declined since 1982.

Heavy workloads and deteriorating working conditions often frustrate

teachers' feelings of success in the classroom. In fact, according to

the survey, unmet needs of students rate second only to the attitudes

and actions of the provincial government as a source of stress to

teachers. What a great reputation to have! I'm sure this government is

proud of that reputation. Bill 20 only makes the situation worse.

Rather than addressing real problems in education, Bill 20 is creating

political problems. It is rattling the cage of teachers deliberately.

It is setting up a climate for confrontation, Mr. Speaker. So that's

the first reason why we feel the bill should be hoisted.

The

second is that there is an alternative to some of the negative knockers

on the other side, to the negative, doubting people who don't think

that cooperation will work. Well, it does. The other professional acts

are an example of a cooperative, consultative process. Why don't you do

it with the teachers? Instead of walking away from the problem you've

created yourself, you could have had that sort of process. You didn't

have to ram this down the throats of the teachers. You didn't do it to

any other profession in this province.

I want to give one

example I know something about, and that's the Law Society of British

Columbia. An old act of 1955 was the Barristers and Solicitors Act. It

was replaced with a new act, the Legal Profession Act, last spring. Mr.

Speaker, this was a cooperative effort between lawyers and the

Attorney-General's office that took five years. It was done with

amendments that were worked out by the Law Society, in a democratic

way, through the 6,000 members of the Law Society. It was presented to

the Attorney-General's office. It was then formulated into a draft

bill. Changes were made at the request of members of the Law Society.

But the point is that it was not imposed on them. It was done with

respect, it was done intelligently, and it was done to create a better

situation for British Columbians who were going to take advantage of

the skills of highly trained professionals such as lawyers. That's what

teachers are: highly trained professionals who are proud to be involved

in educating our young. That same process has been completed or is

underway with podiatrists; dentists; veterinarians; chiropractors;

physiotherapists — the Medical Practitioners Act, the Naturopaths Act;

engineers; pharmacists; accountants, certified, general, chartered and

management; nurses, registered, licensed practical and registered

psychiatric — and there's the Social Workers Act. Why not for the

teachers, Mr. Speaker?

The third reason we are requesting

the hoist of this bill is that it is going to bring confrontation. Bill

20, instead of addressing the real problems, some of which I have

outlined, instead of patterning itself on a cooperative and

consultative approach, as has happened with all the other professional

associations, is setting forth a recipe for confrontation. Why would

the government choose to do that? Why would the government consciously

choose to create confrontation? That's what this bill does.

What

happened on Tuesday in this province, the closure of schools and the

disruption of education, is the result of the Premier's stated

intention of ramming through this legislation which affects all of the

30,000 teachers and, through them, the students in their classrooms and

their parents and families.

The last time the Premier had

his hand in education, he got the confrontation ball rolling. This

isn't the first time; we hope it's the last. In 1982-83, Bill 89 was

brought in and legislated a closure of schools for six days — again,

school closures, chaos, confrontation. Why would the government do it

again? That is the question we are asking. The blame for this must rest

with the Premier. He is causing the unrest. He is causing the chaos. He

is causing the confrontation.

Taking the education system

in our province back 50 years is not our idea of progress, Mr. Speaker.

My mother was a teacher in Alberta, around Lethbridge, in the middle of

the Depression. She went to normal school in Calgary. When she taught

in the Depression, she could be fired without cause. She had grim

conditions in an old one-room school, with far too many students to

teach with very few resources. She had low pay and no support from any

professional association or union of significance. And that's where

this bill takes our educational system back to. It's a tragedy that

this bill does that in our province.

I want you to be

clear: our party is united in its opposition to Bill 20. We are united

in that opposition, and we are united in supporting the motion to

hoist. We are united in calling upon the Premier to end this

confrontation by hoisting Bill 20 and addressing the real problems of

education. Instead of, at best, being involved in political mischief

and a vendetta . . . . The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) at

least had the courage to be upfront and say: "We're out to get the

BCTF. That's what we're involved in. Make no mistake about it. We're

not here to improve education or the future of our young. We're here to

kneecap the BCTF." I appreciate that kind of honesty; but I find it

disgusting that that would be one of the intents of this bill. That is

the best reading that can be placed on it. The worst is to make sure

there is no future for the young of this province.

So, Mr. Speaker, we say, very simply: hoist Bill 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North. Before we proceed,

the Chair would like to know if you have been designated.

MR. JONES : Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : If Hansard would make a note that we have a designated speaker . . . . Please continue.

MR. JONES :

It's a pleasure for me to rise and take my place in the debate to

consider postponing consideration of debate on this legislation for six

months. It's a pleasure for me to follow the Leader of the Opposition

and my other colleagues on this side, who I think have presented in an

eloquent and articulate form very good reasons for delaying

consideration of this legislation. The arguments have been thoughtful,

cogent and compelling, and delivered in many cases with courage. A

number of members on this side have been suffering from colds and flu,

and I am beginning to join them right now.

[ Page 900 ]

It's

also a pleasure to follow the Minister of Education, who spoke this

morning, Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister of Education is a very

thoughtful minister, and he spoke with great enthusiasm this morning.

However, I found his remarks lacking in substance. He quoted an

article

that supported his vision for the future of the teachers' organization

and did not give the source of that article, so I could not check it.

He gave some figures on teachers' salaries, which certainly have

nothing to do with this bill. Maybe it's an attack on fat-cat teachers;

I don't know what the intent was there. It seemed to me the basic

message of the minister this morning was that we have to push this

legislation through because the teachers want it so badly.

[3:45]

It seems sad to me that this attempt to ram through legislation is

occurring in the province at this time. To me it's a sign of an

arrogant government. I'm afraid that when any government is in power

for too long, that kind of thing happens: they spend all their time

talking to each other, their focus becomes more and more narrowed, they

become less tolerant of other views in society, they become more

arrogant, and their desire is to ram through legislation that does not

benefit all the people of the province but serves their particular

political ideology.

The minister did not really speak to

the hoist motion this morning. I recall reading an item in a newspaper

approximately a week ago — that he was concerned about this kind of

thing. He said something to the effect that if this legislation wasn't

approved at this time and was taken out of the Legislature, it wouldn't

get back. Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the government has the

right to govern, that they have a majority in this House, that they can

take legislation out, bring it back, and approve it or not approve it

as they wish. It seemed to me what the minister was saying was that he

was afraid to have this legislation exposed to public scrutiny, viewed

and judged by the public. Perhaps all the rush on this bill is that the

government has some polls that see public opinion shifting in this

regard and not supporting the government.

I follow too, Mr.

Speaker, the speeches of the members on the other side. I've spent the

last couple of days reading the speeches of all members in this House,

and I must confess that I'm a little blue in the face from reading the

Blues. The sad thing I see is that, on the other side in this debate,

the kind of commitment that we talked about in the early part of this

session, a commitment to listening, cooperation and working together in

this Legislature, is not happening in this bill. I think it happened to

some degree under Bill 19: there was some listening to the opposition.

I understand that there are amendments to Bill 19 coming down, and I've

been told that some of those amendments are as a result of the debate.

That's what should happen in this House.

However, what I've

seen in the opposition arguments on the hoist motion is a tremendous

amount of intolerance, of not listening and of denying any of the

things that this side of the House is saying. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it's

symbolic of this session that there is a good deal of intolerance, and

we've seen a number of signs of that. We've seen intolerance of people

who are exercising their democratic right to protest on the lawns;

we've seen intolerance in this House of religious views; and in this

legislation we see intolerance of teachers and in fact even of a

segment of teachers whose political views are not supported by the

government. I think that's what this legislation is all about, and it's

a good reason to consider delaying when the motive is so negative and

so narrow.

One of the reasons I think we should consider

delaying this legislation is that it is a complex bill. There are

radical changes being proposed in the legislation that will alter, I

think in a significant way, the fragile and delicate relationships that

exist within our school system.

I think even members

opposite have agreed that the legislation is not well understood in the

public. I wonder how many members here today have read all 27 pages

carefully and have appreciated all the implications that this

legislation holds. I did see some members raise their hands indicating

that they had thoroughly read the legislation, but nobody raised their

hand indicating that they appreciate all of the serious implications

that this legislation holds for the province of British Columbia.

Certainly I join the members, because I don't think anybody here

appreciates all the implications of this legislation.

Perhaps,

Mr. Speaker, what we should do is have a little quiz. We could have 20

questions, and we could even make it an open book quiz. You could bring

forward your legislation and we could ask some questions and just judge

how well this legislation is understood. I know the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) will suggest I'm out of order if I pick

specific sections of the legislation, but I'm doing this in order to

pick some highlights of the legislation that I think are not well

understood, and I think it is a compelling argument for hoisting this

legislation.

Let's try a few questions. For example, which

of the following will be members of the college when this legislation

is implemented: the Minister of Education; a significant number of

teachers in the private school system; retired teachers; and teachers

who are residing outside the province of British Columbia and even

outside the country of Canada? The answer is all of the above. All of

the above will be members of the college when this legislation is

implemented.

MR. LOENEN : What's wrong with that?

MR. JONES :

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it; what I'm suggesting and

what I'm arguing at this point is that this legislation isn't well

understood. When I mentioned this to the government House Leader, he

seemed quite shocked. I am sure the government House Leader has read

this legislation, and he was shocked that all these people would be

members of the college.

Let's try question number two. What

will it cost the average teacher in British Columbia in terms of

belonging to the kinds of organizations that they belong to now and

belonging to the college? Well, I would suggest the answer to that one

is something like two to three times what they're paying now.

Some

of you had an evening with the College of Dental Surgeons the other

evening and I'm sure perhaps you would inquire of the dentists of this

province what their fees are. Their fees are something like $1,200 per

month, and the vast majority of work done by that college is done by

volunteers.

What we're going to see under the college is a

tremendous bureaucracy created. There are probably going to be

something like 50,000 or 60,000 teachers eligible, that have

certificates. These people are going to be located all over the map.

They are going to have to be tracked down and asked whether they want

to be members of the college and pay fees.

[ Page 901 ]

are going to have to have registrars and assistant registrars, and

we're going to have records and paperwork and computer files until

they're coming out the college's ears. So I think the implications of

the bureaucracy are not understood.

An easy question, question number three: will there be laypersons in this college

of teachers? The answer: there will, and I think that was the intention of

the minister, and I don't think anybody is opposed to that. But I don't

think it's well understood.

Question

number four, another easy one: how many provinces in Canada have a

college of teachers like the one being proposed in British Columbia?

Zip. Absolutely zero. No other province has the kind of college being

proposed here.

Question number five — who wants to take

this one? How many school boards in this province support the hoist

motion? Between zero and 10, between 10 and 20, or between 20 and 30?

The answer is the third choice — between 20 and 30 boards in this

province, boards that are elected democratically like everyone in this

House, people who come from areas like every other member in this

House, who don't view this legislation in the same black and white

political terms as the Legislature of this province and who can see it

for what it is. They think there should be a delay of this legislation.

Well,

let's try one for the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms.

Campbell). As a principal in a school. . . . As soon as possible after

this legislation is approved in this House, principals will be asked to

elect whether or not they wish to become administrative officers under

this act. How would you elect, Madam Member? I think you would have a

very difficult decision to make, because it would require a tremendous

amount of faith on your part to know what kind of contract your school

board was going to offer you, because before you make that decision

you'll have no idea what sort of contract your board is going to offer

you. It's going to be very difficult for you to make that decision.

I'm

pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of problem areas in

this bill that I think support the recommendation to delay

consideration of the bill for six months.

Let's try a few

more questions. How small will the smallest bargaining unit be in this

province after the legislation is implemented? It can be as small as

the smallest school in this province. I think there's an assumption

that it will be the same size as local associations now. That's not

what the legislation says, Mr. Speaker.

Question number

eight. Who will be designated as essential when this legislation

package is approved? Will it be teachers of special needs students?

Will it be teachers who teach in residential schools? Will it be

principals and vice-principals? Will it be grade 12 teachers in June?

Or will it be all teachers in this province? I don't think we know the

answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, and it's very difficult to

consider approval in principle of this bill until those kinds of

questions are answered.

Question number nine. In how many

of the four B.C. School Trustees' Association annual general meetings

between 1982 and 1985 were motions to separate principals and

vice-principals from the teaching force either defeated or referred?

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is four of four of those annual general

meetings during that period, and those were the periods in which that

question was considered.

For the lawyers in the House, Mr.

Speaker, what does the power and capacity of a natural person of full

capacity mean? All previous education legislation spelled out that

unless something was specifically stated in the legislation it was

assumed to be prohibited. Now under the power and capacity of a natural

person in full capacity, unless an item in the legislation is

specifically prohibited, then it's considered to be permissible. That's

quite a change in the legislation, Mr. Speaker. It means that the

legislation is wide open and the college is wide open to do the kinds

of things that they see fit, and perhaps at the expense . . . . I think

it is a broad suggestion for the college, and it is the kind of thing

that should have time to be considered by the members of the teaching

profession, the school trustees and the entire education community, as

well as the general public.

Question number 11. How many

amendments has the minister already prepared to this legislation?

Perhaps all these questions that we're raising at this point are

already amendments. Why not delay consideration of this legislation at

least until the amendments are prepared so we can decide whether we can

support this bill in principle or not. Until we can see the amendments,

it makes it difficult to debate the legislation. It seems like the

government likes to shoot first and ask questions later.

Question

number 12. What sort of concerns do school trustees in this province

have regarding this legislation? Surprisingly, one of the main concerns

is the due process for their employees. They're concerned that this

legislation tilts the balance of due process in favour of the employee

— too much so — and they're concerned about it. They particularly want

the principals and vice-principals in this province to have due process

and not be at the whim of their member boards.

[4:00]

Question number 13 is on methodology. The minister and I had a

little discussion on this, and I think the minister makes a good point

that this type of item should not be negotiated. But it seems to me,

Mr. Speaker, that even though it's precluded from negotiations, it's

not precluded from the government. The government still has the kind of

authority that can rob professional autonomy from teachers. In the Vancouver Sun

on Wednesday, January 28, the Premier said: "My views will have an

influence, no question about it. I think people elect others to

represent them basically on what they stand for, which includes,

certainly, their moral values or the way they approach things." That

says to me that the kinds of values that a person has in this province

when he probably holds the highest office in the province can influence

the kinds of things that go on in schools to the point where they can

encroach on the professional autonomy of teachers to determine the kind

of techniques and methods they employ in the classroom.

Question

14 of 20 questions: what role will principals play in collective

bargaining after this legislation is implemented? Will they play a

neutral role? Will they be busy bargaining for themselves? No. Under

this legislation principals and vice-principals will be given the

responsibility to assist boards in all disputes between the board and

the teachers, and also in collective bargaining. What kind of climate

is that going to set up between principal teachers and their teacher

colleagues, when they are on separate sides of the bargaining table?

Question 15: how do boards bargain with their administrators? We don't

know, Mr. Speaker. This has not been defined in the legislation.

[ Page 902 ]

Question

16, regarding the minister's first appointment of 15 members to the

council, where it suggests that he will consult with the BCTF. Perhaps

the question would be: what kind of consultation will that be? Is it

the kind of consultation where a brief is accepted and basically

ignored, as we've seen in the past many, many times? And if the

minister appoints those first 15 members to the council and we have

subsequent elections, has it escaped the members here that incumbents

in elections have an advantage? Certainly the government side of the

House must appreciate that.

Question 17, with regard to

eligible voters for the college: do the government members think that

the number of eligible voters in the west Kootenay and the north zones

compares favourably to those in, say, the Vancouver and Fraser Valley

zones? Well, the answer to that one is that there are three to four

times as many eligible voters in the Vancouver and Fraser Valley zones

as in the other two zones that I mentioned; something like 2,500 to

3,000 in Vancouver, to 800 in the west Kootenays. Again we see a kind

of gerrymandering that we've become familiar with in this province.

Three more questions to go. Question 18: when will those elections be held?

We don't know. We know they will take place in 1988.

Question 19: how many elections in the next 11 years will be held on weekends?

Well, I believe it's two, and we don't know the form in which those

elections will take place. Certainly if they're on weekdays it's going

to be quite different than if they're on weekends.

Question

20, regarding an appeal of a decision of the discipline committee: on

what grounds will an appeal be granted on a decision of the discipline

committee of the council of the College of Teachers? The answer is:

only on very limited grounds. Only on legal technicalities, on

procedure, can there be any appeal of those decisions; certainly not on

the professional judgment of the members of that college. I think

that's a shame and is a denial of due process for teachers when that

happens.

My point of the quiz, I don't know how members present did. . . .

Interjection.

MR. JONES : You flunked?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : If you'd read the bill you wouldn't have had to ask the questions.

MR. JONES :

Obviously the minister did well on the quiz. I would expect the

minister to do well on the quiz, and I think the minister does have a

good understanding of the bill. However, the people who are going to be

influenced most by this bill are not the Minister of Education. It's

going to be the members of the education community and the students and

public in this province, and they need more time to get to the kind of

understanding that the minister already has. They need the six months

that's being suggested in this hoist motion.

As I

mentioned, I have had some occasion in the last few days to review the

comments of various members of the government side. I'd like to pick

out one — actually it was on a previous debate — that I consider the

most audacious statement of this session; I think it has to be. It's

from a friend of mine, my colleague from Burnaby–Edmonds (Mr. Mercier),

who I used to play basketball against and who on a personal level I

have respect for. However, I think the comment that he made a couple of

weeks ago regarding teachers certainly has to go on record as the most

audacious statement made in this House in this session. He said: "I

would like to take a few minutes to talk about the teachers, because I

have" — and I believe the member is a chartered accountant — "some . .

. ideas for them. It's time they used their imagination . . . . I think

I could accept that statement if he suggested something like: "It's

time they used their imagination more." What he's saying is that

teachers are not imaginative, and he's also saying they are not

creative.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

He goes on

to say: "They have never had a greater chance to be innovative. On the

positive side, teachers will have the freedom to be the masters of

their own destiny." And here's the part that I think has to go down in

this session as being a real travesty toward a group of people who

should be held in high esteem by our society. The member for

Burnaby–Edmonds says: "There is a great opportunity for the 90 percent

of the teachers who are dedicated and effective to deal with the other

10 percent who drag down their overall performance." I guess that at

the time the member made that statement he had a good understanding of

the motivation of this bill and he saw one in ten teachers of this

province — 10 percent of the teachers — as being incompetent. I wonder

if the teachers in this province who would have heard that statement

would be looking around and trying to find the one in ten amongst their

colleagues who should not be there. I think this is an outrageous

statement, Madam Speaker, but it also is very revealing as to the

government agenda as far as this legislation goes.

Madam

Speaker, I wanted at this point also to reflect on some comments that

you made, and I don't know quite how to address you: as the first

member for Langley or as the Speaker. However, I will . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Don't attack the Chair.

MR. JONES : I would never attack the Chair.

The

first member for Langley is a member who I think has the respect of

both sides of this House and who is a very capable and compassionate

member of the Legislature, and

whereas the member for Burnaby–Edmonds

had the most audacious statement of this session, the first member for

Langley, Madam Speaker, probably had the most honest statement when she

said: "The reason for debating this bill is to get a few people in the

BCTF."

MR. S.D. SMITH : Did she really say that?

MR. JONES :

Well, I could look it up right now, but it's very close to that.

Certainly the

section on the reason for. . . . She said that the reason

for debating the bill had to do with a few people in the BCTF. In other

words, Madam Speaker, in order to deal with a few people in the BCTF

whom she wants to deal with, we're going to get at 30,000 and disrupt

our school system in the process.

So I think the member for

Burnaby–Edmonds and the first member for Langley reveal the true

intentions behind this legislation. They are petty and they are

vindictive, and it's not worthy of this Legislature to put forward

legislation like that — and that's a good reason to hoist this

legislation.

[ Page 903 ]

I mentioned,

Madam Speaker, that the first member for Langley is held in high esteem

by both sides, but that member went down in my estimation during this

debate when she did the following: she drew out six-year-old minutes

and quoted from those minutes and spent a considerable amount of time

doing so, and suggested that these minutes were from a committee of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation. The minutes from which she quoted undeniably

had no formal connection with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and were

not representative in any way of that body. I know the member did not

intentionally mislead the House in doing so, but I think it was a gross

error in judgment on that member's part to construe that those remarks

in any way reflected the interests of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It

was a serious error in judgment.

The second member for

Langley (Mr. Peterson) mentioned how great the school board in Langley

was, and he's probably right. Does that member know that the school

board in Langley supports this hoist motion, as do a number of other

boards in this province? He also mentioned, as I referred to a minute

ago, that there is appeal to the courts. Yes, but there's no appeal on

the merits of the case, only on legal technicalities and process.

The

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) had a lot of interesting statements,

as he should as a former Minister of Education — a minister for whom I

had considerable respect when he was Minister of Education. He

mentioned the tour he went on. I followed him a little bit on that

tour, and I was quite impressed with his pace and the hard effort he

made. In fact, I made a presentation to him at that time, and followed

him to his next session. He had no time for dinner in between those two

sessions. I think his dinner consisted of a bag of peanuts. However, as

is often the case with education in this province, that review process

resulted in nothing. I've never seen the results of my presentation and

other presentations. Unfortunately, we lost that minister, and we've

had a series of ministers since.

I noticed that in his

remarks that minister didn't mention the current president of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation, perhaps because he knows that person. I believe

they're from the same constituency, and I'm sure he holds the current

president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation in high esteem. He mentioned

some from a few years back whom he held in less esteem, and whom

perhaps he knew in his role as minister.

He mentioned the

"Let's Talk About Schools" report in his comments on the hoist motion.

It's interesting to quote from that report.

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

No, the former minister, now the Attorney-General. In his remarks he

mentioned the "Let's Talk About Schools" report. But he didn't mention

the

section which suggested that 80 percent of the professionals and a

majority of the public preferred that principals belong to the same

employee bargaining unit as the teachers. The Attorney-General also

suggested that there was "not one objection on that side of the House"

— referring to this side of the House — "that I can explain to anyone

in the real world." Now what does that mean — "the real world"? Well, I

guess that means that those people involved in education see the world

through one set of eyes, and the Attorney-General and his friends see

the world through a different set of eyes; and perhaps that's

reasonable.

[4:15]

I recall

that not that long ago a member of this Legislature was accused of not

having a real job because he was a teacher. I woke up one morning to a

radio announcer who said that there had been some kefuffle in the

Legislature, and the comment was: "Well, I don't know the pugilistic

abilities of Mr. Reid, but I do know that Mr. MacWilliam has a black

belt in karate." It seemed to me that those kinds of comments,

suggesting that teaching is not a real job or that teachers aren't part

of the real world, are really the kinds of comments we don't need to

hear in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER : Did Mr. MacWilliam perhaps take the comment out of context?

MR. JONES : I wasn't here at the time. Perhaps. . . .

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, could I just remind you that we don't address members of the House by their names.

MR. JONES : Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I hope Hansard

will correct me. It will be the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale

or the Minister of Tourism rather than Mr. Reid. I'm sure that Mr.

MacWilliam's name can be used, as Mr. MacWilliam is no longer a member

of the Legislature.

Let me suggest to the Attorney-General

one kind of argument that he can perhaps understand. Let's just take

the current situation in which the teaching profession has a difficult

job of both defending its members and disciplining them. But so does

the legal profession, because the legal profession both prosecutes

people and provides legal aid for them at the same time. There seems to

be a contradiction there, but I'm sure the Attorney-General has no

problem with that, although I believe he has cut back the funds in that

regard.

The Attorney-General also said, in challenging the

teachers on the college: "Why don't they run with this legislation and

have the best college in Canada?" In fact, they won't really have the

best or the worst; they'll virtually have the only college of this kind

in Canada. He also commented on the work stoppage and implied

considerable mistrust of the BCTF and its processes in terms of voting

and that king of thing. Were the Attorney-General here today, I would

like to ask him for his evidence, as a lawyer, for that kind of

mistrust. The evidence in terms of the number of people who voted in

those votes is probably best reflected in the number of people who

attended the session at the Memorial Arena the other day. There were

over 2,000 members in evidence on that day, and certainly if they had

voted one way, they wouldn't have appeared at the Memorial Arena to

take a different position.

The Attorney-General also said

that the Sullivan commission can monitor this bill. Why not have the

Sullivan commission . . . ? Mr. Sullivan and the Attorney-General, I'm

sure, know each other well, and he could help Mr. Sullivan with this.

Instead of monitoring the bill, give him the task of determining public

opinion on this bill and suggesting ways to improve it, to make it the

kind of bill that would work in British Columbia instead of the kind of

bill that will bring division.

The Attorney-General and the member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber) also suggested that principals and

[ Page 904 ]

vice-principals

are in an invidious position during work stoppages. I would like to ask

those members whether they also consider it invidious to take away the

kind of job security that the members of the teaching profession have

enjoyed for many years.

The Attorney-General also suggested

that principals are very happy with this bill. Well, I would like to

quote a letter sent to me which was a copy of the text of a telegram

sent to the Education minister supporting the position of the Vancouver

School Board, the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association and

the Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association. It's from the Vancouver

School Administrators' Association. The Attorney-General is suggesting

that principals and vice-principals are very happy with this bill; I am

suggesting evidence to the contrary. It's from the president of that

organization, and it says:

"The Vancouver School Administrators' Association, which

is composed of elementary and secondary school administrators and school board

coordinators, expresses its agreement with the motion passed by the Vancouver

School Board, April 13, 1987, regarding a request to delay the passage of Bills

19 and 20 pending full discussion by all affected parties, and notice of this

agreement is forwarded to the Hon. A. J. Brummet, Minister of Education, immediately."

It hardly sounds to me like administrators are very happy with Bill 20.

The

member for South Peace River, in his remarks on the hoist motion, was

very helpful, because he defined for me the meaning of the word

"consultation." According to that member, who was describing the

consultation of the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) . . . . He

suggests that the Minister of Labour went around the province receiving

briefs and that he consulted with the Minister of Education; of course

the Minister of Education is a past teacher, a past principal and a

member of the teaching profession. I suppose, if you receive briefs and

you talk to one of your fellow ministers, then that's consultation.

That's very helpful, because I was wondering what members opposite were

thinking when they talked about consultation all this time.

That

same member talked about graduation activities being threatened in this

province. That one bothered me a little bit, because I consider that

kind of comment to be really fear-mongering. Graduation is a very

important activity that we all care about. I don't know whether

teachers have been asked whether they would make an exception in their

current campaign as far as graduation activities go, because the kind

of consultation that same minister describes . . . . I doubt that those

kinds of discussions took place.

It is my hope that the

consultations that the minister is promoting now and has engaged in

with the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the B.C. Teachers'

Federation are successful, so there will be no need for any of this

kind of action. That action is some months away, and hopefully the

current situation will be resolved and the climate will return to

normal in our schools. I think we all want that. So any comments about

graduation are premature, and they are preying on the fears of the

public.

Interjection.

MR. JONES : No, I

think the minister should do that. I'm sorry the second member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen) is not here. He described the removal of

principals and vice-principals from the bargaining unit as not unusual,

as common practice, and as built on historical precedent. I don't know

what school systems that member has been looking at, but certainly he

hasn't been looking at any in Canada other than Quebec.

That

member also says that other jurisdictions are going to look at this and

are going to emulate us. Well, Madam Speaker, other jurisdictions are

looking at this legislation, and I can guarantee you that they are not

going to emulate this system.

AN HON. MEMBER : How can you guarantee that?

MR. JONES : 1 will try and prove that point in a few minutes.

The

first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), unlike her school

board, which was in favour of delaying this legislation, makes a good

argument in favour of delay when she says that many members do not

understand this bill. I think she is right. That member is a good MLA,

and she has offered to go out to her constituents and explain the bill.

I think she has a good grasp of the bill herself. That member should do

that for the next six months, and then we will have good understanding

of this legislation, at least in that riding.

She makes an

analogy with the situation in the nursing profession. Certainly the

nurses did choose something that helped serve as a model for this

legislation, and that is the relationship between the Registered

Nurses' Association of British Columbia and the B.C. Nurses' Union. The

fundamental difference between that situation and the situation that we

are facing right now is that those nurses didn't get legislation rammed

down their throats. Those nurses chose that legislation, and if you

talk to any nurses in this province, you will find that there is

considerable friction between those two bodies.

The same

member suggests that Bill 20 will provide an opportunity for teachers

who care deeply about professional concerns to get active and give

their expertise and experience to the profession as a whole. I don't

see any

interpretation of that comment other than as an insult to the

teaching profession. To suggest the teachers don't care deeply about

professional concerns, that they are not active in giving their

expertise and experience to the profession as a whole, is an insult. It

is something that is tremendously misunderstood in this province. I

don't mean to stand here and be an apologist for the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, but when teachers and their organization are under such

attack, they need an advocate in this House. It is misunderstood, Madam

Speaker, that so much of the work of that organization is the kind of

work that we all would support, regardless of political persuasion, and

much of that work is exactly the kind of thing that the first member

for Vancouver–Point Grey is suggesting will happen under this bill.

is happening right now. It doesn't make the headlines. But we know the

real world isn't the headlines out there. The fact of the matter is

that the vast majority of the budget of the organization that is under

such attack is spent on exactly this kind of activity. I tried to

outline that in introducing the bill from this side of the House.

I liked

the honesty of the member in saying that the BCTF is having its ox

gored. I think that is exactly what is happening, and it is the kind of

honesty that the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) brought to this

debate.

[4:30]

[ Page 905 ]

I am

surprised at the next comment that that first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey made, because she suggested she has some

understanding of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. She suggested that

the Ontario Teachers' Federation has very little professional power.

She suggests that it's confined to the right to develop a code of

ethics. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, the Ontario Teachers'

Federation is established by a provincial statute, the Teaching

Profession Act, which includes the object of promoting and advancing

the interests of teachers, to secure conditions that will make possible

the best professional service. The Teaching Profession Act specifies

that every teacher is a member of the federation. The act also provides

that the board of governors of the Ontario Teachers' Federation may

make regulations, prescribing a code of ethics providing for the

suspension and expulsion of members from the federation, and other

disciplinary measures. That hardly sounds to me like limiting the

professional power of that organization. I don't know where the member

got her information, and I don't think she was deliberately misleading

the House, but she was certainly misinforming the House with that

statement.

The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) had

some interesting comments. He said: "There are some teachers, believe

it or not, who are for the children." Again, what we see in these

comments is the kind of attitude that is coming from the government's

side with regard to the teaching profession. I don't understand it.

Certainly teachers are no better or no worse than anybody else in this

province. The kind of statement that suggests that there are some who

are for the children implies there are many who are not for the

children and don't care about their jobs; that is a shocking insult to

teachers. It's the kind of thinking that went into this legislation.

goes on to say: "Some are short-sighted, looking primarily for their

own interests." Again, it's an attitude that I don't accept. And I

don't think you can believe this member's statements when he says

things like: "Manitoba is a communist state." It's unbelievable that a

member in this House would say that kind of thing. I'd be happy to

debate with that member the relative degrees of fascism in British

Columbia versus communism in Manitoba.

The point he was

trying to make with respect to Manitoba is that Manitoba teachers do

not have the right to strike. He's correct in that. However, I'm sure

that British Columbia teachers would look very favourably upon the

situation that Manitoba has. If the member is thinking that the

legislation offered here is better than in Manitoba, I'd suggest that

he talk to the minister and persuade the minister to offer Manitoba's

legislation.

Manitoba teachers bargain under sections of

the Public Schools Act, which provides a full scope of bargaining but

has a compulsory arbitration mechanism as their dispute resolution

mechanism. The Public Schools Act specifies that local societies of the

Manitoba Teachers' Society shall be the bargaining agents. The Manitoba

Teachers' Society is established by a provincial statute, the Teachers'

Society Act. The objects set out in the statute include advancement and

safeguarding of the interests of the teaching profession and of

teachers. The act specifies that every person having a certificate of

qualification, and employed to teach in a public school in the

province, is a member of the society. The Teachers' Society Act further

provides that the provincial executive may investigate complaints

regarding the professional conduct of any member, and subsequent to an

investigation may make such recommendations as it may see fit to the

Minister of Education. That would have been a good model for the kind

of legislation that this government wanted to foist on teachers in this

province. I think they would have bought that.

The member

also described a situation where he went to the annual general meeting

of his local teachers' association, and there were representatives of

other political parties there, and he was the only one that received an

ovation at that meeting. Well, I happened to phone a friend of mine

from that district who was at the same meeting, and his version of the

story was quite different, so I can only see that the member who talks

about a communist state in Manitoba and the right to strike not being

in Manitoba, but misses all the rest of the valuable legislation that

those teachers operate under, would say a thing like that and show that

kind of selective perception.

That same member also implies

a lower mainland bias to the current structure of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, certainly playing on a prejudice that exists in this House

about anti lower mainland thinking. However, that member should know

that only one of the last ten presidents of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation has been from the lower mainland, and that the makeup of the

current executive of that organization accurately reflects the

population of this province.

The first member for Okanagan

South (Mr. Serwa), who is a regular attender of this House and, I

think, a very reasonable person, made some comments on the hoist motion

that . . . . I question how reasonable he really is. He quotes from a

letter that speaks of compulsion, and I assume from that that he means

there was compulsion in the vote that teachers took to have their

protest action, there was compulsion in their one-day protest action,

work stoppage, strike or study session — whatever that side of the

House chooses to call it — and there's compulsion to have teachers take

actions that they don't really believe in and don't really wish to

pursue.

What that tells me is that that member thinks the

teachers of this province — or the majority of them, anyway — are

spineless, and they're a bunch of sheep, and they don't do what they

believe in, and they're easily coerced. I don't believe that's the

case, and I don't think there's any evidence that that's the case. I

think the greatest example of peer pressure that I've seen lately is

the virtual unanimity of the members opposite in jumping into line in

support of this legislation — which I'm sure the Premier appreciates,

but I'm amazed that it's so unanimously supported by the members

opposite.

That same member, whom I believe is a reasonable

person, also made the statement, in regard to the legislation and the

submissions that the B.C. Teachers' Federation made . . . . He suggests

that every aspect requested by the teachers was attended to, and in a

manner that they requested. I don't think anybody requested a

separation of principals and vice-principals. I don't think anybody

requested a college. I don't think anybody requested an end to the

Labour Code or an end to the Essential Service Disputes Act. None of

those things was requested, and certainly the manner and form in which

this legislation has ended up was not requested.

That same

first member for Okanagan South also took exception to Elsie McMurphy's

suggestion that the Socred government was "Mickey Mouse."

[ Page 906 ]

AN HON. MEMBER : Is that how you kill two hours — take one quote out of each member's speech and talk about it for a while?

MR. JONES :

I think the attitude of this government reflected in these comments by

members is worth noting, and it should be on the record that these

comments by the members are highlighted.

As I was

suggesting, the first member for Okanagan South took objection to the

president of the BCTF suggesting that the Socred government was "Mickey

Mouse." I can understand the members' feelings in that. However, I

think the government has to be above . . . . Certainly the government,

with its power, has to be above the pettiness and vindictiveness that

would take that kind of comment to heart and be offended by it.

Certainly as politicians we have to be able to take a little bit of

heat, and as a government you have to be able to take a lot of heat. I

consider this to be a very minor thing, and to make it part of your

speech in the Legislature of British Columbia blows it way out of

proportion. I can understand your not appreciating it, but you're a

member, you're a politician. You can handle it and your government can

handle it. You don't have to come down with the hammer of Thor to get

even with groups that make those kinds of comments.

MR. WEISGERBER : Two hours of sharp, constructive criticism.

MR. JONES : I appreciate your listening and that you are appreciating that it is constructive and it is criticism.

The

member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) was here a minute ago. I'm

interested in some of his remarks too, because he had a concern

regarding the costs of this sitting during the hoist motion. I can

understand that member's concern and that argument. However, I'm sure

that member supports the fact that this House is governed by rules and

that those rules are developed in the best interests of all British

Columbians. It is providing an opportunity for us to behave in a

democracy, to expose to the light of day the concerns of both sides of

this House.

I am sure there are things that I don't like. I

don't like existing under the shortest question period in Canada, but

those are the rules, and I accept them, even when the member for

Kamloops has loaded questions for the Minister of Education. I accept

that. I also accept the fact that many government members eat the clock

during question period. I accept those rules. The members opposite

don't like a hoist motion, but certainly it's a part of this

Legislature's operating rules, and it's there in the best interests of

good government. So I don't think all the whining and complaining about

the hoist motion is very constructive at all.

That member

also suggested that this was not a very constructive debate because the

media weren't present. Well, I don't think we're here to debate for the

media's sake. I think our concern here in this hoist motion is to try

to persuade you that this is bad legislation and needs a thorough

review; it needs a six-month delay.

AN HON. MEMBER : Well, it is a thermometer of the value or quality of debate.

MR. JONES :

Well, I think that if we measured the quality of debate in this House

by the number of members of the press who are present, none of us would

show up.

The first member for Okanagan South suggested that

the BCTF h