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)

MONDAY, MAY 4, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

933 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Constitutional conference. Mr. Harcourt –– 933

Municipal election procedures. Mr. Blencoe –– 934

Section 88 credits under Forest Act. Mr. Kempf 934

Softwood surtax and stumpage. Mr. Kempf –– 934

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Clark –– 935

Mr. R. Fraser –– 937

Mr. Miller –– 940

Mrs. Gran –– 944

Mr. Cashore –– 945

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 948

Mrs. Boone –– 949

Mr. Long –– 952

Ms. A. Hagen –– 953

Mr. Ree –– 956

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Young Socreds had their convention

here in Victoria, and it was a great success. I'm sure it was enjoyed

by all 200-plus who attended. Today we have the pleasure of seeing in

the Legislature a number of those members, and I would like to read out

their names and have the House recognize them: Dave Janis, the newly

elected president for the B.C. Young Socreds; Michael Riddell, David

Mutka, John Linde, Tina Moseley, Holly Thompson, Julie Pickard, Kelly

Reichert, Trisha Stammer, Jennifer Jones, Dawn Hanson, Penny Wilkes,

Ben Levi, Erren Anderson, Darlene Stewart and Donna Bohle. I would ask

the House to welcome these Young Socreds to the Legislature today.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are four fine young people from the

Central Fraser Valley, and they're also here for the Socred convention.

We have David Van Daventer; Alderman Ross Siemens, director; Janice

White, treasurer; Howard Huizing, director. Would the House please make

them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER : We have some visitors

from Kitimat who'll be visiting the House a little later. The Rev. L.

Sather of Kitimat Christian School is in the precincts today with ten

of his students, ranging from grade 4 to grade 10, and several

chaperons. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier about the Meech Lake accord.

As we know, it raises some very complicated constitutional issues. I'd

like to know if you would agree to refer the accord to an all-party

committee to develop the guidelines as to how the province should deal

with such matters as opting out of social programs, Senate reform and

judicial appointments.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That is one of future policy, although I perhaps don't mind making some commitment in this respect.

But before that, based upon the question given me, I should possibly provide,

by way of letter to the Leader of the Opposition and all others, an explanation

of the accord. Because there's no opportunity in the accord, for example,

to allow a province to opt out of a program and then have the compensation for

the cost of that particular program instead. This would apply only to new programs.

So it's only if there's a new program — and a province can provide a

program which accomplishes much the same thing provincially — that the money

can be granted in lieu of. There's no opting out. I want to emphasize that,

because I believe some fear that there might be a way for a province to opt

out of a health care or social program, and that's not the case.

Secondly,

with respect to Senate reform, this will be a matter of discussion for

future meetings. There's no particular agreement except to say that it

will be addressed in as many meetings as may be required to resolve the

problem of how people throughout Canada view the Senate and its role.

So that will be one for future meetings, the first meeting to be held

within a year. There will be as many meetings as may be required, not

less than one each year, to deal with that question.

The

third thing, with respect to the matter of appointing judges to the

Supreme Court, is still a matter for the Prime Minister and the federal

government. Only the province, if there's a vacancy from a particular

province.... Of course, we're well aware that most of the appointments

are from eastern Canada; we have only one from British Columbia at

present representing the whole of western Canada. When that appointment

comes due, we can provide the Prime Minister with a list of people

qualified in the eyes of the province for that particular task, and the

list will be considered by the Prime Minister.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

Supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker. If I could put it in another way,

will the Legislature have an opportunity to peruse this or to express

its opinions on any of these matters before they are taken to these

particular conferences or discussions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the requirement before the constitution is changed to

accommodate that which was agreed to in principle at Meech Lake....

Before the constitution can be changed, we will need to have a

resolution from each of the Legislatures in Canada as well as from

Parliament. So there will be ample opportunity for debate in the

Legislature on the whole of the accord as we know it today and as it

may be once it's written up by the people who are presently involved in

drafting the appropriate wording. But I agree that, perhaps prior to

that, we should involve members of both sides of the House in looking

in detail at the accord and at how it is we can all contribute to it.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the matter of the accord making the

entrenchment of meaningful aboriginal rights quite unlikely or remote.

Given the disappointment of the aboriginal people over this, has the

Premier decided to recommend that there be ongoing attention at first

ministers' conferences to the question of aboriginal rights that is

hopefully equal to that given to economic matters?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I can say that there was some discussion on that particular point at

Meech Lake. I think there was an expression of general disappointment

about the fact that so little progress was made on the whole question

of aboriginal rights, but it was also agreed that perhaps the parties

involved then weren't as well prepared as they might have been.

Certainly we as a province can take a lesson from that and hopefully

begin preparing some alternatives that we see to be part of the

solution. It is up to the Prime Minister to call another meeting. It's

within his jurisdiction, and he has the authority to call a meeting

whenever he thinks the parties are sufficiently prepared to discuss it

again. So it will be at the call of the Prime Minister, and he has

indicated that this in fact could happen, but no particulars in that

regard.

[ Page 934 ]

MUNICIPAL ELECTION PROCEDURES

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Late last week cabinet passed an order-in-council changing the election

or voting procedures for municipal government at the last minute, and

we were in the middle of by-elections in this province. As a result, in

Delta there was total confusion about the election procedures. My

question to the minister is: can the minister explain whether this

latest mistake is just another carrying on of government incompetence,

or did the government intend to change the rules in midstream?

MR. SPEAKER : The first part of the question is out of order, but the minister can answer the second part.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one of the statements. There was

no massive confusion in the Delta election. The successful candidate

won by in excess of 1,300 votes, so there was no problem. But I can

assure the member that members of my staff were in touch promptly with

the administration at the district of Delta to ensure that there would

be no confusion, and everything went very well.

MR. BLENCOE :

Supplementary for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, it appears that there are a

number of members of this government asleep at the switch, and there

are a number of switches with no minister at them at all. This latest

regulatory boo-boo and the continuing mistakes by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. L.

Hanson) about bills.... They don't know what's in the legislation, and

they've stated that quite clearly.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Could the member get to his question?

MR. BLENCOE :

The question to the Premier is: given that there is a growing concern

about the confidence and the competency of his government, what action

has the Premier taken to tighten up controls on cabinet decisions, as

well as on the drafting of regulations and legislation, so that people

can feel that this government is in control of the affairs of the

people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of traveling to the beautiful

Okanagan over the weekend, and I met with a number of people there, and

I think perhaps the member for Victoria is a little confused in that

what he is seeing is good, open government in British Columbia, where

we are prepared to review things as people provide us with the

necessary input as we would expect it.

The people

everywhere, regardless of whether it's Penticton where I visited over

the weekend, are not only enthused about the direction of government,

but that's exactly what they want — good, open government. What he

sees to be a matter of a minister reviewing legislation.... We're

saying that if there's a need to respond to the many petitions that

arrive from time to time and to the discussion that takes place

democratically in the House, we as an open government are prepared to

do so. That's what we're proud of, and that's what we intend to carry

on with.

MR. BLENCOE : A supplementary for the

Premier. The boosterism, the no substance to the fine language, won't

convince the people of British Columbia. You are making mistakes, Mr.

Premier.

I ask my question again: what steps are you taking

to rebuild the confidence of the people of British Columbia that your

government is competent and is not asleep at the switch in terms of

dealing with the people's issues? These are mistakes that have to be

cleared up, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, again I want to point out to the member for Victoria that he

should really view things fairly and consider the fact that his

candidate in Delta got whomped by a free-enterpriser. That's not a

mistake on the part of the minister; that's a sign that the people in

Delta were so happy with the type of government they're getting that

they elected a member and gave him a 50 percent majority over the

socialists.

The fact that a minister is prepared to

consider a change to the bill is not, as the member would suggest, a

matter of mistakes being made; it's a matter of our government being

responsive to input from people and also to input that could and will,

hopefully, come from the opposition.

SECTION 88 CREDITS UNDER FOREST ACT

MR. KEMPF :

A question to the Minister of Forests and Lands. Last week, when

questioned in this House about

section 88 of the Forest Act, the

minister said that "the licensee sees no interest on the capital he has

laid out on behalf of the people of British Columbia." There are

$105.73 million earmarked in this fiscal year alone for

section 88

credits, and the minister suggests they should get interest on top of

that. Has the minister decided, in view of his admitting that there are

abuses of

section 88, to do away with

section 88 of the Forest Act in

order that the multinational forest companies not only pay their own

way in British Columbia, but perhaps even put a little money in

provincial coffers, so that the Minister of Finance might balance his

budget?

HON. MR. PARKER : It's tough to sort out the questions —

if there's one there. Somewhere in the statement was an allusion to

section 88 and whether it was a giveaway to multinationals, I believe.

Section 88 is a portion of the Forest Act that provides for payment,

through credit notes, for capital improvements to the assets of British

Columbia that are approved by the B.C. Forest Service in due process.

SOFTWOOD SURTAX AND STUMPAGE

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, I'm quite aware of what

section 88 is.

new question to the same minister. Will the 15 percent tax on softwood

lumber now being collected by Ottawa on lumber sold from British

Columbia to the United States be considered a cost of production, and

that to be deducted from stumpage payable to the province, as is

possible under the present stumpage appraisal system?

HON. MR. PARKER : No.

[ Page 935 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Vancouver East adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER : Twenty-two minutes.

MR. CLARK :

I want to begin, as I left off, by really dealing with the purpose of

Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act. The purpose is really not to do

with the problems of education, or with education at all; it's really,

I think, a thinly disguised attack on the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I

will just quote again from three different members of the government to

confirm that. The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) said that the

reason we are here today is because of a few members of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation; that it's got nothing to do with education. Then

the member for Yale Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) said on Friday — and

this was very clear — that this government is not a government of

consensus. We know that now, very clearly.

MR. RABBITT : Half-truth.

MR. CLARK : That's what you said, Mr. Member; you know that. You can't erase it when it goes in Hansard . This is not a government of consensus. It's very clear.

The

real agenda, I submit, was stated years ago by the former Minister of

Education, who now happens to be the Premier. He said: "I really don't

wish a fight with the teachers. I think the problem is with the B.C.

Teachers' Federation." The Premier's attitude towards the BCTF is

crystal clear: that this bill has nothing to do with improving the

quality of education in the province; it has everything to do with

destroying the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It has been an irritant to

the government, a thorn in the side of Social Credit governments

historically. Teachers and principals have spoken out consistently

against the mismanagement and systematic destruction of education in

this province. The quality has been going down. They have been speaking

out, and that's why the government brought in this bill.

submit that the Premier wants to do now what he wasn't able to do as

Minister of Education. That's the real agenda. What other explanation

is there? The BCTF didn't ask for a professional college separate and

distinct from a union. Nurses, lawyers and all other professional

groups worked with government on legislation that affected them. I

think many members have met recently, as we have on this side of the

House, with the dentists. The dental college has been working very

closely with the government over a number of years. I believe there's a

bill before the House — or there will be — amending the

dental surgeons act in this province, the college. They've been working

very closely with that professional group to make changes that that

group has asked for, not that are imposed by government. Very clearly,

that's the pattern in this province with all professional groups,

except for the teachers.

[2:30]

I don't think there's any other explanation for why this bill was brought

in, except a specific desire on the part of government to destroy the

B.C. Teachers' Federation and to impose some other kind of structure

that they think will make it desirable. The B.C. school trustees never

asked for this. They never asked for a professional college, separate

and distinct from the existing organization. No one asked for the

college. I suspect it came from the mind of the Premier, and it harks

back to the days when, as Minister of Education, he was frustrated by

the outspokenness of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I want

to talk a little bit about the removal of principals and

vice-principals from the organization that collectively represents

teachers in the province. The principals don't want what's in this act

either, and I'll get to that in a minute. I've already discussed that

in the House. You can't impose a factory or an industrial shop

mentality on the school system. It doesn't work that way in schools.

Schools work collegially and collectively. Effective schools are run on

a collegial model.

I want to read to the members from a newsletter called What's New in Education ,

published by the Ministry of Education. I apologize for the rather

lengthy quote. Under the heading "Ministry's New Network Shares

Teaching Tips," it says:

"Educators

throughout British Columbia are talking to one another more than ever

before, sharing their experiences and expertise so that the whole

province may benefit. One catalyst for all of this communication is the

Ministry of Education's program effectiveness branch. Assistant

director Rick Mark says the branch operates on the assumption that the

key site for change in education is in the school.

That's a line worth noting, I think.

"That's

why the branch has concentrated on building a school improvement

network of more than 1,200 educators throughout the province. They

share their own expertise and take advantage of other teachers'

successes. For example, says Mark, a teacher in Fort Nelson may have

tried a project that turned into an educational hit in that district.

When network teachers in Richmond hear about it through the branch

newsletter, they might invite that teacher to come to their district to

demonstrate.

"The branch also encourages

teachers to explore new methods by funding school improvement projects.

Most of the projects involve teachers in developing more effective

instructional practices. For example, teachers in an interior district

got together to focus on elementary science teaching. It was an ideal

vehicle to generate constructive suggestions."

Here's the

line, flowing from the previous dialogue: "Research shows that better

schools are the result when teachers and administrators work together

as a unit toward common goals."

Imagine that, in the

ministry's own newsletter! But what does this bill do? It doesn't

promote the working together of administrators and teachers. It does

the opposite: it tries to impose a factory or industrial shop setting

within each individual school.

see the member for Vancouver South is here. Today he gets to follow me,

rather than as on Friday — I followed him. I look forward to his

remarks, his scintillating debate.

Removing

principals from the bargaining unit is simply not conducive to the

school environment, and that's recognized by this ministry's

newsletter. Again, it's an ideological move on the part of government.

It really has nothing to do

[ Page 936 ]

with

education; again, it has to do with weakening the existing teachers'

organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Let's look at why

principals have been chosen in this province. They've been chosen

because they are effective, good teachers, with a deep commitment to

education. That's why they've been chosen as principal teachers, not as

something separate and distinct. In many cases, especially in northern

educational districts, principals work in the classroom. They teach 70,

80, 90 percent of the time. This legislation removes them, and it

attempts to impose a kind of managerial function on them.

I just want to quote — because I think it was stated very eloquently —

the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who discussed the nature

of work for principals; and I concur with this. She said:

"The

nature of their work is with teachers and with children. They are not

managers, in the sense of being paper-pushers. They are people who are

hands-on in dealing with the goals of the school; with how teachers

will collectively and collegially achieve educational goals; with how

to work with students, to evaluate those students, to ensure that

they're getting the very best education possible. There is no question

that the kinds of skills they bring to that involve cooperation,

goal-sharing, working with the community."

The principals

are in fact the representatives for the ministry with the public. They

work collectively with teachers, to enhance the school environment. As

the ministry's newsletter stated, they work together. That's where the

most effective schools are — not by working separately, not by

imposing a management or industrial relations or factory model on each

individual school within a system. It doesn't make sense, and I don't

think it's going to work, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Aside

from the problems of removing principals and administrators within each

school, and how that affects each school, I'd like to speak very

briefly on behalf of those principals themselves. This bill, as

currently amended . . . . There are some noises from the minister that

there may be some changes. But as it currently reads, it really leaves

the principals high and dry.

Section 120.1 of the act says that each

individual principal is hired on an individual contract. They don't

have any collective rights. They're individually hired by each school

board, and he or she can be "discharged by resolution of the board

passed by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members." Further,

"a board may reassign an administrative officer to a different position

or to a different school at any time by giving at least seven days'

notice in writing of the reassignment of the administrative

officer."

So the principal now works individually in each

school, has an individual contract with the school board. And even the

vice-principals work individually. They have no collective fights. This

act specifically says they can be discharged by a resolution of the

board. It specifically says that they have no right to appeal for

reinstatement. There is no adjudicative body within the act. It

specifically says that principals — not just principals, but vice-principals or directors of instruction —

can be moved with seven days' notice to any school anywhere. They have

no collective rights. Clearly the role of the principal as principal

teacher should still be covered by the same rights that teachers have

to organize collectively to protect themselves. But even in the event

that they're not given the same right as teachers are given, there are

other models which could be utilized. They could have an association of

principals and vice-principals affiliated with the BCTF yet separate

and distinct, with collective contracts so that they can negotiate

collectively to protect themselves from the board, and that they have a

collective appeal mechanism in place so that they can't be dismissed

without the right to appeal.

I don't want to belabour this,

but I'll just mention again that when I phoned the principals in

Vancouver East with regard to the survey as to whether or not there

were hungry children in the schools, they said to me repeatedly: "Don't

phone me if Bill 20 passes." Because quite clearly they would be in

jeopardy then. They're not free to speak out on controversial issues if

they're on individual contracts with the board.

Similarly,

with respect to AIDS and other controversial issues, where there is a

clear difference of opinion in the educational community with this

government — and there are many differences of opinion with

professionals involved in education, and with respect to this

government's position on education — the principals will

essentially be hamstrung from speaking out because of that tenuous

individual relationship with each school board. I think it makes a lot

of sense for these sections of the act to be amended to allow

principals to form an association with collective bargaining rights, or

at least a collective contract across the province, or to make them

again a part of this teachers' union or other organization that arises

as a result of Bill 20.

I want to commend the Minister of

Education. We haven't seen any evidence of it, but he's indicated that

section 121(d), which I think is one of the most offensive sections of

the act . . . . It says: "assist the board as required in formulating

proposals for collective bargaining and where required assist the board

in collective bargaining." That

section of the act, which really puts

the principal at odds, in a direct adversarial relationship, with the

teachers in that school, I gather is about to be amended or removed. I

think that's a good step.

But there are other sections of

the act that clearly still constitute that kind of direct division of

responsibilities, or adversarial division, within the school system

that I don't think is conducive to a good learning environment. In

fact, I've talked to a number of teachers since this act has been

brought in for second reading, and many of them suggested to me, time

and time again, where they've had principals that take their role not

as one of collegiality . . . . This is not common, but from time to

time principals have attempted to act not as equal with teachers, but

as a management situation, as an attempt to remove themselves from the

teachers, and what happened was that the morale of the school went

down. There was tremendous tension on the school system, within each

individual school there was friction, and that translates into a poor

educational experience. I think, as the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Harcourt) said, teachers' working conditions are children's

learning conditions. There's no question in my mind that that kind of

attitude or atmosphere within the school system is not conducive to a

good learning experience.

[2:45]

It's hard to overestimate the role that principals play in the

school system right now, especially in smaller schools, where we have

principals and vice-principals teaching a great

[ Page 937 ]

deal

of time and teaching and working with the other teachers. If you foist

that industrial model on them and they become management, then it's

going to have a tremendous impact on the tone of the school. I really

don't think that that's conducive to learning, and once again

reiterates the kind of thrust that is the real reason behind this act.

The real goal is to destroy the B.C. Teachers' Federation, to balkanize

their organization, to divide and conquer — as the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has said —

to remove principals from the union and to make that kind of

adversarial role within the system to disrupt it, rather than to deal

with the question of quality of education in the school system.

have a royal commission about to hold hearings. It makes all the sense

in the world to delay the implementation of this very disruptive bill

until the royal commission has heard evidence on the future of

education in this province. All of the things that we talk about that

are desired by the education community, by parents and by others within

the school system should become a part of the discussion that takes

place around the royal commission. To prejudge the results of the royal

commission, to bring in really dramatic changes to the way in which we

conduct business . . . . Clearly there's no consensus around the

changes, although the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) has

already said that that party is not a party of consensus. Assuming that

consensus is desirable, it makes sense to have that consensus arise out

of in-depth discussion by parents, teachers, educators and the public

around the royal commission. Clearly that's a role for the royal

commissioner. It doesn't make any sense at all, if you're looking at

quality of education as a goal in this province, to bring about changes

this dramatic before the royal commission holds hearings. It was ironic

that the first ad outlining the public hearing process for the royal

commission was placed in the newspapers the very day that this bill was

brought in for second reading.

Education clearly is

something that in other countries and other jurisdictions in Canada and

North America requires thorough discussion by all parties concerned. To

bring in this kind of legislation now really is counterproductive. When

you see polls about teachers and the role of teachers and those kinds

of things, it's amazing the influence the government has in terms of

moving public opinion on the role and perception of the public

education system in the various jurisdictions. If you look across

Canada, you see other jurisdictions that are constantly extolling the

virtues of their public education system, advertising for people around

the world to come to that province because of the quality of their

public education system — and you think of our neighbours to the south in California —

and have spent millions of dollars advertising; they're very proud of

their public education system in that province and that's how they

attract investment. You do polls in California and those other

jurisdictions in Canada, and you find that people say that they think

the public education system is a good one.

But in this

province, where we've got constant attacks by the government on

educators, constant attacks on the public education system, it has an

influence that goes beyond these walls here, infecting public opinion

with respect to the quality of our public education system. Our public

education system in this province stands up to anyone, in spite of the

cuts, and if we would say that more often, if we would say that we have

good-quality teachers in this province, then not only would morale

among teachers be better, but the quality itself would improve even

more. Instead we get a negative approach to educators, and this bill

really disrupts the system even more.

It's the kind of

thing that we shouldn't see in this province. We should have a constant

and significant attitude of government that promotes public education,

that doesn't rip it down, that doesn't divide and conquer, that doesn't

destroy and attack teachers — which I think is the real agenda of this legislation.

I'll

end with that note, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of the

first member for Vancouver South, who gets a chance to follow me, as I

got a chance to follow him on Friday.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, I get up and join all of you in this debate with great

enthusiasm, for I see this bill is a rather interesting combination of

opportunity: a little imperfection here and there, a little advertising

hype, hysteria....

For me, of course, having read the bill,

the key word here is "opportunity," a chance for the teachers to really

be in an organization that they control and have it totally

professional, as do the lawyers, engineers, doctors and others who have

been given the same opportunity years and years ago and who now would

be quite upset, if not totally hostile and angry, if we took away the

right of those groups to run their own self legislative acts. The

teachers will have the same opportunity.

We will talk a

little about the imperfections later, from my point of view, and it may

interest you to know that I think there are some changes that could be

made. However, instead of us making them here — because they're not all that significant —

I would like to think we'll throw the changes into the hands of the

college, who will then come back to the Legislative Assembly with

recommendations that we can adopt. So we will look for more input from

that point of view, and when we talk about . . . .

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : Sure, we'll have a royal commission; we'll add a lot of things.

One

of the things I really enjoy when you read things about what's

happening out there . . . . An

article by Trevor Lautens says: "A

teachers' strike, even for a day, would be a disaster in a province

already demoralized and disillusioned. The precious trust that exists

between teacher, child and parent would vanish in cynicism." Wow!

That's awful junk, Mr. Speaker. You and I both know that if doctors can

strike and everybody else in the world can strike, teachers should have

the capacity to do that if they want. That's what we're talking about:

giving teachers the right to organize into a collective bargaining unit

if they want.

Talk about hysteria! I think we have to give

the Oscar for hysteria to the head of the B.C. Teachers' Federation,

Elsie McMurphy, who almost single-handedly has changed Murphy's Law

into McMurphy's Law — incredible. The initials of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation Executive almost sound like they're going to be

transferred to "Better Cause Tremendous Fuss and Excitement," because

that's what she's done. But there's not much substance there. What they

could have done . . . . The classic example: an illegal strike to

protest legislation that will give the teachers the right to strike. If

that isn't unbelievable, I've never heard of it.

[ Page 938 ]

they had what they called a study session, but what did they do? They

didn't study. The BCTF went on and on; the executive went on and on. It

was unbelievable. They had a real chance to lead their members through

the legislation and to tell them how it was going to work, but they

didn't do it.

Now the conclusion you have to reach, Mr.

Speaker, is that if you had an opportunity to discuss anything with a

group as big as that, you would think you would take the chance to

actually read the legislation and discuss what was going to happen, but

I didn't see or hear any of that. All I heard was "rip it up," "hoist

it," "get rid of it," "it's all bad." It isn't all bad. It's 99 percent

good, according to me.

MR. CLARK : You weren't there.

MR. R. FRASER : If you're going to heckle, you've got to speak up.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : Oh, you've got to be there.

Finally

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt), Mr. Speaker: I always like

to read what he says and watch what he does, because he is a master of

coming on board later on. He's done it before; he'll do it again. And I

read his presentation on this legislation, which incidentally spoke of

nothing that was contained in the legislation. It was complaining about

this and that and whatever else the bill did not do, which the bill was

not intended to do in the first place. But I thought the real

obfuscation, the beauty of it all, was when he said: "We heard about

this royal commission. I heard it raised — the royal

commission —

the prosecutor . . . ." The opposition leader said: "You send out a

prosecutor to prosecute the education system." And then to make it even

more beautiful he added: "It's bad enough that it's a lawyer" —

well, what do you know! I have more faith in lawyers than he does, and

he is one —

"but to send a prosecutor is atrocious." Can you stand it? Talk about

going around the comer, talk about trying to hide the darn thing. He'll

be on side soon, Mr. Speaker. As soon as he finds out that the public

likes it and that the teachers like it, he'll be on side just like he

was with Expo, just like he was with rapid transit. It's just going to

be swell. I can't wait to see him come on side, because he will, and

when he does come on side it will be when the college comes to the

assembly and says: "We would like some changes." Then he's going to be

on side, and that will be great. I'll look forward to that, because . .

. .

MR. JONES : When is that going to happen?

MR. R. FRASER :

I look at his speech and I think: I know he's already on side. You

don't know it, but I know it. He's on side. That speech there says it

for sure.

There are a couple of things I think we should talk about in the legislation

itself, and I want to do that at some length — perhaps not long enough for all

of you over there to really understand. We're going to talk about some of

the sections, but not in too much detail here, because we'll go clause by

clause later on. On page 4 where it says that if you fail to elect a member

the board can appoint one, I don't really think we should do that. I think

the teachers should run and get elected and be there, and if there's no

member, hold another election. I don't understand the appointment of people

like that. And certainly when it comes to item 16 where it says that the council

shall elect their chairman, I really think that the chairman should run for

the job on a provincewide basis. But that's not all that important; you

can do that after the fact; certainly you can. And then it says the registrar

has to be a member of the college. Well, do you have to have a manager as a

member? Is that really important? I think that that can be discussed at length,

and we can do that. I think they should have a couple more vice-chairmen. Instead

of having one they should have two, because you never know — somebody might

get moved or want to move or whatever it is. So I think you should have more

elected control coming up from the ground — up from the membership in the teachers'

college — on its own, doing its own thing and doing it right, and I would certainly

propose that the council consider many of those things.

Now

we get into a couple of things here which I think I will go into in a

little bit more length, actually. I'll miss some of those. I'll let

that one go by. But one of the things I'm quite curious about is the

discipline committee and its actions and membership in that committee.

I speak with some authority on the subject, because I am a member of a

self-regulating body which has a discipline committee, or had a

discipline committee, and so I want to give you my thoughts on that for

your consideration. One of the things is that I don't think the

committee should be called the discipline committee at all. I think the

discipline committee should be changed and be called the investigations

committee, because we seem to do things according to title, and if it's

called the investigations committee and information is sent to the

investigations committee and then sent to the council for action, that

seems to me to make much more sense.

MR. JONES : The minister is not listening.

MR. R. FRASER : He can read. You have to listen.

think we should change it to the investigations committee, because then

it becomes more impartial. Most groups do that, and it's important....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : Well, it's important to get some of these little items up here, because I want you to know that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Secondly,

I don't think that any member of the council should sit on that

committee. I don't think that anybody here would like to believe that a

council member would be prejudiced in advance of a hearing, and so I

think that should be changed, and I would certainly recommend that. So

there are a few little things in there that I'm sure the college

members themselves will come up with, and I'm sure that they'll want to

do that.

But

the key thing again — as I say to my friends opposite who I know

will want to support me — they can't do it publicly. I understand

that —

you know, party lines and all those things. I am sure they will want to

leave any of these administrative changes and smaller changes in the

hands of the teachers themselves when the legislation is passed. Apart

from that, I think one of the key things we want to consider is that

the executive of the teachers' federation has done an

[ Page 939 ]

abysmally

poor job when it comes to looking after the interests of the children,

and there can be no doubt about that. There simply can be no doubt

about it.

[3:00]

MR. JONES : What does that mean?

MR. R. FRASER :

When there were teachers charged or some members charged with serious

offences, the BCTF did nothing to discover those or to turn up those

people, which they should have done. They had to know. I don't mind the

teachers' group having an insurance policy, if you want to talk about

defending, but there was almost nothing done, I think, when it came to

looking after the internal operation. I think having a teachers' group

doing it themselves in a completely professional circumstance will make

a great deal of difference. There will be no doubt about that.

MR. JONES : What's the employer's job? What's the school board supposed to do?

MR. R. FRASER :

The question from my friend opposite is: what is the school board

supposed to do? In my profession, and I would think in most other

professions, when you hear something that is untoward and you're not

sure whether it's right or wrong, it seems to me that without

prejudicing the event you could say to your investigations committee:

"Really, we should look at this. I've heard something. What is

happening out there?" I think the membership has a role among itself to

make sure that if there is a bad apple in the barrel, that apple is

thrown away instead of infecting the rest of the barrel, and most

professional groups do that.

One other thing I would do

with that investigations committee is that I would certainly want to

have on that committee a member who was not a teacher and was not

associated with any other act of self-regulation. To be quite clear

about it, I would not want to see an engineer on that investigation

committee with the teachers; I don't want to see a lawyer or a doctor

or anybody else. I want to see someone who is completely unrelated. The

reason you want to do that, and the reason I've been advocating that

for years with my own professional association — which is now going to happen — is

that if you're doing a good job, and you presume that you are, then you

want to make absolutely certain that there is somebody on that board

who is not a member of the group, so that you can send a message to the

public that, indeed, "we are so sure what we're doing is correct that

we're willing to have an 'outsider' on this very, very sensitive

committee." It's very important to do that, and I would appeal to the

members of the college board to make that change in the legislation

when it comes under their control.

I would suggest that the

minister would do a couple of other things as well. I note in the act

that he has taken it upon himself to give himself the opportunity to

appoint the first council, with reference to and input from the BCTF.

In fact, it would be my persuasion that the very first board should be

an elected board. I would hope that he would make that change, for I'm

certain that teachers can do that. I hope that he will do that.

Certainly if we can run an election to elect people to this chamber in

28 days, I have no doubt that teachers can elect their own council in

several months. So I don't have any difficulty with that.

MR. RABBITT : Good stuff.

MR. R. FRASER :

Well, it is good stuff, and that's the key to the debate from this side

of the Legislative Assembly. We're not just wasting time; we're putting

it out there, talking to teachers and students. Certainly one of the

more amazing comments I heard was that one of my colleagues received a

phone call from a teacher, who said: "I've been told by the executive

of the B. C . Teachers' Federation to phone you and complain about the

legislation, but in fact I think it's great."

That's going

to happen more and more, in fact, because I think most teachers do like

it. Certainly there have been a few letters to the editor that say: "I

am a teacher" — or I was a teacher, or I have kids in schools —

"and I can hardly believe that the executive of the teachers'

federation is doing the things that we're doing." Talk about causing

problems! It's unbelievable, suggesting to teachers that they shouldn't

read the letter from the minister to the children, which presumes that

the kids have no ability to think, reason or . . . .

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER :

Well, you know, kids are brighter than that. I think that the B.C.

Teachers' Federation executive should recognize that. Now here's the

problem. You see, when the students took a day off in protest of the

work-to-rule thing which was imposed on the teachers by the federation

executive, it was kind of interesting. I understand that the students

are going to be disciplined for taking the day off. I will watch with

great interest to see what the boards do with the teachers who took the

day off. I want to make it very clear that I don't want us to do

anything about that, because the teachers are not employed by us. This

body just funds the school boards. I want to see what the school boards

do. I wonder what they would do with their own money if they had

employees who didn't show up. We'll see what they do; whether they give

the teachers a salary or not will be very, very interesting, because

that will tell us a lot about what we think about condoning actions

that aren't right.

Goodness, I can't imagine that any

teacher in this province who is seriously opposed to the legislation

would not only not take time in the study session to really think about

it and study it and have different points of view — have a debate on it, if you wish —

but would also not think about the children in the schools, would work

to rule, deny or suggest that they deny graduation, ruin trips that

were planned months in advance, and stop all support for

extracurricular activity. No executive should have done that. I presume

the teachers were frightened by the BCTF and did some of those things.

I cannot believe that that would be condoned. It is unimaginable.

MR. JONES : What is the evidence?

MR. R. FRASER : Well, the evidence is certainly in the paper, Mr. Member, and you certainly know it is true.

MR. JONES : It's not true.

MR. R. FRASER ; I know you are looking a little upset. You're flushing

a bit because you are embarrassed to support actions that you know are not right,

and you are fighting legislation that you know is correct. It is incredible

. . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Supporting the unsupportable.

[ Page 940 ]

MR. R. FRASER :

Right. Goodness gracious, the time you are spending on this thing when

you know it is right. Take a cue from the Leader of the Opposition — your own leader —

who in his entire speech said absolutely nothing about the bill, which

is in fact saying by default that he supports it. He talked about the

Law Society recommending changes to the House. So what? The College of

Teachers can make recommendations for changes to the legislation when

they get it. So let's give it to them. Let's let them have the

legislation. Let's give it to them now so that they can look at it,

study it, have the election and get started.

MR. JONES : You don't like teachers.

MR. R. FRASER :

The member opposite suggests to me that I don't like teachers. Now if

that isn't the craziest heckling I have ever heard. I happen to have

four young children in school, who incidentally are very bright, who do

very well.

MR. MILLER : They don't take after their father.

MR. R. FRASER : They took after their father.

MS. CAMPBELL : It's proof of environment.

MR. R. FRASER : Thank you, my friend.

I've

spent a lot of time talking to teachers and principals and students,

whether they are in grade school or secondary or university or college.

Education happens to be a favourite subject of mine, and I intend to

watch to make sure that the teachers are given the credit they deserve,

because they do. It is the executive of the federation that is causing

the problem. The teachers themselves are great, and I know hundreds of

them.

MR. JONES : They're just stupid — they vote for these things and don't think about it.

MR. R. FRASER :

The member opposite talks about elections that were held from time to

time. I don't think you want me to look at the numbers very hard,

because they don't prove your point; they prove mine. That is the key

to all this good stuff.

I wonder if we shouldn't put

teachers on an incentive plan so that they could make a little more

salary every now and then. I think it would be sort of a neat idea to

say to a teacher: "You are particularly good. I think that you deserve

a little extra money because you are so effective as a teacher. You can

teach large groups or small groups of kids who have learning problems."

Maybe we should get into that a little bit. Certainly CSP has been

eliminated for teachers. In fact, we've taken increments out of CSP

calculations for the benefit of teachers. And guess what? If an

increment is not a salary increase, I don't know what is, because it

means you get more money. So it must mean something.

We've

done all kinds of things to prove over and over again the support for

teachers that comes from the government side of the House —

certainly from me and definitely from the first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell). The others I am not sure about at

all.

Mr. Speaker, I know this legislation is

philosophically correct, in spite of the fact that I don't agree with

every single item myself. We are going for improving the opportunity

for teachers to be totally professional, at least in one organization,

and to bargain collectively in another, if they wish. That is a correct

separation of power and authority. To ask a principal to be a manager,

which is what he is anyway, makes sense.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER :

Big schools? There's one just inside your riding and just outside mine.

Killarney is the name of the school. I think there are about 3,000

students. It's a big school.

To suggest that the principal

shouldn't be a manager is not realistic. It doesn't make any sense.

Managers can do such good work and can make such a difference. Some

people can teach; some people can be principals. I'm not even really

certain whether the principal of a large school actually has to be a

teacher.

MR. CLARK : What about a principal in a small elementary school?

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, that is called hands-on management. That's when the

teacher gets out and not only runs the school, but teaches as well to

keep himself right up to date with the opportunities that are there.

What a great experience anyway, to go into a classroom day after day

and see all those bright, shiny faces, and to turn them all on. I mean,

it has to do something for you.

Teaching must be one of the

most exciting jobs in the world. No wonder they get a reward. They get

a great reward. Thanks to the government on this side of the House,

those teachers have a shot at something truly extraordinary. We have a

system in British Columbia that's almost second to none, if not second

to none. We've got a shot at doing great things right here. We will

lead the country with this legislation. That great minister over there

in the comer will be doing what amounts to historic legislation on

behalf of the children, the parents and the province, and I will be

supporting this legislation.

MR. VANT : Mr. Speaker, could I have leave of the House to make some special introductions?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT :

I'm very pleased to introduce to the House, in the gallery today,

Alderman Judi Lowe of the village of Clinton, and Roland Stanke,

president of the Clinton and District Chamber of Commerce. I know the

House will join me in welcoming them.

MR. MILLER : I

see my colleagues are deserting me, but I would hope that some of the

members on the government side will stick around to listen to what I

have to say today.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER : Well, I always try to add to the debate, Mr. Minister of Education, and I hope you listen to what I have to say.

admitted, I suppose, my own shortcomings in terms of not being someone

who comes out of the school system, of not having a deep awareness of

all of the elements involved in

[ Page 941 ]

the

education system, in teaching our young people. I guess the bias I have

is that of a parent. It's kind of interesting. I've seen a lot of

changes in our system in my few years on this planet. When I was very

young I attended a one-room schoolhouse on northern Vancouver Island. I

never thought much of it at the time. We went to school every day and

did what we were told, more or less. But I became aware that . . . . It

didn't happen to me, but to an uncle of mine, who, on moving down to

the lower mainland some years later, was put back a grade or a grade

and a half because of the inadequacies of the system that existed at

that time.

We've got to talk about the system. This bill

purports to make some major changes. Ostensibly it deals only with

teachers, but nonetheless it does affect the entire education system.

In looking at what has happened over the last few years, we see some

pretty major disruptions in that system. For example, we've had, I

believe, six ministers of education in the last seven years. I'm not

citing this to fault the current Minister of Education, who I believe

is as honourable as anybody who has had that job, and as sincere in his

desire to do a good job. But it seems to me that the environment that

has been created is coming into this chamber to haunt us in terms of

the debate on this legislation, as well as to affect what's happening

outside with regard to the teachers and their reaction to this.

[3:15]

You know, if you had a private company — and I hear that example cited fairly

often — that you wanted to run in an efficient manner and wanted to make a profit

and do all of those nice things, it seems to me you'd have a pretty disrupted

company if you changed the general manager once a year. I'm sure the employees

would feel that they didn't know who was in control; that they didn't

know the guiding philosophy — the management philosophy. I'm sure you would

have a company that did not perform very well. So certainly, in terms of the

kind of reaction we're getting in the community, that has to be a major

factor.

I also

think that must put a fair amount of pressure on the current minister.

He must be acutely aware of this six-year or seven-year history of

changing ministers, of confrontation, disruption, and all the other

negative things that have happened in our education system in British

Columbia. To compound matters, it's not bad enough that we've had this

successive change of ministers; we've also had, according to the

information I've received, about 16 studies or revisions in budgeting

and finance formulas since the introduction of the first restraint

program in 1982.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Six of you have made the same statement.

MR. MILLER : Perhaps the minister may be listening after six of us. Maybe some more of us will talk about the same statement.

Nonetheless,

the same point is applicable when it comes to dealing with this bill in

terms of the kind of reaction we're seeing out there in the community.

The

member for Vancouver South, who just spoke, talked about a system of

bringing in incentive pay for good teachers. I think there may be some

difficulty in terms of identifying good teachers. Surely what most

teachers want in this province is a stable environment in which they

can get down and do the job, which I believe most of them want to do,

and that's to try to be as effective as they can, in terms of teaching

the children that they have in their charge. Certainly it's my belief

that that's even more difficult in our society than it was when I was a

youngster. There's been a tremendous change in our society, and not

necessarily for the better in terms of children being able to absorb

some of that information. Nonetheless, given the kind of turbulent

history we've had in recent years, it's quite understandable why the

teachers are concerned about the implications of Bill 20. As I said the

other day, you can't really divorce Bill 20 from Bill 19, because the

impact is just as great in terms of one of the major requests that the

teachers made. The government is now saying: "We've given them what

they want." I'll touch on that a little bit later.

The

debate at this point is supposed to be a debate in principle about the

legislation. It strikes me that one of the principles of the bill is

that there are no principles; they've been excluded by the bill. That

certainly is . . . .

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : I hope you're taking notes.

That

has certainly led to some of the reaction we've seen among the teaching

fraternity with regard to Bill 20. I suppose it's somewhat difficult

when I stand to talk about the principle of the bill, and I hark back

to some of the other legislation that has been introduced in this

House, and the manner in which it has been introduced. There seems to

be a kind of history of flawed legislation reaching the floor of this

House for debate, or else the person presenting it is not fully

informed about the implications of some of the clauses in that

legislation. Let's go back to the bill introduced by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) last week. It was supposed to deal with

one thing and now we find it deals with another. We have a bill about

expropriation that the Attorney-General (Hon. B. R. Smith) introduced.

I see where a ministry spokesman now says that a major omission in the

bill was simply . . . there's a technical defect in the bill and will

be corrected.

We go on. Bill 19 had a number of clauses

that were unexplainable. Even the Premier was at a loss to explain what

a particular clause meant or, indeed, why that particular clause found

its way into the legislation. Despite repeated requests from some

people with regard to the proposed tax on home purchases, and the

government's consistent statement that there would be no change, I

understand the Premier made a statement on the weekend to the effect

that maybe they're considering turning it around and applying it in an

entirely different manner.

So when you get these kinds of

changes subsequent to the introduction of legislation, and when you get

the admission that we're getting from government that in many instances

they were not informed, it becomes a bit more difficult to really

understand what the principle of the bill is; and, secondly, how to

debate that.

I've done a fair amount of reading, as I

suppose most members have, in terms of Bill 20. You do for any

legislation that you're required to stand up and debate. You try to

amass a certain number of facts in terms of what is happening in other

jurisdictions, and come up with possible suggestions about what we

could do in our own jurisdiction to make things work a little better.

I've already stated that it was my opinion that there was no need to

rush in with this kind of legislation; that it would have been far

preferable to adopt the federal position, which really is the

introduction of a White

[ Page 942 ]

Paper;

and taking a considerable amount of time, through the use of

parliamentary committees, to give this kind of legislation a more

thorough airing in the community. In the long term, even though that

process may be somewhat slower, the results, I believe, would be far

more satisfying, in terms of arriving at the kind of consensus that

everybody could live with. I don't think that we are naive on this side

of the House to suggest that. I realize that not everything that you

come down with as government is going to be acceptable to the people

who are affected by it, but certainly you have a responsibility to have

as wide-ranging a discussion as possible before you bring something

into law.

In terms of education, because there are some

varying opinions out there today . . . . In fact, I read an

article on

the plane coming down from Prince Rupert this morning that suggested

that schools should be privatized. That's not something I would agree

with.

I note that the American Governors, in dealing with

the question of education at a major meeting, have come forward with

some points that I think should be applicable in terms of the

legislation we bring in in this province, and the atmosphere we want to

create with regard to the relationship, if you like, between teachers

and the public and teachers and the government. The Governors

recognized that education is a serious issue and one that people are

struggling with. They dealt with seven broad questions at their

meeting, and two of the questions are important. Why not pay teachers

more for teaching well? And what can be done to attract, train and

reward excellent schoolteachers? It seems to me that if there is some

question in our society about the effectiveness of the school system .

. . . Certainly that point has been raised in relation to Bill 20 as

one of the reasons why the bill is brought down — the separation

of the professional development and the union function, the function

that primarily consists of negotiating for its members in terms of

wages and such-like.

These are the kinds of question that

should be more thoroughly examined before we simply come in with a bill

that has as its intent, may people believe, the dismantling of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation because, as numerous members of the Social Credit

Party have pointed out, they are an irritant. In fact, the Premier

reiterated that on his radio program. You couldn't help but come to the

conclusion that the bill has been brought in because of the politics of

the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

In any event, I'll just quote briefly from this

article in the BCSTA Report about the Governors' conference:

"New

Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean says not enough attention has been given

to what motivates people to teach. 'If we want to attract able teachers

— and to keep the ones we have — we have to respond to what they care

about,' their cares including the intrinsic rewards of teaching and the

professional environment of the school. His task force on teaching

calls for 'a new compact' between teachers and the public. The public

must offer a professional teaching environment: reasonable salaries, a

real voice in decisions, and a chance to define professional

performance standards and evaluation methods, just as any other

professional group would."

So other jurisdictions are also grappling with the whole problem —

I don't know if I should characterize it as a problem, but the whole

system of education. How could we make it better, and how can we give

the people in that system a better and more meaningful role in what

they do?

Now the minister quoted from an

article the other day while he was speaking on Bill 20 — an

article that appeared in the Times-Colonist

on April 29, by Christopher Hodgkinson and Jim Cutt. There are a couple

of quotes in there that he didn't mention that are applicable to the

debate that's taking place in this chamber. I'll just do that for him,

since he neglected to do that. One of these gentlemen is a professor of

education administration and the other a professor of public

administration at the University of Victoria. Speaking about the BCTF,

which has really been maligned by many of the speakers both inside and

outside of this House, they go on to talk about the benefits that it

has been to its members and to the people in the education system. They

say: " . . . and it has done much to benefit the children and youth of

this province and to safeguard and advance their education."

Now

if the minister wants to quote some aspects of the

article that tend to

support his position, he should also be prepared to look at those

aspects of the

article that tend to support the position being advanced

by the B.C. Teachers' Federation and others.

Anyway, going

on the premise that I've tried to raise today in dealing with this

bill, the

article goes on talking about the leadership of the BCTF and

their reaction to the legislation:

"One

possible explanation is simple paranoia. Paranoia deriving from

misperceptions about Realpolitik. Thus: contemporary politics demands

proof of its leaders by the macho test of defeating opposition,

particularly where this opposition is in the economic arena and is

perceived as being a threat to the party in power. The test of

political leadership can therefore take the form of union-busting:

proof positive of the willingness to wield power in the name of the

people. So, early in his career, President Reagan established himself

by defeating the air traffic controllers, and Mrs. Thatcher much more

heroically overcame the Marxist-led National Union of Miners.

"In

B.C. we now have a charismatic leader as Premier, who might, just

might, have similar motivation for breaking up the BCTF, an

organization not without its own history of big-P political

intervention."

Perhaps the

article is prophetic in getting

at the principle, if you like, of this bill, because the real intent of

this legislation is an issue that has been raised over and over again.

Just

to further support my contention that there is a better way of

approaching this type of legislation, I quote from a paper put out by

the Pacific Group for Policy Alternatives. They talk about a different

way of approaching this kind of legislation:

"If

there really was an intention to seriously consider the issues, a

bipartisan legislative committee would surely have been the appropriate

vehicle. This has long been the practice of successive federal

governments. Of course, including opposition representatives would

allow them the opportunity of influencing the committee report or even

issuing a minority report."

I think that the interests of

this House and of groups affected by legislation are much better served

taking that kind of approach than what we are doing now. As we debate,

the minister has already indicated that some fairly major amendments to

the legislation may be coming down. I think it

[ Page 943 ]

preferable that we take a much longer approach to bringing this in.

[3:30]

[Mr. Pehon in the chair.]

On the weekend, as I try to

do most weekends, I went back to my constituency. I met with a woman

who is a school trustee and a very caring and intelligent person, one

who would not simply take positions because she is on one side or the

other, but because she genuinely feels that . . . . She arrives at

positions through intelligence, through listening and through reading.

She spoke to a group in Prince Rupert, and I want to quote a few

excerpts. She has a deep concern, and I think that if you had been

there in person, you could understand it better. Maybe I won't do

justice to her words. Nonetheless, she does have some good things to

say about what is happening right now with the reaction this bill is

sparking throughout the community:

"I speak

to you as a person with a known bias, but also with an ever-present

awareness that I was elected as an educational custodian of the

children of Prince Rupert. I do not feel comfortable when schools are

illegally shut down, and I know there are teachers who feel the same.

"In

dealing specifically with the legislation, and tying in Bill 19" —

as I have tried to do in terms of this debate, because I think it is a

fundamental part of Bill 20 —

"You must gather around you copies of the School Act (which will be

changed we know not how) the old Labour Code, Bill 19, Bill 20 and the

early retirement act. I am not suggesting that all parts of all bills

are bad. I am saying that interpreting them can be very

confusing —

as you flip your way back and forth from suggested amendment to

original legislation. I don't know whether this confusion was planned,

but you can't deny the confusion."

That is someone who has

probably got more than an ordinary ability to read and takes the time

to read. Yet given the melding of Bills 19 and 20, she says there is

some difficulty in appreciating what the intent is or what these bills

will really do.

Going on, she says:

"Bill

19 pretends to offer you all you ever wanted, the right to strike. I

suspect you have been offered a berth on a sinking ship. Bill 19 has

added a new dimension to an old dilemma. You may have wanted a berth on

the old Code; the new one may be a different story.

"When

you put this legislation in the context of free trade, privatization

and so-called individual rights, a pattern emerges which doesn't bode

well for wages and working conditions. There seems to be a concerted

effort being made to erode many of the hard-won benefits that have been

fought for over the years; and instead of attempting to raise the

standards of those less fortunate, there may be an attempt to reduce

everybody to the lowest common denominator."

Finally she says — and I think this is a pretty good statement:

"My personal bias is that I don't trust government" —

whichever government it is. "Blind trust is dangerous, no matter what

government you are dealing with. I believe we have an obligation to be

alert and critical when necessary, not from a personal or selfish

perspective, but for the good of all."

I think that there

is perhaps a bit of a siege mentality in some respects from the

government with regard to Bill 20, in that many of the sincere efforts

by people in the community, in terms of their fears about the

legislation, the impact it might have and the divisiveness it is

causing out there . . . . They feel that they don't really have an ear,

that they are not being listened to. I think that in some respects some

members on the opposite side have said things that really justify that

kind of feeling.

A few more quotes before I relinquish my spot. I'll quote from the Province editorial — I believe it was Friday. They talk about the thing in much the same manner that I've talked about it:

"But the time has really come for Premier Bill Vander Zalm

and the BCTF to cool things at least until the exam and graduation period is

over. That would require statesmanship on both sides.

"Vander

Zalm introduced the bill, perhaps impulsively, at the worst possible

time in the school year and he must have known the BCTF would react

strongly. He has not helped with his hollow threats to punish teachers

who walked out."

So again, there's further evidence that

the atmosphere has been created in part by the government, and that

it's simply not a knee-jerk reaction from a group that's politically

opposed to them.

In any event, I dug through an old file. I

had participated to some extent some years back in the "Let's Talk

About Schools" process. I thought the process was flawed, although any

time there's an opportunity to go out and make a presentation on an

area that's of some importance to this province, I think people should

take it.

Nonetheless, I think it has been shown that that

was a wasted process. But in digging through some of my material, I

came across an

article written by a teacher in Prince Rupert who is not

a member of the New Democratic Party; in fact, he's a member of the

Liberal Party, and he's one of my favourite political opponents in

Prince Rupert. He is a man who cares deeply about the system, has

traveled somewhat, and was an exchange teacher in Australia, and he

talks about the impact of the turbulence or the divisiveness in the

education system on the north.

won't get into that too much, but he makes a couple of suggestions with

regard to the atmosphere in this province — that relationship I

talked about earlier between teachers and the public and the

government —

and he really talks about the need to retain experienced teachers. At

that time there was a bit of a brain drain going on, and other

jurisdictions that had fallen behind were up in British Columbia

snapping up teachers; I understand that that still may be a problem. He

said in his article: "In order to retain experienced teachers and make

room for young teachers who will be badly needed in three or four

years, the B.C. school system should" — and then he goes on to

make a number of suggestions, but lastly he says —

"begin a public relations campaign to improve teacher community–

government relations. The gain here would be obvious, as it would

create a more stable work and learning environment." Again, I quote

that because it backs up the contention I have that we can approach

this question in a much better way than we have to date.

Now just briefly on Bill 19; again, they can't be separated. As the woman whom I quoted said: "You've been

[ Page 944 ]

offered

a berth on a ship, but perhaps it's sinking." It seems to me that Bill

19 really does continue CSP. It boxes the teachers in under that clause

in Bill 19, and I think that the problem that has existed for some time

will simply continue to exist in British Columbia for many years. It's

really my serious belief, not so much from a partisan point of view but

from the point of view of someone who has throughout his political life

tried to arrive at accommodations that work for the people involved,

that we can surely do a much better job of bringing in legislation,

particularly legislation that is radical and that may have as its

intent the elimination of an organization simply because they've been

active in the political process.

So, Mr. Minister, I don't

know if that's enlightened you at all in terms of some people's

feelings on Bill 19, but those are the kinds of feelings that I'm

picking up in my community in talking to people. So I offer them in the

hopes that the government will take them seriously.

MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 20 today. I would like to say a

few things about my previous comments on the BCTF, which I have

listened to played back to me for the last week. I want to thank the

opposition members for the compliment of paying attention to me when I

am talking. It is difficult sometimes to get your thoughts across, and

it is even more difficult when you do get them across accurately to

have them played back twisted. My feeling, as I went through the week

listening to member after member twist my words, was that when I was

able to stand up and defend myself, I would do the same thing to them.

But two wrongs don't make a right, so I have decided to continue on

with my normal way of trying to help solve a problem instead of

creating another one.

I would like to also just mention the

atmosphere in the Legislature. I am a rookie member, and I have been

around the Legislature for a long time, and the atmosphere in the

Legislature is considerably different. It is pleasant to be here. I

have very warm feelings toward most of the members in the opposition

and, in fact, a lot of them are a credit to the communities that have

sent them here. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), for

example: I have nothing but respect for that member. I thank him for

the kind things that he said about me last week.

The member

for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) said that I had lost credibility in his

eyes, and it made me feel bad. I have to admit that. I felt very badly

when he said that. I think it was something he felt he had to say

politically, and again that member twisted my words to suit his

purpose. But I have to say to that member, who isn't here, that I

respect him for filling in two hours as well as he did in this debate.

I hope, as we go through this session, that I will gain my credibility

back with that member.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), I thought, put forward the most rational arguments —

which may be a surprise to some people in here. His comments were worth

listening to. He too twisted my words about the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, but he did a good job, and he put the opposition's position

forward in a very good manner, I thought.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to re-emphasize my feelings about politics in the

classroom. I don't care if it be socialist, Marxist, communist or

Social Credit, politics have no place in a classroom. Teachers are

there to teach certain subjects, and I don't believe they are there to

influence our children in any political way. My comment about the B.C.

Teachers' Federation was simply about the federation members who

had risen to power and who have only that in their mind: power. It

makes no difference to those people what happens in the classroom, what

the quality of education is, or in fact what happens to the teachers

who are used as pawns. That is why I made those comments about the B.C.

Teachers' Federation. It had nothing to do with whether I like or

dislike teachers. Everyone likes teachers.

Last night in my

constituency, Fort Langley had a benefit concert for Rick Hansen. The

hand-bell choir from one of our local secondary schools was to perform

there. They were there, even though those teachers have been directed

by the BCTF executive not to participate in those kinds of activities.

I can imagine how difficult it was for that teacher to make that

decision to go with his students to that benefit concert and then

suffer the consequences later. I would ask the opposition members to

think about the difficulties that many of our professional teachers

have had over the years trying to deal with the political situation

within the BCTF.

[3:45]

I might

also add that this situation did not just occur after Bill 20. This has

been going on for a long time. It wasn't created by Bill 20. The

Minister of Education did not start this problem. Teachers have been

told what to do by the B.C. Teachers' Federation executive for some

time, and through intimidation some of them have and some of them

haven't. It has caused a great deal of confusion in schools.

believe that Bill 20 gives teachers the right to be professionals. It

gives them the choice to decide for themselves whether they want to be

trade unionists or whether they want to be professionals. Local

associations will individually, under Bill 20, make those decisions. I

think that is one of the most important aspects of Bill 20. All

districts differ. The province is different; the regions are different.

I am sure there will be districts where teachers will choose to have

unions, just as there'll be districts where teachers will choose to

have associations; that's what democracy is all about. I can't

understand the opposition to Bill 20 by the members opposite, who I

know believe very strongly in democracy. I believe that after Bill 20

is passed, the threats will disappear in the classrooms, and

confrontation will indeed be lessened or ended. I would also like to

point out to the opposition that class size can be negotiated. I think

that's a big revelation about how this government feels about the

teaching profession. Size, as many opposition members have said, makes

the environment of a class, and teachers will now have the right to

negotiate those class sizes. If the Ministry of Education has not been

correct in the past, that's going to be rectified at the local level,

school district by school district, the way it should be.

think the separation of union activities and professional development

is also desirable. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Negotiating for salaries and benefits and class size is one thing;

professional development of individuals is entirely another, and that

part of Bill 20 is going to bring a great deal of professionalism into

the classroom — in fact, more than there is at this particular time.

I'd

like to talk a little bit about the relationship between students,

parents and the classroom. The classroom is an extension of the home,

in my view, and as we all know, there are many homes that today are

having difficulties: broken homes, homes where one or both of the

parents are unemployed. There is no end to the difficulties that many

people in our society suffer. The children spend more than half of their

[ Page 945 ]

day

in the classroom five days a week. That means that the teacher is a

pretty important person in their lives, and we have to look after that

teacher. We have to make sure that teachers are happy, that they're

well paid — as well paid as the public purse can afford to pay

them. I think it's also our job to make sure that they aren't

intimidated, and that is what Bill 20 is about.

I've been

accused of saying that the only reason we're dealing with Bill 20 is

because we want to kneecap the BCTF. That's not true. The BCTF is a

factor, but the teachers are the biggest factor, and whether they're

happy or not makes a difference to whether our children are happy or

not. Teachers have a lot of responsibility. They have a lot of things

to deal with in a classroom, and I think some of us forget sometimes

that they have their own personal problems to deal with at the same

time, just like all of us do. So I want to assure the members opposite

that this government does care about teachers. We care about students;

we care about the taxpayers; and yes, we even care about the members of

the opposition. I hope that the remainder of the debate on Bill 20 will

be constructive, the criticism will be well founded, and a spirit of

cooperation will continue in this Legislature.

I'd like to

ask all members to work hard in their constituencies explaining the

government's position and the opposition's position, but let's not pour

more oil on the fire. Let's help everyone work their problems out for

the betterment of the education system, the families and the children

that it serves, and yes, the teachers. This is not a time for

grandstanding. It's not a time for political points. It's a time for

working together and seeing a bill go through the Legislature, with

amendments if they're needed. The Premier indicated today that this

government is not afraid to admit there might be something in a bill

which shouldn't be there, that it can be interpreted in a different

way. So I ask the opposition: don't twist words. Use your own words.

This is a democracy, and each one of us has a right to our own

opinions, and we all have them; there's no question about that.

I'd

like to encourage teachers also to put their students first. Regardless

of the marching orders that are issued by the BCTF executive, I would

ask those teachers to stay in their classrooms and to continue with

their professional activities like the professionals we all know they

are.

MR. CASHORE : It's indeed lovely to hear the hordes of people on my side of the House pounding their desks in support.

speak in opposition to Bill 20. I would just like to comment to the

hon. first member for Langley that when we talk about people

grandstanding in this House, or when we talk about people twisting

words, I realize that we're indulging in a kind of comment that all of

us indulge in when we are wanting to find some way to respond to what

has been said. That's not something that any side of this House has a

patent on. But we do need to recognize that the words in Hansard are the words in Hansard ,

and being used in speeches, they do receive a particular

interpretation

given from a particular perspective. I think that's appropriate. It's

one of the ways in which lively debate has been carried on for many

centuries and many generations. I feel a little bit as though it's not

all that helpful to be lectured on such items when the lecturer is

indicating that the fault is primarily on this side of the House. Fault

is something that all of us are quite capable of, and I certainly would

like to acknowledge that capability within myself. Sometimes when we

are speaking from our own perspectives, we do say things that others

find inappropriate. I guess the real learning is when we can find the

inappropriateness that really is within ourselves. I think that's a

difficult thing for us to do when we are involved in lively debate.

When

I spoke on the hoist motion, I tried to make a few points that I felt

were relevant to the debate on the principle of the bill. I pointed out

that several school boards, boards made up of people of all political

parties, had asked that the government withdraw Bill 20. These requests

have formally been made, and I understand that letters have been sent

to the minister, making such requests.

I also made the

point that there has been inadequate consultation in terms of the kind

of consultation that results in influencing the nature of the

legislation, rather than consultation in the sense of hearing a number

of briefs but not really acting on them.

I referred to the

fact that all of us, no matter what our station and responsibility in

life, be it as members of this Legislature, be it as Minister of

Education, be it as people who work in any walk of life, share

responsibility for education. That being the case, and recognizing the

principle that the medium is the message, the nature with which such

legislation is presented does become an example to our young people, an

example which says to them something about the values and about the

approach that we all espouse as we go about doing our job as

legislators. Mr. Speaker, I tried to make the point that we have a

responsibility to be straightforward in terms of the way we go about

doing our task. Having introduced this legislation in a way that really

is not a consultative process, when you really examine it carefully, is

not a good example to our young people, and it is not putting forward

the kinds of ideas that it is our responsibility to put forward.

also outlined the recent history of the assault on education by the

Social Credit government, going back for several years', but especially

back to 1983, and pointed out that this has had a number of negative

impacts on a number of people — teachers, students and other

members of the public, who have responded in a very caring, responsible

and supportive way. Yet the fact is that the policies that have been

put forward have had the result of bruising teachers, of wounding

students, and causing abrasions to the public. This has resulted in

feelings of chaos, confusion, bitterness and disruption. And just to

think back to the time when it actually got to the point that

democratically elected school boards in this province were being fired

is an indication of the climate of confrontation that has hindered and

hurt education within this province, has had terrible impacts upon the

quality of education. It would be very, very helpful, even at this

time, to look at those impacts and to consider that there are better

ways to go about trying to enhance education in this province than this

continuation of confrontation.

[4:00]

Mr.

Speaker, I think the point is — and it's a point that I wish to

make in my comments today —

that education needs a breather in this province. Education in this

province needs an opportunity to get caught up, because of the impacts

that have been so severely received over the past several years,

especially going back to 1983. This is not a good time to be

introducing yet another divisive and confrontational process that will

have the effect — and I'm not saying it was intended this

way — of causing further unease, further disruption and further

negative impacts upon those that we keep saying we

[ Page 946 ]

are so concerned about: the children of our province, the people for whom the educational exercise is so important.

It's tremendously important — and we've heard this stated on both sides of the House —

that the children really are the most important factor in this entire

discussion. I really believe that the Minister of Education believes

that. I believe that's something that all of us in some corner of our

thinking, in some corner of our being, recognize as being tremendously

important. But I think that we have to recognize that children in our

society at this time are increasingly being found to be at risk. It is

important to realize that we have a number of people in the school

system, including teachers, who have seen, in their lives dedicated to

the education of children, a kind of child advocacy which has been

tremendously important.

We've seen this at a time when

there has been a withdrawal of services for children in many sectors of

the province,

whereas within another ministry we would find the loss of

family support workers, the loss of child care workers within the

schools. We've seen, in the name of somebody's idea of restraint, the

loss of services to children in this province. It has been, I think, a

very impressive reality that teachers have continued, even in times

when they were finding it difficult to fulfill their responsibilities

because of inadequacies in terms of textbooks, supplies and the

pupil-teacher ratio . . . . Even during those times of great impact,

those teachers were doing everything they possibly could to look out

for the well-being of their students. That's certainly a point that

needs to be affirmed and a point which we have to recognize: that the

children within our society have been supported.

We only

have to open our eyes to realize that the reality of hungry children

really is a reality which shows up in many segments of society and has

been showing up in schools. Perhaps what we have seen is only the tip

of the iceberg. We have to realize that, tragically, this is a society

in which children, who should be getting support, counselling and

treatment at a time when further problems can be prevented, end up not

getting that support, counselling or treatment, and often end up in

programs that are sponsored by the Attorney-General — custody programs —

when it would have been far better if these children could have

received the benefit of counselling and their parents could have

received the benefit of support at a time when that was so desperately

needed. So we see that children in our society are being impacted to

too great an extent by the effects of somebody's idea of restraint.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

One

of the things that I think is not helping the situation is the timing

of the presentation of this legislation right now. I think that the

timing right now, when we consider that the school year is coming to a

close, when we consider that there did seem to be, following the

election, some indication that there was a new reality of consultation

in British Columbia and, indeed, a time when people would legitimately

have new hope that . . . . This happening at this point in the school

year, I know for a fact, is a very, very difficult thing for a great

many people, and, again, perhaps the greatest impacts are upon the

children.

Timing, because it isn't good timing in terms of

the school year; timing, because it isn't good timing in the sense that

there's no compelling urgency to force this legislation through right

now. In view of the need for education to have a breather in this

province, and also in view of the fact that things were working well

within the education system, even given the impacts of the recession .

. . .

There is really no argument I have heard that deals

with a sense of urgency of time that says: it must be done now; this is

when it must happen; we haven't got time for further consultation. It's

a tremendous opportunity for the Minister of Education to take a new

perspective on this legislation, to consider an opportunity for public

dialogue and discussion and debate and treat it more as a White Paper,

more as something that can then be looked at after the public

discussion comes in and that can be used as a basis for the kind of

redrafting and the type of legislation that would be more appropriate.

It's

not good timing also in a sense of the government's stated plan to set

up a Royal Commission on Education. This was an election promise, and

one wonders what is left for the scope of the research and the

deliberations of such a royal commission when such a major decision is

in the process of being made. I really do wonder what this says to the

person who has been given the task of heading that commission, about

the kind of confidence the Minister of Education has in him and in the

commissioners when such a major preemptive action is being taken.

noted that a previous speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller), quoted from a paper by the Pacific Group for Policy

Alternatives. I would like to quote from that paper, but from a

different part of it. On Bill 20 it says: "As a result of this

exercise, progressive organizations such as the Pacific Group and trade

unions must now question the value of devoting any effort to making

submissions to future Socred traveling road shows." I think that is a

matter for very serious consideration.

The tradition of

people within our society getting together and making their

submissions, doing their research, preparing their statements, bringing

them forward and putting them on the table at some kind of hearing that

is being made available by government — that very process is being

questioned by the timing, by the way in which this legislation is being

presented. I think that is a matter of public trust; it's a matter of

dealing with the resources and the procedures we have for achieving

some kind of consensus, and I think it's a tremendously important thing

when we consider that people might actually say: "Well, why should I

participate in a government process of being asked for information,

when we realize that what we are doing in that exercise is really not

having any effect at all."

I think we should be reminded,

as other members have stated, that other professions have the choice

with regard to the development of their own structures. The B.C.

Teachers' Federation is an organization that has developed over 75

years, and it is quite a serious thing when one considers that by the

stroke of legislation such an organization with such a history of

service to this province might be dismantled in such a way. I think

also we have to, given the principles of fairness, be asking about the

fairness of what is implicit within the way the legislation is drafted.

The cost of administration, by and large, would have to be borne by

those people, again without them having any way of consulting about how

that process would be carried out.

I would like now to turn

to the subject of principals and vice-principals. I think that all of

us who have attended schools, whether they were one-room schools or

country schools that were somewhat larger or large urban schools, have

all had the experience of knowing principals and vice-

[ Page 947 ]

principals as part of a very unique way we have of school administration within this country of Canada.

wonder, as I make these comments, if different members of the House

might reflect on their experiences of principals in schools, wherever

they attended school, and ask themselves, on reflection, how they felt

about that way of doing things; how they felt about the fact that there

were principals and vice-principals who had their responsibility set up

in that, granted, unique way within society. Do they feel that that was

really bad news, or do they feel that there were some good things in

that? I know that in my experience, thinking back to the principals and

vice-principals of the school that I attended, some of them were better

than others, sure, but it was a system that worked. It was a system in

which you realized that there was somebody there who knew education.

Thinking about that later, in adulthood, I guess it would have been a

person who had an educational philosophy, a person trained in

education, a person who loved the education enterprise, and a person

who cared so dearly and so deeply for that that he or she was willing

to put the kind of extra effort and enthusiasm into the administration

of that process that was necessary.

One of the fundamental values that makes the system work — and it does work well today —

is a value that we would call teamwork. One of the things of benefit to

the children of this province is that teamwork operates within the

school system, and part of the delicate balance that helps to produce

that teamwork is the fact that the principals and the vice-principals

within those settings have that dual role of administration and

education. People have referred in this House to the industrial model.

I think it would be tragic to see us change something so drastically,

something that has functioned so well for such a long time, when there

is really no valid, demonstrable reason for making such an extensive

move. It really saddens me to think that that delicate balance, that

teamwork, that very effective relationship within the teaching

community, might be lost as a benefit for the people of this province,

especially for our children. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if this were

to be the case, if this particular aspect were to go ahead, we would

need to ask ourselves, with regard to the relationship between

principals and teachers within that teaching team, if it is not true

that historically it has worked well, if we don't really think that it

will result in a downgrading of services, and also: what does this kind

of precipitate action, which seems to have no valid reason, teach our

children?

[4:15]

This relationship has also been a relationship that has worked

between the principal and the support staff. We need to ask ourselves,

with regard to the secretarial staff and caretakers in schools, if it

has not worked well historically, and if that will not result in the

downgrading of services at that level of the educational institution.

Again, what does that process say to our children?

Thirdly,

we have to recall the relationship between principals and students, and

recognize that very often, when students have been required to have the

special attention of a principal because of something that has happened

that is perhaps in the nature of a crisis within a school, it has been

tremendously important for that student to be able to be ministered to

by someone who has that teaching knowledge, that knowledge of the

teaching profession, that educational philosophy and that kind of

experience. I don't think there is any substitute for that kind of

experience, in terms of the way in which administration would be

handled within schools. The fact is that it has been working well; it

should continue to work well. There is no need to take this type of

measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to some

comments that have been made as the debate has continued. I'd like to

refer to comments of our Premier that were referred to in an

article in

the Province on April 29. The

article states:

"He said yesterday's one-day walkout is the kind of

thing the proposed Teaching Profession Act is designed to stop. 'If

anyone had any doubts that we need the legislation, I think they're

convinced,' said Vander Zalm" — pardon me, the Premier. "'With a

good College of Teachers, this will not be a problem any longer.' An

illegal strike would be considered 'unprofessional conduct' under the

new act and leave teachers open to disciplinary action, he said."

I think

this reveals something that underlies a real concern about this whole

approach, this whole process and the attitude behind the process. The

Premier uses the terms "illegal strike" and "unprofessional conduct."

The Premier is a person whose words are taken much more seriously in

many circumstances than the words of any people in the province, but

those words belie the fact that he has prejudged what, by any standard

of fairness, should be left to some other kind of judgment process.

This shows that he has already looked at actions which might in some

hypothetical future situation be actions that would need to be looked

at. But he has already presented what would be his judgment on those

actions, and I think . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : It's not a judgment.

MR. CASHORE :

Well, it is a judgment, in terms of him having stated an opinion as a

very influential person in this province, and I think that it's a very

sad thing that such a comment would be made when one is arguing that

this is going to be a fair process. That fairness has to be emphasized

as a matter of very real concern in this situation. I think this

demonstrates just how dangerous and destructive this legislation can be.

I would

like to refer to the debate that was conducted in this House last

Friday and to comment on some of the remarks made by the member for

Columbia River (Mr. Crandall). I would like to say that I don't want to

twist the remarks. These were remarks that were in the Blues. I don't

have a copy of Hansard yet, so I'm going to read from the Blues. I would ask the Minister of Education if he finds reading from Hansard

to be twisting it. I will be making my own comment and giving my own

interpretation afterwards — and that's fair if you look upon that

as twisting, just as I might look upon it as twisting when you make

fair comment — but these are the words that are in Hansard . He states that . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : That's selective.

MR. CASHORE : Yes, it is selective; that is correct. That's a time-honoured process in these hallowed halls. It's selective.

The

member for Columbia River stated: "...teachers' unions across Canada

are watching what's happening in B.C. I think it's interesting that so

very many times — and I haven't been in this House very long, but

I've already mentioned this before — British Columbia leads the

way in Canada." Then I'm skipping a few sentences here, and then

[ Page 948 ]

goes on to say: "Of course, I point especially to the good management

legislation that was introduced in 1983 by the previous government,

which has now been introduced in legislatures and parliaments across

the country." Well, I don't see how he can refer to that as good

legislation in any way, shape or form, and I don't see what evidence he

has been able to bring forward that would support that point. I think

we have to ask that member, when he makes a statement like that, if he

could possibly accompany it with some kind of evidence. When he's

saying that B.C. leads the way, well, by whose standards? It seems to

me that the result of that legislation was one of disruption, and that

disruption resulted in the government having the "Let's Talk About

School Work" program, which was not really an attempt to review

education in good faith but was an attempt to deal with the massive

public outcry throughout the province as the public sent a very clear

message to this government that it was completely dissatisfied with the

impacts on education that were being caused by government initiatives

at that time.

Referring to the same speech, the member

states: "It also reminds me of another issue that the previous

government went ahead on, and that was Expo 86. At the beginning, Expo

86 didn't receive provincewide favour, but when it was over we looked

at the bandwagon and saw many familiar faces." Well, that's very

interesting. I'm the first to recognize that Expo did receive

considerable favour and that there were many things about it that were

positive, but it wasn't all positive; we have to be fair and honest

about that. But to compare Expo to education is to be comparing a party

to one of the most important institutions in our society, and it's a

totally inappropriate comparison. I think it's wrong. If you refer to

Expo as a bandwagon, that's fair, but to by analogy make the

implication that education is a matter of getting on board some kind of

bandwagon is to indicate that there's a lacking in awareness of what

the educational enterprise is really about. It's not about bread and

circuses. Education is the future. We have a responsibility to put it

up there in terms of its very important place within our society. It's

the future of our children. Expo is over; the party's over; it's time

to call it a day. But it's not a time to call it a day on education.

Reading further in the same speech, the hon. member stated:

"The point has been raised in some circles that the BCTF

was already disciplining its teachers. I want you to know that's not the

perception across this province. It's not the perception, at least, that

that job was being done well. That job will be done in a much better manner

in the future by the College of Teachers. The public doesn't understand

why the small percentage of teachers who are not doing a good job remain in

our system. They also don't understand why a teacher who is not competent

can move from district to district and stay in the system in the province."

Mr.

Speaker, that shows that that member does not know the basics of how

the system works. I believe that has been in evidence in much of the

comments by government members; that is, that responsibility is a

responsibility of school boards. I think the member should read the

School Act. I don't think it is fair for him to place that kind of

blame on the BCTF; it's simply an unfair statement and incorrect. I

think that he should take note of that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to take

part in the debate on

Bill 20 and to look at some of the things that have happened since the

bill was introduced.

I must say in looking at what has

happened that probably the most unfortunate decision made up until now,

certainly in my view, is the decision of the hierarchy of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation to request their members to work to rule. I think

it is unfortunate, particularly in view of the fact that we in this

province certainly recognize the tremendous job that teachers have done

in our province in the area of public service.

I know in my

community we have a tremendous number of teachers very active in the

community and in public affairs, community affairs, coaching hockey

teams, basketball teams, various sports functions and things of that

nature. It is very unfortunate that the very powerful organization, the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, would request their members to work to rule,

which would mean putting in minimal service for the taxpayers and for

the students within our system. I think it is regretful.

can say in all sincerity that I have been involved in management and

labour since I was a very young man. During my tenure in the trade

union movement in the province, as a shop steward and on the plant

committee and as a staff member for some six and a half years, never

once in my lifetime did I ever ask to be or was I a part of a group who

worked to rule.

I think it is a dastardly act to encourage

a workforce to impede a system at the expense of our children in

particular, Mr. Speaker, and work to rule. I think it borders on being

cowardly to pick up a full paycheque and remain on full payroll and

only put in the very basic minimum of service. I would appeal to the

teachers throughout the province to ignore this request of the

hierarchy of the BCTF. Go out and give it your best.

The

school term is at a very crucial point. The middle of May is a very

crucial time in working towards the final exams and graduation. I would

appeal to the teachers throughout British Columbia to ignore this edict

of the hierarchy of the BCTF. Go out there and give it your best effort

between now and the end of June. Let's get on with the job of educating

the children to the utmost of our ability. I might add that I am

convinced that the teachers throughout the province will indeed

cooperate with the system and the school boards and see that full

graduation ceremonies are indeed held and do take place.

suppose there are certain clauses that could be argued, but by and

large, the bill does give the teachers and the Teachers' Federation

precisely what they were asking for. Apparently the majority wanted the

right to free collective bargaining; they have that. They wanted the

right to strike, and they have that.

As far as the division

of the jurisdiction of the BCTF into two groups, a trade union and a

college, I would suggest that if the rank-and-file teachers throughout

British Columbia so choose, in many instances the same people will be

serving to represent them at the collective bargaining table as are

serving them in the college. This could well take place, and it will be

the democratic free choice of the members throughout British Columbia

to make those types of decisions.

From

my experience as a school board representative for my community for

some five years — three years of those five as the chairman —

I can say that I indeed hail and welcome the division of the college

from the union in licensing and disciplining teachers throughout the

province. I think it's the right way to go. I don't think the union

should have the

[ Page 949 ]

right

to lay ethics charges against their members. I believe that is properly

the responsibility of, and a job for, the proposed college, and I

support the minister 100 percent in what he's doing there. Members

opposite have made reference to the fact that the government is

controlling the structure. I suggest that if they look at many other

areas — indeed, at the trade union movement in general — they

will find that yes, the government does control the structure here, but

it also controls the structure of many organizations and boards

throughout the province.

[4:30]

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope to see the work-to-rule edict ignored.

It's not the way to go. I don't think it's the manly way to approach

these types of problems. If you're going to have a strike and a fight

on the picket line, then go whole hog. One of my colleagues suggests

that the "manly" remark is sexist; if anybody should take it that way,

I would withdraw. Maybe it's a "peopley" situation, or "personly."

Certainly this business of working to rule is outdated. It's not

equitable. If management and labour want to have a fight, let's do it

on the picket line, when the management group is being injured and the

workers are losing their pay in full. I think that's where the fight

should take place.

If there's going to be a fight in the

future, do it on the picket line, but let's not continue this suggested

work to rule. It sits very badly with me, and I can tell you that it

sits badly with a lot of my constituents. I've had a lot of remarks

from my constituents — parents in particular — about things

that are going on in the classroom, school time that's being taken up

by teachers lecturing the class about Bill 20. I suggest that the

teachers would be well advised to do their politicking on their own

time — at their meetings, off school time. The parents would be

much happier if politics were left out of the schoolroom and the

work-to-rule edict was removed. If there's to be a battle, have the

battle out on the picket line; let's quit using children as pawns in

the battle that's going on right now. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what

society would be like if, every time a level of government — whether municipal, provincial or federal —

did something we weren't happy with, if we all started to work to rule.

It would be a wonderful country with everybody going at one-third their

normal pace by working to rule. I can name no other organization in the

province in the last ten years — and I would challenge anybody in this House to name one —

other than the B.C. Teachers' Federation that has enacted this work to

rule. I've got to tell you something else, Mr. Speaker: this

work-to-rule nuisance that we've had to put up with in the education

system in British Columbia is the only reason I'm supporting this bill

and the teachers' right to strike. This work to rule has been so

frustrating for trustees trying to educate the kids, trying to run

school board affairs, that they've just given up and said: "Look, we'd

rather have the right to strike and the right to lock out. Let's clear

the deck once a year, rather than have to put up with this nuisance

work-to-rule business on frequent occasions."

conclusion, let's get on with the job. Let's complete second reading

and get to committee. I would close by saying that I certainly support

Bill 20. There are items in there that are long overdue, and I think

it's going to be a wonderful piece of legislation for the province of

B.C.

MRS. BOONE : Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting

that in his debate on Bill 20, the minister speaking before me did not

mention any aspects of the bill and merely used the time for a tirade

against the BCTF and the teachers in this province. I would far sooner

have heard something positive as to what he thought about the school

system and what he thought about Bill 20 and the actual act and what

happens in this bill.

We've

got a desperate situation, and

there is no doubt about that, as the children in this province are

finding out right now. We had "Let's Talk About Schools" a couple of

years ago, which went around the province and talked about the school

system, talked about what they felt was wrong with the school system

and what they felt should be in the school system and how they felt it

could be improved. One of the things that came out of that talk —

and I am quoting from "Let's Talk About Schools" — is this:

"Respondents

have not called for a dramatic or radical restructuring of the present

system. Rather, they have called for a number of adjustments to

increase the effectiveness of schools and to make them more responsive

to the communities around them . . . people who have participated in

this discussion have emphasized the need for a more cooperative and

collaborative approach to schooling."

That's what this government is failing to realize — that people want cooperation and collaboration on these things.

"Respondents

also acknowledged that many groups and individuals have a legitimate

role to play in framing school policies and directions, and have

pointed to the need for a greater amount of consultation and better

communication throughout the entire system. There is . . . a feeling on

the part of some . . . that the provincial system could be enhanced by

reducing the . . . fractiousness surrounding schooling that has

sometimes divided British Columbians. More generally, there appears to

be an attitude on the part of respondents that a consultative rather

than a confrontational approach will bring about a more smoothly

functioning provincial system."

That, I think, is what we

should be striving towards: a lack of confrontation and more

consultation. That's not what we are getting. It's all very well to say

that we are talking to the teachers right now and that the minister is

changing some of his points of view and that there may be some

amendments coming to the act. The point is that this act was put forth

without consultation. You may have consulted prior to the act, but

nobody saw this act before you put it forth in the form it is in now.

No White Paper was put out; nothing was sent out to the school system;

nothing went out to the school boards to get their input as to what

they felt were the problems and what they felt should be included or

excluded. There may have been some consultation with a select few, and

I am sure that we can find those select few at some point or other over

in the Fraser Institute; however, the general population of the BCTF

did not have consultation on this with the minister.

It's

interesting, because the teachers are an easy target. That's why they

get picked on and have been picked on for the past three or four years.

People like to think that teachers work from nine to three, and they

like to think that they get the summers off and they get the two weeks'

holidays at Christmas and a week's holiday at Easter, and everything is

fine and dandy, and they really don't have to work very many hours.

They remember . . . . We all do this: we remember that poor teacher

that we had or the one that wasn't very good or the one we didn't

like — or the one that didn't like us, maybe. We all remember somebody back there that was not a

[ Page 950 ]

very

good teacher. So we can relate to those things, and when people start

to kick the teachers around a little bit, we say: "Yeah, right, I

remember Mr. So-and-so. He did this to me when I was in school." But

they don't remember the many good teachers that they had or the many

good things that came about as a result of their schooling. So

frequently you'll find that the teachers, as I say, are a very easy

target because people think they're overpaid and underworked, they get

too many holidays and they allow too much to happen in their classroom.

Generally speaking, you can find many people saying those types of

things. So it's an easy and popular thing to do.

However,

teachers over the past few years, and the past few decades actually,

have taken on tremendous jobs. They are now expected to do just about

everything. They educate, they counsel, they even build social lives.

You can see this right now with the students who are protesting because

the teachers have removed themselves from extracurricular activities. I

note with interest that the students out there did not protest and did

not walk out when the teachers took one day off and they were out of

their math and their social studies. There were no protests at that

time. The protests came not when a student couldn't attend his math

class, but when that student could not attend his basketball game or

had his grad ceremonies in jeopardy. There was no move before that on

behalf of the students.

So I think it's rather an

interesting point that people are reacting so strongly now, and are

saying that the teachers are acting against the best interests of the

students and that they're not taking into consideration the students,

when in effect what they're doing is things that are above and beyond

their duty anyway. We've just heard from the other side ten minutes of

calling down the teachers for not doing those things that their jobs do

not ask them to do. I find that interesting, because I don't think you

find too many other professional groups that do above and beyond the

call of duty, and work into their evenings, afternoons and weekends,

and then are called down by their political body when they fail to do

those things.

I find that it's easy to turn the issue

around against teachers too. I remember in '83 when the teachers were

talking about class size and were saying that the class size was too

high, that the reductions in funding for education were going to affect

class size, and that when the classes got larger, the performance of

students and the class situation were not good. However, people didn't

accept that. What they were accused of at that time was that it was

self-interest, that they were only there to save their own jobs, and

that they just wanted fewer children to be bothered with and fewer

children to t