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 11, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1047 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Delisting of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 1047

Funding for the arts. Ms. Edwards –– 1048

Section 88 credits under Forest Act. Mr. Kempf –– 1048

Downie Street Sawmills Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 1048

Royal Inland Hospital therapeutic abortion committee. Mrs. Boone –– 1048

Tabling Documents –– 1049

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage 1049

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Miller

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Marzan

Mr. Lovick

Appendix –– 1073

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two good

friends from Vancouver who are visiting here for the day: Miss Jenny

Fogg, and Ms. Vicki Frimmer. Would you make them welcome, please.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for

Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I would like the House to join me in

welcoming 140 students plus five teachers who are visiting us today

from the largest senior secondary school in Langley, Brookswood

Secondary.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce two friends

and supporters of mine from Prince Rupert: Harry Dhillon and his wife

Rani. They're in the members' gallery. I'd like the House to make them

welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today I have three visitors in the

gallery from the eastern gateway of the Hope-Princeton Highway; from

the town of Princeton, Mayor Gloria Stout and aldermen Randy McLean and

Ron Goodwin. I would ask that the House bid them a warm welcome.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the

House today Pastor Alfred Lennox, who is the director of religious

liberty and public affairs for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in

Abbotsford. I ask the House to welcome Rev. Lennox.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I introduce Mr. Paul Roston, a

Canadian businessman whose residence is now in Santa Barbara,

California. He wanted to see Victoria in the rain, and I would ask the

House to make him welcome.

Oral Questions

DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL

TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Finance. On April 3 the Vancouver Stock Exchange delisted International

Tillex Enterprise. Could the minister advise this House whether or not

he has ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the collapse

of that company?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I notice that in my absence last week the question

was put to the Premier. I must say that on this question it's my perception

that the Vancouver Stock Exchange itself acted quickly, immediately upon their

being made aware of some inconsistencies in the presentation of the financial

data of the firm in question. As a consequence of the question put last week,

I've asked the staff for a more current update, and I've been assured

that that will he provided tomorrow. Sufficient for the moment to say that,

given the history of the matter, I am satisfied that the Vancouver Stock Exchange

board of governors acted responsibly and in accord with their role and mandate.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary on that matter. The minister said

they acted quickly; they waited six months after they received the

December 1985 financial statements before they moved on June 27, 1986.

Is the minister satisfied that as a result of those actions there will

not be a similar situation, and that the Tillex situation was an

isolated incident?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the question as phrased

clearly indicates that the questioner doesn't properly understand the

role of a stock exchange. The role of a stock exchange is not to

protect the interest of one party over the other; it is to provide a

market of exchange. And the market itself is to judge the worth or

otherwise of individual listings. We have ample evidence of stock

exchanges around the world suffering embarrassments as a consequence of

transactions with specific stocks. In that respect, the Vancouver

exchange is not unique.

It would be absurd for anyone to expect that any government,

particularly a free enterprise government such as this one, would

attempt to guarantee investments made in a free market situation such

as a stock exchange. So the question clearly is from the point of view

of not understanding the respective roles. It is proper and appropriate

for government and its agencies to ensure that the investors' interests

are protected to the degree that they can be protected. I'm satisfied,

on the basis of the information provided, that the Vancouver Stock

Exchange monitoring agency itself was internally on to that particular

stock. I think the complete report will be provided tomorrow, and it's

my understanding that when that is provided, you'll be satisfied that

the issues at debate were considered — and gravely considered — by the

board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, the role of the securities exchange

commission in this whole affair. I personally at this point find

nothing to criticize in the actions of either agency. Both of them

clearly perform their duties as they are expected to perform them. At

this point in time, I have no reason to doubt that everybody's

interests, given the nature of the Vancouver stock market, which is....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver stock market

is the world's premier venture capital market. It is world-famous for

being able to provide seed capital and venture capital for most

ventures. It follows that given their dealing with new firms, firms

with no track record, there would have to be some different assessment

of risks than you might experience on a different type of stock

exchange.

[2:15]

We are proud of the role played by the Vancouver Stock Exchange in

providing seed and venture capital in this province, and we will do

everything we can to ensure that its past practices and its past market

segmentization are pursued aggressively by this government.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary. We'll find out over time who understands better the operations of the stock market.

The question to the minister is this: what specific steps has the

minister taken, in light of the Tillex affair, to ensure that the small

investors in that market are protected?

[ Page 1048 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I tried to explain it at some length. Maybe I didn't do it well enough; I'll have another go at it.

It is not the role of a government or a stock exchange governing

body to guarantee the investments of people who choose to play on that

market. That is not the case on the New York Stock Exchange; it is not

the case on the London, Hong Kong, Singapore or Montreal stock

exchanges. I know of no stock exchange that is in a position to provide

any sort of guarantee to those who may wish to play the market.

Vancouver is not unique in that respect.

But more than that, Vancouver is a junior exchange. Now in the

vernacular of the trade, what that means is that you are normally

financing firms and corporations and concepts that have no track record

in terms of earnings. They are basically new, first-time offerings, and

as a consequence, the assessment of the risk factor is one that must be

brought particularly to bear in the case of a junior market. Because of

that, the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange have

adapted and developed a very thorough procedure to ensure that

investors are protected to the maximum extent possible. But it's not

the role of government or any agency of a stock exchange to guarantee

investments. The questioner seems to be expecting that kind of answer;

he will never get it.

FUNDING FOR THE ARTS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture. British Columbia arts organizations and artists

made submissions to the Canada Council last week, in which they

highlighted how this province spends less per capita on arts than any

other province. What steps is the minister taking to rectify this

government's record of ignoring the arts and the contribution they make

to the economic and social well-being of the province?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I'm

pleased to say that the contribution we're making to the arts can

probably be more strongly emphasized by one of your own colleagues. We

were in Prince Rupert on Saturday night, where we had just contributed

$500,000 to the riding of Prince Rupert to help with the arts and

culture, and that's the kind of thing my ministry is doing continually

across the province. We have a tough time in this province competing

with CBC's employment factor in both Toronto and Montreal, and because

of that we can't match up the provincial expenditures.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I believe the figure stands that

British Columbia spends less on the arts than any other province does —

that's per capita. The arts are Canada's eleventh-largest industry.

What study has the minister done on the impact of arts funding on

employment growth, and if any study has been done, would you table that

study in the assembly as it exists?

HON. MR. REID: Yes, in answer to the question, we're

currently doing a further study on the arts funding in the province of

British Columbia, and I will table it in the House when the information

is available.

MS. EDWARDS: With regard to arts and culture, and generally,

has the minister decided that he might refer the issue to one of the

all-party committees that exist? There's the Committee on Tourism and

Environment which might be suggested. Has he decided to refer to a

committee the question of how to better encourage and take advantage of

the activity in the arts?

HON. MR. REID: Well, insofar as the reference to the future

policy of the ministry.... When the information is available and when

we've researched it far enough, we will refer it to the committee if

it's the decision of the House.

SECTION 88 CREDITS UNDER FOREST ACT

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Forests and Lands.

Last week and the week before I questioned the minister with regard to

section 88 of the Forest Act, and rather than answer my question the

minister gave me a lesson on what

section 88 is. Well, I know what

section 88 is; it's what it isn't that I'm concerned with, and it isn't

a benefit to the people of British Columbia.

My question: in light of the fact that multimillions of dollars arc

paid out yearly in the form of

section 88 credits.... There was

$4,064,000 alone to Westar — a company which the minister is very

familiar with, I'm sure — from 1980 to July 1985, enabling them in that

four and a half years to pay a paltry $143,850 to the Crown for the

resource they harvested, compared to the $4,207,666 that they should

have paid. My question to the minister is: has he now decided to do

away with

section 88 of the Forest Act?

HON. MR. PARKER: No.

DOWNIE STREET SAWMILLS LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. In the case of

Downie Street Sawmills, people have been advised that they would have

to do the silvicultural clean-up if they were to take over the licence

with respect to their activities in the Revelstoke region. Could the

minister advise if people have been advised of that in the Westar case

in the northwest of the province, where there were much more serious

problems in terms of non-performance?

HON. MR. PARKER: I haven't heard of anything on Downie

Street, but I would be pleased to look into it and bring a written

reply back to you. Nor do I know of any such direction for the

northwestern portion of the province. I'll look into it and bring that

answer back to you as well.

ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL

THERAPEUTIC ABORIFION COMMITTEE

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Section

251 of the Criminal Code requires that there be a minimum of three

doctors on a therapeutic abortion committee. One of the three doctors

still sitting on the Royal Inland committee has indicated that the

board's new restrictive policy will make it impossible for him to

remain. Does the minister still claim that there is a functioning

committee in Kamloops, and has he decided to take some action to ensure

that the spirit of the Criminal Code is enforced in this province?

[ Page

1049 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not even aware, except from the news media and

now from the member for Prince George North, that in fact one doctor has resigned

from the committee. No information has come to my attention other than through

the news and now through you. However, I'm sure that if that's the case,

they will probably appoint someone else to that committee.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to not be aware

of many things. Is the minister aware that the South Central Union

Board of Health, which is the advisory board for the regional health

unit, decided last Monday to ask the minister to review the degree to

which the situation has affected the delivery of health care in the

region? Has that unit asked you to look into this? Can the minister

confirm that he has had correspondence? Verbal or telephone — I don't

care. Have they contacted the minister with regard to this issue?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, they have not contacted me. I would think

that if there's a problem in the Kamloops hospital, the first person

they would contact, rather than contacting the news, would be the

Minister of Health. I was home all weekend. I was close to the phone. I

got many calls from many people, but not from the Kamloops hospital. It

could have been that it was Mothers' Day and they didn't want to talk

about abortions.

MRS. BOONE: It appears that there's some kind of lack of

communication. I would think that the minister should take it upon

himself to contact the board and the union board of health to find out

what their situation is.

Will the minister take this on his plate to look into the matter and

investigate this issue and not wait for people to come to him? Will you

please look into this issue for the people of the province of B.C., for

the women in Kamloops?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I have been on this same

question now for half a dozen times, maybe more. Something that the

opposition does not understand is that the Minister of Health does not

go around to hospitals checking whether in fact they are doing the

things that hospitals have to do; that, in fact, is the business of the

board and the administrator.

There are roughly 130 hospitals in British Columbia. I do not

contact Vancouver General or St. Paul's and say: "How are you this

morning? How many abortions have you had? Have you had any problems? Is

someone going to resign from your therapeutic abortion committee, or

have you got problems with the nursery this morning?" I don't do that.

I am available; my staff is available. For heaven's sakes, we have

6,900 people working in the ministry, and surely people can contact

someone with any problems they have.

Another thing I must tell you — and I have told you before — is that

the act says that they "may" have an abortion committee and "may" in

fact perform abortions. What do you want me to do?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the rest of the

proposed amendments to Bill 20 and inform members of the House that copies will

be available to them as soon as the Sergeant-at-Arms can distribute them.

Mr. Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library, 1986.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the statement of borrowings, loans and

special payments as required under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the

Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 4.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I wonder if the

minister would care to introduce the officials assisting him with this

debate, that we might make those officials welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, hon. member, with questions on

section 4.

MR. JONES: I would like to welcome those officials, in any event.

section 4, we have a college being established. That college is

going to set standards for the education, professional responsibility

and competence of those members. Through all of these standards, we are

going to ensure that the college encourages professional interest in

those education responsibilities and competence. I think we're all very

interested in these standards, and the standards being established by

the college are going to be a great challenge to that college.

[2:30]

Certainly the responsibility of establishing standards of competence

and professional responsibility, not only for teachers in the public

schools but teachers in the private school system, for principals and

vice-principals, superintendents, directors of instruction, in fact for

all members of the college employed in the public school system.... We

have an incredibly complex job to establish those standards. The

relevant body of knowledge, in terms of the law governing such

standards, goes back to the 1840s in this country and in the United

States, and back to the 1760s in western Europe. While many sections of

this bill are spelled out in great detail, right to the specific day of

the year when elections are to be held, this

section of the bill is

very general and is silent on the question of whether it will take into

account — and how it will take into account — the historical, legal and

philosophical bases for these standards being established in the

teaching profession.

I know these standards are important to the government and to the

Minister of Education, and I'm very anxious to know how the minister

envisions that these standards will be established. Does the college

simply invent these standards? Do they draw from past practice of

history and law? Do they merely propose some and try them on for size,

and see what happens in the courts? I know that the minister, because

he is

[ Page 1050 ]

interested in these standards, will want to

respond. I hope the response isn't merely by saying it's up to the

college to determine what these standards will be, because the

government has the responsibility for creating this college. This

college was not really asked for by anybody in the province. The

minister has the responsibility of drafting regulations to cover this

college; in fact, the minister also approves the bylaws that govern the

college.

As I mentioned, he has spelled out in detail many areas and yet has

given no direction in this area, which I think is one of the major

raison d'etres for the college. Would the minister care to respond to

how he sees these standards being developed — the process and the

government's role in establishing these standards?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, this is a general description

of the object of the college. How they do what the college will do, and

what they do, is specified throughout the legislation. I don't think

there's any intent in this to reinvent every standard that has ever

been set or established. Reading the last part of that, which I would

recommend to the member, it will simply be with that object: to

encourage the professional interests of its members in those matters.

So yes, this is a general statement of the objectives for the college,

which are then subsequently spelled out in the rest of the legislation.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I don't see that the standards for

the education, professional responsibility and competence of teachers

are spelled out. The minister does say it's general. I guess, when

we're looking at this legislation, it's nice to try to get an idea, in

some degree of specificity, of the kind of thing that we're

considering, to understand how this legislation is going to impact on

the teaching profession and on all those who will be members of the

college. And to one of the major sections — to not have a clear idea,

as I don't think we do from reading this bill, of what those standards

will be, by what process they will be established, and what the

criterion used to develop those standards will be.... So I am concerned

that this

section will be approved and we still won't have any idea as

to how those standards will be developed.

We do know, Mr. Chairman, that the standards that will be

established will be done "having regard for the public interest," and

I'm curious about that phrase as well. It's a nice-sounding phrase and

probably an important one, but if it's important to include in this

act, I wonder why we don't see it in the Barristers and Solicitors Act,

the Engineers Act, the Accountants (Certified General) Act, and the

Medical Practitioners Act. If it is an important phrase, and if it is a

standard phrase, then why don't we see it in those acts as well as this

act? When asked this question last Friday, the minister responded by

suggesting that the questioner was planning on removing this amendment

and was suggesting that education has nothing to do with the public

interest, and went on to comment that "gross misconduct" is in the

public interest. I don't think anybody would disagree with that, and I

don't think anybody was suggesting the removal of this section.

My colleague the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was

merely asking why teachers appear to be singled out in the creation of

this legislation and in this particular section. It's not a standard

phrase to include in professional acts. The member for Prince George

North was saying that this

section is not necessarily wrong to be

included in the legislation; it's just different from other acts. The

question was: why are teachers being treated differently than other

professions in the inclusion of the public interest in setting up their

standards?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to read the phrase

and see how it becomes ominous — I really am. You're saying, if it

doesn't have some ominous intent, why is it in here? It simply reads as

it reads,"with regard to the public interest" — an acknowledgment that

there is a public interest associated with education — I can't tell the

member why it is not in every other act in this province. I think it is

important here. As the member says, it's a nice-sounding phrase. It

doesn't spell out here what the public interest is. It simply says:

"keeping in mind the public interest."

The member says it's different. I haven't checked every piece of

legislation in this country or province, so I don't know whether it

ever appears in another act.

I don't see any harm in here. It doesn't say "primarily with the

public interest," but "with regard to the public interest." I read it

in that sense. That's the way it's intended. If the member sees it as

simply a nice-sounding phrase without any legislative teeth, then I

don't see where he has a problem.

MR. JONES: I don't have a problem; I just have a question,

and I think the minister has answered the question. Perhaps the member

for Vancouver South answered the question better: that the government

may do well to include this phrase in all acts governing professions.

Certainly all those professions have an impact on the public, and those

acts should respond to the public interest.

I wasn't suggesting that it was ominous — I was suggesting that it's

strange or unusual to have it in this act and not in the other acts

that I mentioned. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, a better phrasing would be....

It's an education bill and there is mention of the public interest, but

no mention in terms of the objects of the college of promoting the

welfare of students or education in general. It would seem to me that

if we're looking for phrases that would be pertinent to include in this

section of the bill governing the objects, some reference to children

or students or education would be more germane. If the establishment of

this college is really there to improve education or to improve the

learning conditions, then we should find in here some indication of

commitment to that as a goal so the standards should be relevant to the

children of the province and to education.

In reference to the public interest being involved in these

standards, I'm curious to know how that interest is ever going to be

defined. I'm wondering if the college will produce its own

definitions

of what the public interest will be, whether the teaching profession

will do so, or whether the minister, through regulations or through

approval or disapproval of bylaws, will determine that. I'm curious to

know how that public interest is going to be defined.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's interesting that the college is a

group to govern its members in the interests of the students, which to

me are included in the public interest. So it seems that on the one

point you don't want the phrase in there.... To me, "with regard to the

public interest" certainly is applicable to the students. That is part

of the public interest, and I don't think the act needs to define that

— what the public interest is — because it will vary from situation to

situation. I've got a feeling that at the local level,

[ Page 1051 ]

at the provincial level, very often the public interest is made known by the public.

MR. ROSE: That phrase "in the public interest" bothers me somewhat.

AN HON. MEMBER: The local level.

MR. ROSE: No, because of its lack of definition, because that

can really be anything that the minister or the local people or the

college determine the public interest to be. There apparently are no

guidelines or anticipated regulations that might cover the public

interest. The public interest might have to do with overcrowding in the

local school system. The public interest might have to do with the

substandard teaching of a particular teacher. It might have some

connotations for child abuse or any number of things.

It might be in the public interest to remove an oppressive principal

who is.... There are lots of oppressive principles; most of them are in

this bill. But we're past second reading. I wonder if the minister

would consider standing this clause with a view.... And I say this in

all sincerity; I'm not just trying to eat the clock. I know he's an

expert in that himself, but I wonder if he would consider standing the

clause with a view to maybe....

He says it's implicit, and I'm wondering if part of our problem is

that it might be explicit here to give us more of a handle on what is

defined as the public interest. I think it's well known to all of us

that certain acts can be oppressive and can be administered

oppressively. Now there is a provision under the practice

recommendation — I've forgotten its number, but the government House

Leader will tell us — which would give him an opportunity right now, if

it's a serious concern, and it is to me, where perhaps the minister and

his officials might be interested in bringing this back later today or

at some other time. I will guarantee that they will get leave to do

that.

If we get leave to stand this clause, to have a serious look at what

is going on in terms of the definition under

section 4, there might be

more elegant language, more explicit language and better language that

might be put in to save all kinds of confusion later on. Because I can

see the college taking some stand somewhere down the road, and it

covers its stand because it's "in the public interest." I am afraid of

things like that, quite frankly.

It may not be a problem with this minister — and I'm not suggesting

that it will be — but we don't know what's going to happen later on. It

might be a minister from this side of the House — who knows? — who

might have to grapple with this. I'm confident about the people I see

in front of me, whom I know, but some future czar down the road might

take this and use it excessively against what is the perceived interest

of a particular individual in the school system, be it a student, a

trustee or whatever.

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think the public interest is

determined by me, by this government or by, heaven forbid, the other

side; the public interest will be determined by the public. The other

thing I'm a little concerned about is that there seems to be some

reading into this that the minister can direct the college as to what

the public interest will be. I think the point that may have been

missed here is that the college will be run by the teachers, by their

elected representatives; and they will give passing regard, if you

like, to what the public is interested in in this province.

There are many other ways to determine that. When I was a school

principal, the public interest I got was from parents, from the

students, from the community and what they saw as the public interest.

Again, the college will he run by professional teachers who will have

regard to the public interest. In no way could I or my ministry or the

government or anybody say: "We will define the public interest for you."

MR. ROSE: Well, do it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In which situation, of millions?

If the member had been listening, I said that when I was a principal

I determined some of the public interest from my students, from my

staff, from my parents, from the community at large, and that gave me

some indication of what that community saw as the public interest. That

could vary in a 60-mile range. In this case, we're not that specific,

so how could we possibly define the specifics of public interest? All

we're saying is that those people who will be elected by their

colleagues to run the college will, in effect, give some consideration

to the public interest — not mine, yours or anybody else's — as they

see it.

MR. ROSE: I can see now that "It is the object of the college

to establish, having regard to the public interest...." And then it

goes on to list them. So the public interest here, obviously, talks

about the public interest in regard to "standards for the education."

Actually, it's a phrase, really, modifying the things that follow. It

doesn't stand by itself, upon rereading it. It goes on to list them:

"...professional responsibility and competence of its members and

applicants for membership and consistent with that object to encourage

the professional interest of its members in those matters." That part

of it is covered. So I'll agree with the minister on that point.

But the point that was raised by my hon. friend for Burnaby North a

little earlier has not been addressed, in that the college seems to be

doing everything. It has terms of reference for standards, professional

responsibility and competence of its members. It deals with applicants

for membership, whether or not, I assume, they are qualified; and

consistent with that object, to encourage professional interest of its

members — I imagine that's professional development and reading and

keeping up to date, and all that stuff. The member for Burnaby North is

right: there is no mention at all about the public interest in terms of

what the college responsibility is towards the pupils in the public

school system — if any.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour the point too much, but I

really do have difficulty with the question of the public interest, as

a professional planner, because we're supposed to plan in the public

interest. It's a very similar problem. It seems to me, in this kind of

act.... There's a contradiction in the minister's statement. On the one

hand, the minister says that it's not for us to decide what the public

interest is; and on the other hand, he says that it is for the college

to decide what the public interest is.

Quite properly the decision should be left in the hands of the

legislators, who are at least elected by the public at large and not by

a college. It's very difficult to define, but at the

[ Page 1052 ]

same time, if you're going to put it in the act,

then at least there should be some attempt, it seems to me, to put

guidelines or to codify specifically what is intended by the government

with respect to using the term "public interest." In other words, what

you're saying is that by putting it in, you're letting the college

decide how to define the public interest. And it's very difficult to do

at the best of time, but at the very least there should be an attempt.

I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has made a very good

point. If we could stand this section, in seriousness, we could attempt

to come up with a way of defining it a little tighter. It might be

worth trying, at the very least. I just leave that for consideration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to interrupt the debate briefly.

For the information of the committee, the standing order is standing

order 84(2) — and I'd be agreeable to it, if the minister were

agreeable.

But in this case, let me offer some political argument with respect

to the

section itself. Throughout the second reading stage of this

bill, and throughout the committee stage, and of course all the

foofaraw that happened in the press and elsewhere, the government was

accused of being heavy-handed in dictating to the college what we were

going to do. In this case, in

section 4, we clearly state that the

government does not want to be involved in the business of the college;

that in fact it's democratically elected by all members of the college,

and they should have the right to establish what they sense to be

public interest. I think it would be contrary to the interests of all

members of the Legislative Assembly for us to inject ourselves into the

establishment of the public interest and the standards of education, to

inject our opinion to this college. So on the political basis, I would

certainly reject any argument that we stand down for, or in any way try

to modify it or codify it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to ask a question of the minister

about this matter of public interest. In regard to education the

minister's primary responsibility is the interest of students in our

school system. Could the minister please advise us, if there were a

conflict between the college's

interpretation of the public interest

and the minister's understanding or perception of or plan of action for

the public interest, what would prevail in this particular regard?

Given the wide-ranging powers that have been accorded the college in

this bill, how would the minister deal with conflicting views of the

public interest? Would it be his own perception of the public interest,

on behalf of the people of British Columbia, or that of members of the

college, in this loosely defined matter of public interest?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that maybe the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) inadvertently gave me part of the answer to

this, because he mentioned professional planners. I would hope that

they don't plan edifices or communities just for their own interests,

that they would certainly consider the public interest as well. If you

don't have it in your act, as a planner, Mr. Member, I would suggest

that it become paramount that planners should be planning for the

people, not for their own monuments. All we're saying here — and I

would suggest that members undertake a careful reading of this

section

to see what it actually says.... It doesn't say the standards for

education. It says the standards for the education, the professional

responsibility and the competence of its members; and all that is with

regard to the public interest, not their own selfish interest alone.

Here I'm sort of trapped into, I guess, saying something that could be

thrown back at me. If people have no regard for the public interest in

politics, they don't get elected. In this business, if you have no

regard for the public interest, how do you possibly ever expect the

public to support you? So I don't see much of a problem with this.

Somebody mentioned the applicants for membership. Well, if you're

going to deal with the standards, professional competence and

qualifications of members, then you also have to do that with anybody

who applies for membership. Having regard to the public interest, it's

the college that is to do this. Look, if you consider the public

interest.... If the college, whoever the group is, went against the

public interest, then it wouldn't fly.

MR. JONES: The minister keeps suggesting that this side

doesn't want that phrase in there. I think the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), although you've chastised him, said it much

better than I did. It's not that we don't want it in there; but if

we're going to consider this clause by clause, and look at the wording

of legislation that's going to affect the working lives of 30,000 or

40,000 people, then I think we want to be able to appreciate the

meaning with some degree of specificity, and the suggestion of a better

wording — that it might be "in the interests of students" or "of

education" — would give it more meaning and specificity. But when the

minister says that the public interest will be determined by the

public.... I guess, if you want to consider Social Credit governments

getting re-elected. I don't know how well that works in this province.

When I think of the public interest in education, I think

specifically of school trustees, who are the only people elected to

really represent the public interest in education. Those same people,

or a vast majority of them, have considerable reservations about this

legislation. If we're going to look at the public interest in

education, and put this clause in the bill, then I would suggest that

there needs to be some mechanism for public input and public

accountability. There is neither. There's really no method for public

input, in terms of what the standards will be for this college; neither

will there be any public accountability. According to my reading of the

bill, no school trustees are going to be members of this college. I

know that one of the reasons school trustees in this province have

reservations about the legislation is that they have a sincere interest

in education standards, particularly in terms of teacher education, and

they have been omitted.

So I would like to ask the minister, because I really think the

government appointees that the minister and cabinet will be appointing

really represent central authority and don't represent the public

interest.... How, then, if we are going to have the public interest

represented here, are we going to have input and accountability in

terms of the public interest?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member, I believe, has been a teacher

and a trustee, and should be well aware of the ample opportunity for

input that the public has in both cases, how the public interest can be

served, and the accountability that is there in various ways. I

suppose, in looking at it another way, that if the member says.... And

I hope he will apologize to all council members, MLAs and others for

[ Page

1053 ]

saying the only people who represent the public interest are school trustees.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know you perhaps didn't mean it in that

context, but certainly there are others. If that is the case, if you

accept that in education the trustees are the ones, then I would be

sure that the college is going to have to set standards — professional

competence, etc. — by which school boards will hire. That gives you a

fair degree of input.

[3:00]

MR. JONES: Well, if there was any misunderstanding of my

statement about school trustees, I would like the opportunity to

clarify that. My point was that school trustees are the only people in

this province who are elected by the general public to represent the

public interest in education. Certainly the government of the day has

that responsibility, but they have many other responsibilities. School

trustees are the only elected officials who specifically represent

education and the public in education, and that was my point there.

I don't see — and I don't think the minister clarified it for me —

how school trustees are going to have any input into the college. It

seems to me that the college is the province of two bodies: the members

of the college and the government. The government does reserve the

right to create regulations to the act, to approve the bylaws of this

act and certainly to spell out the operations in this act. So I think

it's the government and the members of the college who are going to

have input, certainly not the public, and certainly not the school

trustees.

Because we haven't had a college before, I don't see how the

minister can suggest to me that I would understand how a school trustee

would have input into the college. The college is the government's

creation, and I really don't see how they are going to be accountable

to the public or how there's going to be input in terms of the public

interest.

The last phrase in this section, Mr. Chairman, suggests that we do

these things — that we establish these standards of education of

members, professional responsibility of members and competence of

members — in the public interest, and also that we encourage the

profession to have professional interest in these matters. I don't see

anything wrong with this statement either. It's just that I do have one

concern, in that again, in terms of duplication of service, there is an

organization in this province which for many years has done that job,

has encouraged the professional interest of its members. I know the

minister is very familiar with the professional development work done

by that organization, and I'm wondering if it is the intention of the

minister that this college will replicate what that organization is

already doing. Are we creating a competitive organization by the

establishment of this college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how much more I can say

on the first part, and now I think the member has me puzzling about

what the concern is in the latter part. There are further sections

in the bill that deal with the permissive right of the college to

engage in professional development; all it a says is "to encourage the

professional interest of its members." Just a bland statement — again,

nothing ominous.

Section 4 approved on division.

section 5.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, just a slight diversion here. he

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) was asking about he advisers

behind you. It's been the practice in the past for ministers to

introduce their advisers. That was nothing more ominous than that. I

wonder if the minister would care to do it. I happen to know at least

one of them personally, and perhaps it would be nice to know that these

people actually do have names and are not just faceless bureaucrats.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the House Leader of the opposition

for giving this wonderful opportunity to me to introduce my assistant

deputy minister, Jack Fleming, and Cliff Watt, and to also tell the

House of how diligently and how valiantly these people have worked in

order to bring these amendments forward as quickly as possible, and how

competent and knowledgeable they are in advising me in this

legislation. Did you get the names?

MR. ROSE: No, I missed them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Jack Fleming and Cliff Watt. Cliff Watt is a legal-trained person, and Jack Fleming is an expert on education and legalities.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I hope that

Mr. Watt is helping you on the revisions and wasn't responsible for the

first draft, because in that event you might wish to....

Anyway, I am glad that the minister has brought his officials here

to be with us today. I am acquainted with Mr. Fleming from years gone

by and past wars. It is nice to be ere with these two estimable

gentlemen to help the minister lean up his act. With that, I will

proceed with my little

section of the business of the council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was hoping you'd say that.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is well known that it s

difficult, really, to be very positive in criticizing or suggesting or

amending something that you don't agree with in the first place.

However, as my hon. friend over there would be leased to point out in a

hurry, we've had the debate on approval in principle. Unfortunately,

when you are dealing with it clause by clause, it sounds a lot like you

are nitpicking, and perhaps there are some times when that could be a

just criticism. I hope not, because it is not our intention to nitpick

about this legislation. We are opposed to it, but we know the movement

is in favour of it, and they are determined to push it through. The

question is: are we doing our jobs collectively n this side of the

House if we do not seek every avenue to clarify and to amplify and

elucidate on the various sections and their possible implications?

Their possible implications e just that, because we really don't know,

since we haven't ad a chance to try the legislation out.

The council is something that has not been a factor in any jurisdiction in Canada that we know about. The minister has

[ Page 1054 ]

got an amendment before us which essentially

removes his power to appoint members of the first council. We will be

dealing with this same subject matter later, in

section 9, Mr.

Chairman, so I would invite you to be very patient with us, because

sometimes when you are dealing with one clause and confine yourself to

one clause — as you well know, because you are a learned and very

experienced member of this assembly — sometimes the implication of one

clause dovetails with something else. It is very difficult to be just

on one clause alone.

Subsection (1) says that there are going to be 15 zones. Some other

people are going to have some suggestions about zones and their

balance. Certainly they are geographic in nature, but they are not

equal in terms of one person, one vote. My friend from Vancouver East,

I understand, has got some serious concerns about the proportion or

weight to that whole Vancouver district and its teachers and their one

appointee to the council. There may be similar anomalies or lack of

equities with some of the others. I haven't had an opportunity to give

a head count on them and the number of teachers with the power to elect

a college member, because I just simply haven't done the mathematics.

But I think that what we should do in this business of the college — if

we've got to have it — is do the same thing we were attempting to do, I

hope, with the new redistribution of the provincial House so that there

would be, by and large, so far as it is possible and taking some

reasonable look at geography, one person having one vote, in terms of

electing an MLA. You know yourself, Mr. Chairman, how skewed and

distorted an election campaign and its results can be if you do not

have essentially one person, one vote. This House is a perfect example

of how that has happened. I don't know who did the last redistribution,

but I think his name was Mr. Mander; I'm not sure if his first name was

Gerry.

So I would like to ask some questions, but that is the general

question about the zones. If we have to have a college and have to have

each college member in that zone electing one member, so far as

possible mathematically these individuals should be elected on the

basis of one person, one vote, and there should not be great weight

given to some areas and far less weight given to others. I can think of

all kinds of suspicious things I could say about why that might or

might not happen, but I won't say that.

Now there are some other questions here. I'd like to know the

distinction between the designation of "persons" under 5(1)(

b) and 5

(1)(c), and "members," mentioned in the amendment that the minister has

proposed. So we've got persons being appointed, and persons being

appointed, but this amendment removes the power of the minister to

appoint the members. Now "members" is used in other places as well.

What is it? Is there any distinction between persons and members? Are

these "persons" persons other than college members? Is that why that

designation is used?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, that is correct; these can be other

than college members. As I think I indicated, the intent of the

legislation was to make room for possible lay representation and

possibly representation from the ministry in clause (c). Clause (d), of

course, is spelled out — that is to represent the teacher-training

institutes of the province and most of these people who do get

together. So yes, that was the intent.

As far as the zones are concerned — and I think the member indicated

that there would be further discussion on that — I know of no way in

this province, with its great geographic diversity and its pockets of

population and that sort of thing, to come up with any one system that

gives one member one vote. I don't think it's possible.

If the member would look at the zones as they were distributed, a

sincere attempt has been made to allow representation by areas that are

heavily populated where you have fewer districts involved and then to

try to make some geographic sense out of some of the others. It's going

to be difficult in any zones. But even if you set up 50 or 70 zones, we

have 75 school districts in this province, and every time we come up to

a finance formula or any way of trying to deal equitably with them to

account for everything, it is virtually impossible.

It's a sincere attempt to borrow from existing practice, expanded

somewhat to put them in what we considered to be logical groups that

can represent the members and also represent all of the areas concerned.

MR. ROSE: I would be the first one to admit that we shouldn't

expect perfection in these matters, especially from the minister,

involved as he is in this very difficult problem. We don't expect that,

but there should be perhaps a limit placed on tolerance in terms of say

80 percent or more than that — 20 percent tolerance one way or the

other — based on the number of people in the sum total of some

districts.

For instance, we have the same problem in Canada. We've got four MPs

from the little province of Prince Edward Island. My suggestion to you,

if you've got some over — like four to one in terms of Vancouver

electing one member compared to the average.... If you have that, why

don't you give Vancouver two or three members? That's the easy way to

do it. It isn't one district, one vote; never mind the minister. You

represent people. You're not representing lakes or rivers or mountains

or mountain goats.

It's quite easy to do, I think, rather than the finance formula,

which is difficult. We've gone all through the business of the finance

formula imposed in 1983, and subsequently revised and revised — perhaps

not often enough. But we do know that there is a possibility that you

can do what we've done in the federal Parliament, and rather than

reduce Prince Edward Island, we've added people elsewhere. That's a

possibility, and the minister might be interested in considering that.

Another puzzling aspect of this particular clause, Mr. Chairman, is

the fact that there's a distinction made by members appointed lay

people — and I want to come back to that in a little while — those

people appointed by the minister, and those people appointed to the

college board or college council by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I wonder if the minister could tell us the reason for that. I don't

have any difficulty with the business from the three teacher-training

institutions, but I do have a difficulty distinguishing the reason for

two to be done by the ministry or the minister and two by the cabinet.

[3:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we must make

efforts to represent people, but the way the population in this

province distributes itself, out of any group of ten you could probably

have nine from the lower mainland and one or none from the rest of the

province, if you go strictly rep by pop. So we always make compromises

in that regard with trying to do the best possible job.

[ Page

1055 ]

The distinction between those appointed by

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and two appointed by the Minister of

Education.... Perhaps it's an interest in not turning over all of the

power to cabinet — that the minister would like to have some say in

someone from the ministry perhaps being on the council. It was to give

two options, really. I suppose the minister could simply name two and

have the Lieutenant-Governor appoint them, but there is no intent other

than to give two options rather than just one.

MR. ROSE: The minister mentioned in an earlier response that

he felt the reason to have appointees was to have lay people on the

council. I assume if you have lay people on the council, that's

designed to protect the public interest. Is that what the minister

suggested a little while ago? Lay representation — the two, two and

one. The two by the ministry and the two by the cabinet may not be

knowledgeable or else qualified or in any other way acquainted with

education, other than the fact that they went to school maybe even to

public school.

I'd like to know whether the minister would confirm that that's what

he said: it was to give lay representation on the council. And I'd like

to ask him why he's done that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, the lay person in the broadest sense in

that people.... It opens the opportunity for people to be appointed who

are not necessarily teachers or professional educators in the province.

They could be from the business community; they could be representing

the home-and-school; they could be representing some other groups that

have a very direct interest in education. I would hope that neither the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council nor the minister would appoint people

who know nothing about education. I think we have to have a little bit

of faith in that regard.

Sometimes a fresh idea from someone who didn't necessarily go

through the same school may not be harmful. Partly we're borrowing this

from other groups, the Law Society and other professional societies

that have actually found it to their benefit to have input other than

from the in-group, if you like.

MR. ROSE: I am acquainted with the fact that some

professional groups have invited lay people to their highest bodies,

their colleges if you like. Question number one: does the minister know

of any of those colleges that were established without the approval of

the profession? Number two: does the minister know of any instance

where the lay membership on the professional governing body of a

profession — the college — has a membership of non-members of the

college of 25 percent?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I'm sorry, I don't have the percentages

of all the other groups that have this. You might say 20 percent, if

you want to argue it technically, in that one of the persons is from

the educational institutions. I can't tell the member who, for

instance, are the two people I would appoint. Neither can the member

say that I wouldn't discuss it with the rest of the council beforehand.

It's open to any minister to do that.

MR. ROSE: If the minister wants to be technical, he used some

math. You could say five out of 15 — that a third of them are. It

depends on what your base is, according to the math that I took. But

that's nitpicking; that's quibbling. It's five and 15, so one-third of

them, really.

I want to know if the minister does intend to appoint people from

the home-and-school and other people connected with education — at

least a parent or a trustee or something else. Because it doesn't

really say — the intent of the minister in terms of the appointment to

that college, whether that person maybe could be the chairman of the

B.C. School Trustees' Association for a particular year.... That might

be a sensible appointment. It might be the head of the teachers' union;

that might be a useful person to co-opt onto that college.

Does the minister want to answer that question? Has he specified?

Will he tell the House whom he intends to appoint? I don't mean to name

the person. A representative of an educational interest group....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't say that I intend to.... What I

believe I said in my opening remarks in this debate — which is

completely out of order, since we're discussing the amendment;

nevertheless, maybe we can cover more territory.... It leaves the door

open to provide.... I used a couple of examples. No decisions have been

made, and presumably Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments would

have to be discussed with cabinet — I don't have the full say on those.

What I did indicate was that the two persons appointed by the

minister.... It could be a lawyer. It could be someone who could be

helpful — an accountant, something of that nature. It could even be a

musician, to entertain them. We're leaving the door open for these four

appointments.

MR. ROSE: I want to know if the government House Leader, as a

musician, would be eligible for an appointment while he's a cabinet

minister. I don't think so.

I wanted to know whether the person nominated by the three deans of

education will automatically be chosen by the minister. Or will that

person who fills that job from the various teacher-training

institutions...? Will the minister have a final say from a list? Or is

he going to take the precise nominee of the three deans?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Speaking of precise, the legislation reads,

to me, that they shall be nominated by the three deans of education and

appointed by the minister. Wherever you put the emphasis, it still

reads the same way. Yes, the minister will have to appoint the member

that they nominate. It says that, and I couldn't go against the

legislation.

MR. ROSE: I think that this is, if not my terminal question,

then very close to it. There are fixed terms for the people elected to

the college, and yet those appointed by the minister are at pleasure —

in other words, without term. I wonder if the minister could tell us

why there is a difference.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Could you ask another question while I look that one up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe the opposition House Leader could carry on.

MR. ROSE: I was attempting to carry on, but I sort of stopped

in full flight here because I'm waiting for the minister. Perhaps we

could declare a five-minute recess.

[ Page 1056 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could take wing again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a good idea, Mr. Chairman.

Inasmuch as we've discussed

section 5,

section 9 and the schedule, when

we should really have been discussing the amendment, maybe we could

pass the amendment first and wait for

section 5, when the member's

question would be in order.

MR. ROSE: If you don't move the amendment, I don't see how we can discuss anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. ROSE: Wait a minute. We're waiting for the minister's

answer — between business and pleasure. We want to know why it's

election for two-year terms for some people and at pleasure for others.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I was looking for somewhere

where it might specify the end of the appointment term. I don't see

that; I don't recall it. The election periods are specified very

definitely. The others, I would imagine, can be appointed at any time,

to run from the time appointed until unappointed. I don't see a

particular problem with it, because the 15 members are in charge.

MR. ROSE: Our concern about this college is that it not

become a provincial form of the senate in Ottawa, where you can stay in

solitude and tranquility until you're age 70.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to go?

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I have not been offered that

chance, but if the hon. A-G would care to nominate me, I would

certainly consider it.

MR. JONES: I just thought the Chairman might appreciate a

comment on the amendment. As I understand it, the amendment removes

from the minister the power to appoint the first council and, in the

process, I think allays some of the fears that people in the province

had about the college. Although I think there is not a lot of

acceptance in the public of the legislation, I think this amendment

does make the legislation more acceptable, even though it's still not

considered acceptable by the vast majority of the people that it

affects. So my comment to the minister is to commend him for this

amendment, which I imagine will be approved shortly.

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

MR. JONES: Just one short comment. The

section does point out

that five members will be appointed by the minister. There seems to be

some debate — and the government House Leader has mentioned this as

well — that it really is up to the teaching profession to develop this

college and to have it unfold as they would see fit. However, we do see

five members appointed by the government, and I think we all accept

that government appointees are generally supportive of the government,

and not the kind of people who stand up and criticize the government.

So we have five government appointees, at least four of whom I think

will be supportive of the government in this process. We also have the

government setting up the act and in some areas prescribing tremendous

detail as to how this act operates. We do see the government approving

the bylaws of this act and also passing regulations governing this act.

So under the council, I think we see a tremendous amount of influence being exerted by the government through their appointees.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

MR. CLARK: I have a few questions on zones. Maybe I could

begin by asking the minister if he could advise the House of the number

of teachers in each of the zones created by this section.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose we could quickly add up the

teachers who are actually employed by each school district in each of

those zones, and that gives us that. But it doesn't give us a complete

membership list, in that other members who hold teaching certificates

can also qualify, and that is the intent of the electoral commission

that will be set up here to determine the total number of members. I

can assure the member that we're well aware that these zones aren't

equal in numbers, nor do I think there's any way of making them equal

in numbers without creating another problem: that of virtually removing

representation from the rest of the province.

MR. CLARK: I understand that it's difficult to make it equal,

but we have certainly some experience in electoral politics as to how

the different rules attempt to make it more equal. One of them is

prescribed in almost all legislation in democracies, and that's plus or

minus 20 percent. The information I have on some of the zones shows

really quite staggering differences. For example, employed by the

Vancouver School Board — that's partly why I'm so concerned — are about

3,700 teachers; employed by West Kootenay, 880 teachers. So Vancouver,

with four times the number of teachers as West Kootenay, has exactly

the same representation on the council of the College of Teachers.

Albeit that you can't make it equal, it seems to me that that

discrepancy can't be justified. Maybe the minister could attempt to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sure we can go around this

indefinitely. I don't know how you'd ever come up with anything

equitable in terms of numbers alone.

It would seem to me that another factor is also operating here: that

if a person represents a group that is an entity, in a sense, and meets

together and that sort of thing, they have a much better chance to

represent that whole group than if they're representing.... You could

take another example, say of the south coast, and try to get all of

those people together to be represented; so they still don't have the

same opportunities of a representation in the larger, more concentrated

areas. I suppose my concern doesn't run quite as strongly as the

member's, that in this case they will be representing votes. They'll be

the representative for the professional views of the members in that

area.

[ Page 1057 ]

MR. CLARK: Except that we have a difference of opinion. It

seems to me, though, that there could be some general guideline. In

electoral politics it's plus or minus 20 percent, to take into account

geographic factors; here, it's 400 percent. It just seems to me that

there might be some general guideline to account for changes, because

over time, Surrey, for example, and suburban areas are perhaps going to

have more teachers. So if there was some guideline within the act that

attempted to rationalize why there's a difference this dramatic, I

think I'd be happier.

I don't want to stray into other sections of the act, because I know

that's not allowed, and the Chairman will cut me off. But I would like

to say that I have a real concern, because I think this problem of

unequal representation — I think it's a problem; the minister doesn't —

is compounded by other sections of the act; that is that where the

person's not working but holds a certificate in the college, he or she

votes in the place where that person resides. It's logical — and I

think will empirically be home out — that many of the people live in

Vancouver. In other words, if you get laid off in some small town in

the north, most of those teachers will come to the lower mainland to

find other kinds of work, but they still may hold a valid certificate.

I know personally, for example, quite a number of people who hold

teaching certificates who are no longer working in that profession

because of governmental policies, among other things, and are in other

endeavours. So they, then, will be voting in Vancouver, under this

legislation. That means that we not only have this 400 percent

difference between the smallest and the largest, but the largest will

in fact be larger — and quite dramatically larger, I suspect. It's a

bit worrisome that we haven't.... The minister, when I asked if he

could advise the House how many teachers, didn't answer. I'm just

operating from my own knowledge, not from any empirical basis. If that

empirical work were done, it would be useful if it were done ahead of

time, before he decided on his own, so that we could see that in fact

this 400 percent would be larger.

Zones are set out, as I understand it, in both the Barristers and

Solicitors Act and the Medical Practitioners Act. But in these cases,

zones with larger numbers of lawyers or doctors elect larger numbers of

representatives to their respective councils; that's how these other

two bodies operate. Can the minister advise the House if there was any

consideration that, given these dramatic differences...? You could

still have the same zones, but in fact say — and quite properly — that

Vancouver would then elect two, as opposed to electing one, which is

how the lawyers and, as I understand it, the doctors operate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 6, the member for Vancouver East continues.

MR. CLARK: So I guess there's no consideration given to that kind of approach, which the other professions use.

Under the Pharmacists Act, the question of dividing the province

into electoral zones was left entirely to the College of Pharmacists —

another option that the minister could have pursued. But he didn't

pursue it in this case, which is odd as well. The Barristers and

Solicitors Act, the Medical Practitioners Act and the Pharmacists Act

each have provisions for their college to alter its own electoral

zones. Maybe the minister could advise the House why the government has

decided to entrench the zones set out in the

schedule in the

legislation, without any provision — it appears to me, anyway — for

changing them, except by further legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think if the member wants to do a quick

survey, he will find that the metropolitan Vancouver area has six

representatives, in effect, out of the 15. If you had two or three from

the Island, it leaves very little, really, for the rest of the

province. The zones are large out there. So I think the representation

has been done as well as possible.

I think the member had another question there. Or were you just killing time?

MR. CLARK: I had a question about how these get amended. It

appears to me that these are legislated zones, and they have to be

changed by legislation. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose, if in future there's a change

and there are recommendations that come forward for amendments that

make sense, they would be acceptable. We had to come up with something.

We also knew there had been zones that the B CTF and others had or had

not followed, and as far as zonal negotiations were concerned, there

were about 13 zones in the province. They geographically made it fairly

difficult, so that was expanded to 15 zones. I don't know; one of the

early recommendations of the council may be that there should be more

representation — more zones — and then they would bring that forward

and make their case.

MR. CLARK: I won't belabour it. This is my last speech on the

subject. But I want to make it a real concern, because the minister has

in effect implied that the homework wasn't done. He can't tell us how

many nomeaching people holding certificates will be voting in which

zone. So decisions were made to carve up the province into zones, with

wildly different numbers of teachers working, and not knowing how many

are not working in those zones, and then he says they can't be changed

except by legislation. So I think that the homework wasn't done; and if

it wasn't done, at the very least this could have said that the college

could have had the power to determine the change of the zones, rather

than coming back with legislation. I think these wildly different

discrepancies are going to be exacerbated by the fact that people can

vote in areas where they're living and not working. I think it's going

to be a serious problem, and we'll probably see some amendments coming

fairly quickly.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, my concern is on the zones, too. I

suppose my concerns reflect those of rural members, and I know that the

minister could appreciate that. I can see some difficulty with

communication just in terms of the sheer geography, the area, that has

to be dealt with in some of the zones. To deal, for example, with my

own area, the Queen Charlotte Islands-Prince Rupert-Nishga area, at

most times of the year it's extremely difficult to travel; it's not in

some sense a geographic community of interest.

I'm just wondering what consideration went into the actual blocking

out of the zones. Is 15 a magic number, or was it deemed that 15 was

more workable, or that more people would be less workable? I'm just

wondering if the minister could elaborate, because I think that there

could be some potential problems in the rural regions, given the lack

of community of interest over such a wide geographic area.

[ Page 1058 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that a lot

of consideration went into trying to come up with a balance between a

reasonably sized working executive council as compared to trying to get

every district.... For instance you could automatically go to 75

council members, one for each school district, and you would certainly

not even have as good a rep-by-population situation as you have here.

So you have that extreme. You could have two for each district and go

to even wider extremes.

This is hopefully a working executive council that will be

representing the members on professional standards, qualifications and

that sort of thing. They are not going to be doing everything and

anything for the teachers. I think we have to clarify that. They're

really something such as the Law Society or the Association of

Professional Engineers or that sort of thing has. They are a group that

deals with the professional qualification standards of teachers.

It's somewhat arbitrary, yes, but we did look at the numbers and the

geography and tried to come up with something that is workable. I don't

know, quite frankly, how you could get equitable representation

considering population at all for, say, areas like the Atlin-Prince

Rupert-Kitimat area or the Peace River-Fort Nelson area. It has been

tried in so many ways. There is absolutely no way that you can have

someone that can cover that. And yet I know, when it comes to

discussion about MLAs, how we are all considered equal in constituency

allowances. It's all considered fair, isn't it? That member knows very

well. The people in the Vancouver area consider a travel allowance as

very fair because it makes it very equitable, and they have a

constituency of four square miles where I've got one of 64,000 square

miles. So, yes, I can appreciate the problem.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the minister's remarks, and I know that

we will jointly convey those to people who make decisions about some of the

things that the minister mentioned, but — and correct me if I'm off the

clause — given the difficulties, which I think the minister does appreciate,

I'm wondering whether or not consideration has been given or could be given

under this

section to a regional branch, if you like. I can foresee the difficulty

of a representative from the larger geographic areas. In some sense, this person

will require time off from normal teaching duties, presuming that he is a teacher,

and that is an additional cost. Whether or not there could be a regional branch

of the college without creating an additional level of bureaucracy, but some

mechanism so that these divergent interests can be communicated to this one

person, who is supposed to represent the interests of the people in his or her

district.... The minister correctly pointed out that rural members, who

deal in much smaller areas, have difficulties in doing that. Is that precluded

in this section, or is it dealt with in some other section? Or is it something

that the college itself can deal with in terms of making recommendations for

changes to the legislation?

[3:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, so much of it is speculation

when you try to anticipate all of this. But I don't envisage that the

functions of the college as presently designated are going to be such

that you need branch offices throughout the area. If they expand into

other functions with the blessing of their membership.... They are

going to have to have it, because any expenditure or setting of fees

has to be approved by members, not just by council members. It has to

be done by all voting members of the college. So if and when they

expand — and I say if — probably heavily into a broader range of

activities, then I am sure that they would have to recognize that with

it goes a presence in the area. But with its present function of

dealing with the professional aspects of certification, qualification

of teachers, the registration of all the membership.... That list can

all be done by staff and computers. So they would be a policy-making

body where they would have to deal with a discipline committee or that

sort of thing. In a later

section it provides for expenses of council

members, and that to be covered. Yes, you couldn't expect them to do it.

We don't see time off as a major concern at this point. If it does

become a major concern, then I presume the college would have to

recommend to their members that fees be raised accordingly.

MR. MILLER: First of all, following up very briefly on the

possible need for time off, I can't foresee that it wouldn't occur.

Given the nature of the responsibility the person would take on

himself, he would require time off.

Is there any difficulty under the present system in terms of.... Say

the representative happened to be a schoolteacher from Prince Rupert.

Is there any difficulty in terms of that person approaching the board

for time off? Is there a requirement that the individual school boards

would be required to grant the time off required for this person to do

his job?

I've got another question, but I would like to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, hon. member, the Chair

just can't quite see that as being relevant to this particular

section

of the bill. Did you have another question? If the minister would like

to respond....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, there is no great difficulty.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps there would be another

section where that would be a more appropriate question. I think it should be followed up.

I have another question, believe me. The college is going to be a

very important body, obviously. Given the climate of opposition, and I

guess the desire that, if this goes through and it's going to be set

up, it function well, I wonder if the minister has any concern with

respect to representation.

Given that the person from the zone could be a schoolteacher, an

independent school teacher or a person who has a certificate but is not

teaching, I am wondering if the minister thinks that, given the size of

the zones and the number of people represented by one person, it could

be a source of conflict in the zone and therefore would detract from

the smooth operation of the college board — this kind of internal

conflict that could be created between various interest groups within

the zone.

I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is shaking his head and saying no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that is very difficult, hon.

members, and we are not supposed to canvass more than one

section at

any given time. I think your last question might also be more

appropriate in another place.

MRS. BOONE: I have been listening very carefully, and I haven't heard.... Maybe it was said earlier and I never

[ Page 1059 ]

gathered it. Is it the intent of the minister to

direct these zones to hold meetings within the districts so that the

districts can all get together? Will they hold yearly meetings in order

to acquaint themselves?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer is no, I have no intention

of directing them to have meetings, to tell them how to elect their

representatives other than it be done by secret ballot. So I guess that

answers the member's question.

MRS. BOONE: I have a question. It says that one member shall

be elected to serve on the council as a representative for each zone.

How does the minister envision the people within that zone knowing what

the people they are electing are like if they don't hold any meetings

or have any opportunity to understand these people or know where

they're coming from?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have great faith in modem communication,

print, the other media and that sort of thing. Pictures can be

circulated, the person's position can be stated, as is done now in many

cases of election, and the members will be able to vote. A decision

will have to be mail-in ballot or some other process, but each member

in that zone will have a vote by secret ballot, and I am sure that

members will responsibly make sure that they know who they are voting

for as they do with the rest of us.

MRS. BOONE: How does the minister envision that these people

will then represent the people that they have been elected by if they

never have an opportunity to discuss with them any of the issues that

they are going to be dealing with?

MR. JONES: I just have one very short question, and it might

be answered by you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious as to whether the

schedule at the end of the act which governs the zones is also approved

at the time we approve

section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's approved separately.

MR. JONES: Separately. Thank you.

MRS. BOONE: I really would like an answer to my question,

because in the past what we've heard from the opposite side of the

House for weeks now is that the BCTF does not represent its members,

and I'm wondering how this body is going to represent the people that

they are electing when they have no means to have any discourse, no

means to talk, no means to have any sort of resolutions or anything

like that. How do we expect these people to represent the people that

they are elected by?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are many people in this province who

vote who haven't necessarily met the individual that they're voting

for. I really feel that if a person is interested in a nomination to

represent that zone, they would probably make the effort to meet with

each association, with each group of teachers in that zone, and make

themselves known. Ones who are less known will probably get less votes,

so it's fairly obvious that they can do that. It doesn't require time

off. I've heard of people doing things on weekends.

MRS. BOONE: I find it amazing that the minister is assuming

that people are going to know what other people want them to do. I

believe in representation, and all along here we're being told that the

BCTF does not represent its members.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what you said; I didn't say that.

MRS. BOONE: That's what these people are saying. I want to

know how these people can possibly represent this group without ever

having an opportunity to talk with them or to know what they want. How

is it possible for the people in the Cariboo, Chilcotin, Quesnel, Bums

Lake, Nechako and Prince George area to get together to find out what

their teachers in all of those areas want?

In the structure of the BCTF, there are representatives from each

district that go down and truly represent their membership. How are

they going to do this, given the structure that you've given them —

which is zones — and absolutely no means for them to have any discourse

with each other?

MR. MILLER: I want to register a concern, and I don't think I

put it in the same way that I'm now going to phrase it. If you look at

the division of the school districts within the zones, it seems to me

that one thing is going to be clear: the district that has the greatest

teacher population will presumably, if they do their job properly,

always elect the representative. Does the minister not think that that

will lead to some serious problems in terms of that person purporting

to represent the entire region? I mean, it's a stacked deck.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know. Democracy does seem to work.

People sometimes vote for the person they consider the best

representative for their total area rather than the person who

represents the most numerous among them. So I don't see any difficulty

with that concept, any more than I see it in any other election process.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. JONES: We see

section 7 as a

section that sets out the

qualifications for candidates for election to the college council. When

we see that membership in the council is a very vague and grey area, I

and other members have difficulty in looking at this election process,

because it's not really clear who the electorate is going to be. Under

this

section it appears that retired teachers, non-practising teachers

and even teachers in independent schools would be eligible for election

to the council. I'm just wondering if that's the minister's intention

with this large group. As I mentioned the other day, somebody who had

been issued a certificate and had even died could be eligible to vote

in this election. I just wonder if this broad group — vague and

undefined — is going to be part of this electoral process.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member

that that is exactly the intention: that any person who qualifies as a

member of the college is eligible, under these specific terms, to be

elected to the council. They will be elected by the members in that

zone.

[ Page 1060 ]

MRS. BOONE: If teachers in the independent schools can be

elected to the council, then under subsequent sections they become

eligible to sit on committees. Given the powers of the council to set

teacher qualifications and discipline, we could have teachers from

independent schools in a position to determine who should teach in a

public school. Is this appropriate?

[4:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member takes it to that extreme,

then certainly. But remember, these members of council are dealing with

the professional qualifications of any teacher in this province, and

they will be elected by the people.... It's interesting. We just had

the argument that where the numbers are greater in the public school

system, that would preclude anybody from the independent school system

getting elected — simply because of numbers. Now you're saying that

those same people would turn around and elect somebody whom they have

no confidence in, who isn't a colleague of theirs, and put them in

there to somehow or other deal with them. I cannot see professionally

qualified teachers turning on each other to try to lift their

certificates. Remember also, whether or not a member is doing a job in

the classroom will be determined by the boards in the first instance.

The only place where the college comes into it is if and when they feel

that it's such a flagrant violation of competence, if you like, that

the profession as a whole sees that member as a detriment and decides

to remove him — to put it in the bluntest terms. I don't think that

that college council.... Are you envisioning that somehow or other the

independent schools, with 5 or 6 percent of the student population in

this province and the corresponding number of teachers, are going to

take over the majority of this council and do those sorts of things? I

would think that even if they did.... I have more faith in the

professional aspect that these people would bring to it.

MRS. BOONE: Further to what the minister just said, is he

telling me that all teachers, even those in the independent schools,

will be required to be members of the college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if they have a teaching

certificate, then they are eligible to be members of the college. There

is provision in other places that they can withdraw and have absolutely

no say in it, but they are eligible.

MRS. BOONE: So those teachers who do not qualify for a B.C.

teacher's certificate do not need to be members of the college. They

are less qualified, they do not need to be members of the college, and

they have no qualifications or no standards set upon them by the

college. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to determine where the problem

lies. If they are not members of the college, they have no vote as

members of the college. If they choose to be members of the college,

then they have the same right — assuming that their qualifications make

them eligible — as any other member, and that generally is a B.C.

teaching certificate; but they don't have to be members. In the public

school system they must be.

MRS. BOONE: This is what I'm trying to get at. In the public school system they must be members of the college.

Therefore they must be qualified people, and they have standards set

upon them, and certain requirements. However, it is not necessary for

people in the private school system to be members of the college,

because they don't necessarily have to have a B.C. teacher's

certificate. Therefore they don't have the rules and regulations or

standards applied to them.

My concern is, why are we not addressing this need that teachers in

the private school system be as qualified as they are in the public

school system, and subject to the same standards? And would not making

it mandatory for all teachers in the public school system and in the

private school system to be part of the college address this problem

that we have here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 7 pass?

MRS. BOONE: Excuse me, I would like an answer to this question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can ask all the questions you

please. It's the prerogative of the minister, or whoever is responding,

to answer or not.

MRS. BOONE: Does the minister then not see it as a priority,

if we are trying to ensure standards in the teaching profession, to

make all teachers members of the college? Does the minister not see it

as something that would be of benefit to everyone, to ensure that all

teachers in the province are members of the college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the reason I didn't answer is

that I saw no connection between voting privileges and members who were

not members of the college. But I don't know; perhaps the member is

suggesting that we apply the same criteria to the independent school

system. Would she then go along with 100 percent funding to them as

well? You do create that problem. If you say that they all have to have

that in many of the group 2 schools where they follow the B.C.

curriculum, they request and require that teachers shall have a B.C.

teaching certificate. But we leave them some option to choose, because

they're putting up 65 percent of the funding from sources other than

the public purse.

MR. JONES: I think I hear the rationale for what I think the

minister admits is a double standard. Certainly members of the

independent school system who are eligible to be members of the college

do have the right to vote and select the members to the council. And I

think the minister is right: that the numbers are such that although

it's possible, it's unlikely they will strongly influence the outcome

of the vote. They still have the same eligibility privileges, but they

do have different opportunities than other members, because they have

the opportunity to opt out of the college if they don't like what the

college does. At the same time, they do not lose the opportunity to

teach in this province,

whereas somebody from the public school system

who chooses to opt out loses their right to teach in this province.

I think there is a double standard here. Perhaps the rationale that

they're not 100 percent funded does provide some reason for this double

standard; but I think we're talking about elections here, and I don't

really think it's fair to have that kind of double standard.

[ Page 1061 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am glad that we're back to elections.

Anybody who is eligible to be a member surely should have a vote, and

that's all. Anyone — public school or otherwise — can choose to

withdraw their membership from the college. We have said that they must

be a member of the college in order to teach in the public school

system. Should they wish to withdraw, they could still teach anywhere

else.

MS. A. HAGEN: On Friday I raised some questions around the

roles of superintendents and assistant superintendents as they are

encompassed in this act as members of the college, and as they are

eligible to participate in elections. At that time I think we noted

that it was unlikely that they might be elected to the council, since

their numbers are small in relation to the number of teachers in the

province. But what I would like to canvass with you this afternoon is

in fact the possibility that they may be elected to represent their

zone. That, given the range of numbers of teachers in various zones, is

more likely than we perhaps might have anticipated when we discussed

this on Friday.

I would like the minister to comment about the possibility for some

conflict of interest should a superintendent sit as a member of the

council and have responsibilities devolved onto that superintendent in

relation to some of the various committees that the council would

establish. Could he comment on some possibility for conflict of

interest in relation to the supervisory responsibilities that a

superintendent or assistant superintendent would have as an employee of

his board? That might particularly apply, I think, in the area of the

discipline committee — some of the roles that the superintendent would

fill on this board, and the roles that he or she might then be

responsible for as a member of the council and as a member of the

committee of the council.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would definitely say that it is possible

and permissible for a superintendent to be elected to the council. I

would not accept that it is not likely, because in many areas of this

province, superintendents are considered to be educational leaders

among educators. They are not considered the enemies of educators. So

who knows? They may feel that from the professional side which the

college is dealing with, the most capable one to represent them is the

superintendent, so they should have that right. So I don't see them

as.... Some members may see it as unlikely. I don't necessarily see an

administrative officer or a superintendent as being all of a sudden the

enemy of educators rather than the best possible representative of

them, as they are in many cases.

So I think it is possible. It is certainly permissible and allowed. I don't know if that answers the member's question.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN: I didn't wish to debate whether in fact there

was any likelihood that they would not be elected. I think we had

discussed that it might not be the case, and we were discussing it in

the context of membership and the right of a superintendent to be a

superintendent if that person were not a member of the college.

The question I want the minister to address today is the possibility

of any conflict. The role of the superintendent is quite unique in the

school system, because that person is the chief executive officer of

the board. That person has supervisory responsibilities as a result of

his or her employment with the board. I am asking the minister to give

some consideration to any possibilities of conflict of interest should

the superintendent sit as a member of a council and fulfill some

responsibilities on the committees of the council.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I don't see any possible

conflict of interest, because we are talking about a professional

organization, with professional qualifications to belong. All of these

people are dealing with professional qualifications only, so they are

not agents of the board and they are not anything else. They are fellow

educators having to deal with.... In the bar association, I don't think

anyone would say that it matters whether they are a junior counsel or a

senior counsel or the owner of a law firm. If they are dealing with the

professional function of lawyers, or whether or not they should retain

their certificates, they deal with that as professional engineers or

professional lawyers, not as boss and employee or anything of that

nature. We've got to get back to the role of the college.

The other roles that I think you are building into this are part of the school board function and that sort of thing.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just one final question on this, Mr. Minister.

It may pertain to the amendments in

section 27, where some double

jeopardy issues were in fact identified and, I think, have been dealt

with.

Is the minister satisfied that the issue of double jeopardy and due

process, which could in fact involve a superintendent who might very

well have been involved as the person on the school board who is

responsible for dealing with the competence of a teacher and that

teacher's dismissal from the board.... Is the minister satisfied that

there is no longer any double jeopardy, and that there is complete due

process in this bill as it has been amended?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the answer is yes, I am

satisfied. I didn't feel there was any double jeopardy at any time, but

it has been clarified by these amendments.

MR. CLARK: I just was looking through this. It popped into my

head that there is nothing in the act that requires 50 percent plus one

to get elected. So if elected by a simple plurality from a wide number

of candidates, then it could conceivably be a fairly small percentage

to elect. For example, we were talking earlier about whether an

independent schoolteacher could get elected, and some members were

saying otherwise; but if the independent schools put forward one

candidate and they essentially promoted that candidate, and there were

a wide range of candidates from the public school system, then the

opportunity for a minority view to be elected would be very high. I

don't think that's the intent of the act. I see the minister is

conferring. I'm just saying that I don't think it's the intent of the

act that a minority view could get elected because of the absence of 50

percent plus one. In most colleges that's not the case, I think. Maybe

the minister could comment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't necessarily equate professional

responsibility with superiority of numbers. I don't think most teachers

do, either. So they can elect whoever they think will be their best

representative on this council to deal with their professional matters.

[4:15]

[ Page 1062 ]

MR. CLARK: I don't know if the minister misunderstood my

point. I'm not arguing that there's going to be some deviousness; I'm

just arguing that because it's not 50 percent plus one, we could have

one candidate representing the independent school system and a wide

range of candidates from the public school system. I don't think that's

the intent. Surely the intent is to have a majority of teachers vote

for the candidate of their choice, whether he be from the independent

or the public school system. This system seems to lend itself to

minority organization and point of view, and I don't think that's the

intent of the minister.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: So the minister has no concerns about this

position, where in fact a very small percentage of the top candidates

could get elected. It lends itself, it seems to me, to significant

organization on the part of minority interests to get elected to this

board. I think that in most cases it's 50 percent plus one. Does the

minister have any comment on that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think it says in a later

section of this

act that the council may make bylaws governing whether or not it's a 50

percent majority or the one with the highest number — that sort of

thing. I think they can make the bylaws to govern that.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to

section 9 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. JONES: I know the members opposite want a full,

unfettered debate on all the amendments and all the sections of this

act. They're saying aye because that's their responsibility here. They

could enter into debate if they so chose.

I commended the minister for the amendment to the earlier section,

and I think this amendment flows from that. However, I have some

concerns about the amendment. It seems that in

section 1 there is a

very atypical kind of clause. Subsection (1) deals with the

establishment of the election commission. This amendment contemplates

the possibility that the minister, the Chief Justice or the BCTF may

fail to appoint a commissioner, and I think that's a very unusual....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, can I just ask which amendment

you are referring to? There are two: one is 9 and one is 9.1. We're

dealing with 9.

MR. JONES: Madam Chairperson, I think I'm on amendment 9.1.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on 9. There are two amendments to

section 9 on the order paper.

MR. JONES: I guess I'm on 9.1(1). The minister is moving the

entire package of amendments and I wish to comment on one of those

amendments. I would like to make clear which one of those amendments

I'm speaking on, if I may.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think we'd like to deal with 9 first — the amendment — and then the motion as amended. Then we'll deal with amendment 9.1.

MR. JONES: I'd like to comment before the package of amendments is approved, to this section.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps I might clarify that. There are two

amendments in

section 9 which basically remove the date specified and

the appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor, to make room for 9.1. What

I was moving was the amendments in 9, which are those two deletions. If

we accept those, 9.1 is a new

section which is added for discussion. I

don't know if that hampers the member or helps.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: That clarifies it, Mr. Minister.

Amendment approved.

section 9 as amended.

MR. JONES: We'll be dealing with 9.1 after 9 passes, is that correct? Okay.

Just to further comment, I did commend the minister earlier for the idea that we should have an election of this first council.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, we haven't approved 9 as amended yet. That's what the member for Burnaby North is speaking on.

MR. JONES: I'm pleased with the amendment. I'm pleased that

we're moving to an election rather than an appointment by the minister.

There is a date specified, and there is a term of two years, and I

think that's a reasonable thing. In fact, the government may even look

to such a thing where we have a specified date for an election and we

have a specified term of office. The province may benefit from that

kind of regulation to the election.

I do support the amendment. Although it is still

an act that is not

acceptable to the people it will most affect, it does make that act a

little better.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Chairman, I simply wanted to raise in

passing the actual dates chosen. Did the minister have a reason in mind

for choosing November 15? Having come out of the aldermanic stage of my

career, I know that under the Municipal Act the third week in November,

in most municipalities and certainly in Vancouver, is something of a

political shemozzle. The efforts of many candidates to be heard and

seen in that particular time-frame, and very often the polarization and

people running for school boards at the same time.... It might not be

the appropriate time for a

[ Page 1063 ]

professional association to be going to its membership for an

election. Could you comment on that, Mr. Minister, and talk a little

about why this particular date was chosen? Was there a particular

desire to have January I being the day that office is officially held?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, these elections are not

public elections. They are elections strictly by teachers of their

representative, so we didn't see any difficulty with that. We looked at

the end of the year. As you'll notice, the act is to come into effect

January 1, 1988, so we thought that sometime before the new council

takes over.... November 15 seemed to be a reasonable date. If you went

much earlier, then you'd have the overlap extending over a period of

time. If you made it much later, you'd get into the Christmas period;

and if you went too much earlier, you'd get into the period before the

teachers get back into school in September. So I guess it was an

arbitrarily chosen date, but as we saw it, there is no connection with

the municipal or school board elections.

MS. MARZARI: Further to the date, Madam Chairman, if I read

the clause correctly, it is a prescriptive date, so whether that date

falls on a weekday or a Saturday or Sunday, that is the date on which

the election will take place. I would think that that would be a very

dysfunctional sort of fixing. The Municipal Act is flexible; it is the

third Saturday, and that may fall anywhere from the 15th on through. It

may be an amendment that the minister might like to bring in at a

future time, simply to allow for a more sensible election date from a

functional point of view.

Section 9 as amended approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper,

section 9.1. [See appendix.]

section 9.1.

MR. JONES: I think we finally arrived at where I was ten

minutes ago, which is the subsection dealing with the establishment of

the election commission. I was trying to comment that this commission

has certain responsibilities and has what I consider an atypical or

unusual provision in its mandate, which is the one that suggests that

if we have the minister, the Chief Justice or the BCTF failing to

appoint a commissioner — and I guess this is 9.1(2).... I'm curious as

to the rationale for this. I'm wondering if the minister expects that

one of these three bodies.... I would assume that the rationale behind

it was in the event that the BCTF is the single body that fails to

appoint. Is that the body expected to fail to appoint, or is it one of

the other bodies? And if it is the BCTF that is considered to be the

one that's failing, is this an admission on the part of the minister

that he expects not to have the cooperation of the teachers in this

province in setting up the college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I certainly don't expect that any of

the groups are going to not avail themselves of the opportunity to have

a representative there. The Chief Justice, of course, is to try and

make it absolutely non-political, non-partisan and as fair as possible.

So I don't expect any of the groups....

It sort of follows from boards of reference, arbitration boards and

so on. If the two are appointed and you can't get a third one, somebody

needs to appoint them so you can get on with the job. If you don't have

a clause like that in there, then any one group could hold up the

process forever. So it's fairly standard procedure.

I'm not anticipating that the two groups here.... The minister: I

can assure you I would try to appoint someone to make sure the job....

I'm sure that the Chief Justice will appoint the chairman. And I am

sure that the B. C. Teachers' Federation, the only other group

mentioned, would appoint somebody to make sure that the lists are done

in accordance with the other two.

[4:30]

MR. JONES: The minister is saying that this is a typical kind

of provision, and I was arguing that it's an atypical kind of

provision. I guess it will require more research on both our parts to

determine the accuracy of our respective positions.

Under the next subsection, in which the election commission shall as

soon as practical after it's appointed conduct the first election of

the 15 members, they will make rules, and some of the areas in which

they may make rules — the nominating procedures, qualifications and the

manner of voting — are spelled out. I keep coming back to the same

problem that I have. That's because we have a very unclear definition

as to who the population that is going to be voting in these elections

is. Under this subsection we see the commission given the power to make

rules concerning the manner of determining who is eligible to nominate,

etc. Since the qualifications for nominating, standing for election and

voting are clearly stated elsewhere in the bill, isn't this subsection

a real admission that it's going to be very difficult to come up with a

list of members?

I think I've suggested before that when we have a provincial

election or a municipal election or a federal election, we have

enumeration and we have a clear list of eligible voters, all of whom

are alive and are qualified, and those qualifications are clear. I'm

just wondering if the minister doesn't envision tremendous problems

with this commission coming up with the kind of election that I'm sure

we all want. Unlike some of the other elections that we've seen

recently, where the government's side is questioning the results of

those elections.... I think we want to avoid that kind of thing. I see

a real problem continually with having an unclear electorate, and I'm

wondering if the minister doesn't agree that that's a problem.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think the eligibility list has been

clearly established by

section 3 of this legislation, and so the

commission is to set up, if you like, the registrar of voters on the

basis of their eligibility. So that's a basis. They have to make the

rules: how the nominations are conducted; who isn't eligible to vote,

to be nominated — obviously, if the person isn't eligible to vote,

they're not eligible to be nominated; and then the manner of voting,

counting of votes, and scrutineering — again, they're governed by the

legislation, with the secret ballot and all members having the right to

vote. So they're basically setting up the election machinery here, as

well as the registration of the eligible people.

MR. MILLER: On the same section, is subsection (3)(

b) not redundant? Maybe it's a question of reading it, or the

[ Page 1064 ]

wording. The

section says: "...determining the qualifications to

nominate, stand for election or vote at the election." Yet, as the

minister has said in a previous section, it's quite clear that the

eligibility requirements are laid out in the legislation. It almost

seems to say that the commission can establish variances to a previous

section of the legislation. Surely the qualifications are the teaching

certificate, as mentioned in previous sections. Surely it flows in this

kind of election that if you're eligible to run, you're also eligible

to nominate, and to do all of those other things. I think the only

variance is maybe in the Municipal Act, where you don't actually have

to reside in the community where you run. I don't think anybody has

ever taken advantage of it. Is it not redundant in terms of that

previous section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman, I don't think the

section is redundant, in that this commission may have to decide

whether a person's statement that "I am eligible" is a fact or a wish.

They have to have processes to check the certificate if a person simply

comes forward. That's all that that does; in other words, it determines

eligibility, within the act, but they have to show that.

MR. MILLER: I think I can read almost as well as the average

person. If there is some confusion regarding that, I'm wondering if a

slight change in wording would clarify that, to indicate what the

minister is saying. If a person comes forward and says he is eligible

to nominate or to run, there has to be a procedure set up so that can

be verified. That's what you're saying. For example, if you go down to

vote in the municipal election and your name is not on the list, you

can't vote; you can do something else to sign up. That's what you're

saying, and yet the wording tends to be somewhat misleading, because it

says "the manner of determining the qualifications," and they are

clearly laid out in a previous section. Whether or not it's a major

thing, or whether or not it will lead to problems, I'm not certain. But

I would ask the minister to consider that, and perhaps a change of one

word might remove any problems at this stage.

MS. A HAGEN: I'm pursuing a point on the same line as the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). The college will in fact

determine who will be eligible for membership on the basis of their

review of the qualifications of each person, and presumably the college

will accept current B.C. certificates. I just want to ask a question,

if I may, of the minister. I hold a teaching licence in this province.

It's not a licence that I have used for many years. At this particular

time, before the establishment of the college, will this particular

commission rule on my eligibility to exercise a vote for the election

of the council?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that this council will have to

determine if you say you have a certificate, or if you have one. That

would be easy enough to establish. If you have a certificate, then

you're automatically qualified to be nominated. I think you have to

recognize the whole purpose of this

section 9. 1. When the college

exists and has determined its membership list, it's easy. Those that

they have accepted as members are the voting members, and that is why

the interim measure that we saw was that, on the recommendation of the

BCTF, the minister would appoint this first council, who would then

work on the membership list and do all of that. There was a lot of

dissatisfaction with that. There was a lot concern that somehow or

other, the minister was trying to set up the college as his vehicle to

try to do something. We didn't want that; that was never the intent.

The intent clearly in the legislation all the time was the election

process. That was an interim measure, but the interim measure caused so

much concern that we said: "Well, okay, then we've got to go to

election." But there isn't at this moment a college that has

established its membership list, so we've said that the next best thing

is to try to get the most neutral committee to decide the membership

list or the voters' list which makes them eligible for nominations and

that sort of thing.

To answer the member for Prince Rupert on his question about that, I

used the example that someone might challenge the qualifications. I

think this leaves it open to this commission to determine the

qualifications to nominate. In other words, are you allowed to

nominate, stand for election or vote at the election? So that gives

them broader.... The example that I thought of may not be the only one

that can be argued as to whether people are eligible or not. The

commission will then have to act as a referee board as well, if there's

an argument about who's eligible.

teacher, who taught me Ecclesiastes, which I've quoted to this House

previously, would be proud of me or not, but could the minister respond

to this question: if you remove the word "determining" in (3)(

b) and

substitute the word "verifying," would that not remove any confusion

that may exist with regard to that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems to me that if the commission

determines that they are qualified, that's the same thing as verifying

that they're qualified, even though the terms can be used differently

in other contexts.

MR. JONES: I still have difficulty with one

section here and

I think there has been some sword-play between the minister and my

colleague from Coquitlam-Moody — and that's subsection (5), which says:

"Persons who are eligible to nominate, to be nominated or to vote at

the first election are the members of the college, but if

section 3(

l) is not in force during the course of holding the first election...."

I'm just curious — and I know the minister has referred to this

section, but it wasn't really clear to me — why this subsection refers

to the possibility of proceeding before

section 3(

l) is proclaimed. I

don't know what reasons there would be for withholding proclamation of

section 3(l). Can the minister suggest...? I know he wants the

election to go ahead no matter what happens with the proclamation, but

I just don't understand why this problem would exist, why there would

be a withholding of proclamation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is simply

that they may want to hold the election of the council, to get on with

the job before January 1. And to make sure, the legal people tell me

that if a lot of the act comes into force on January 1, 1988, an

election could in fact proceed according to the same eligibility rules.

That's legal terminology. If you and I were writing it, we would

probably not have all those terms in there.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Minister, I'm wondering if you would be

willing to answer what I think is a fairly straightforward question

concerning 9.1(3). It's apropos of the comment

[ Page 1065 ]

you just made about what happens when we leave these things to the

legal profession and how they do indeed tend to generate different

points of view and opinions concerning what the actual meaning is.

Would we not be serving the people of this province somewhat better if

we were to simply delete from 9.1(3) the last phrase,

namely, "including rules respecting," and then (a), (b), (

c) under that?

It would seem to me that in fact the statement that we want to make is

made without that last clause and those three items that cause us this

confusion.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, what we're trying to limit

this commission to is one specific function: to set up and properly run

the first election and then turn it over to the college. So rules

respecting the nominating procedures, the qualifications and so on to

run the first election.... In other words, it's very specifically to

not give them general powers in any other sense.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, I understand clearly and sympathize,

moreover, with the intention of the clause. However, it seems to me

that, the way this is written, what we are doing is opening the door to

precisely the kind of confusion that has been manifest here in the last

15 minutes. It would seem to me that by simply taking the statement

that the commission will in effect be charged with making "the rules

that it considers necessary or advisable for the conduct of the first

election, including...." If that is going too far with it, then we

simply take out that restrictive — that open-ended term "including" —

because unless we say "including only these things," then we've opened

the door.

[4:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have tried to be as precise and limiting as we

possibly can. I can just picture the other debate, had we stopped after "or

advisable for the conduct of the first election." We would then have been

accused, I'm sure, of not spelling out.... What about the nominating?

How do they vote? How do they determine eligibility?

In some respects, I guess you can't win. We've tried to go through

this. I've commended my staff and the legal people who have worked hard

on this to make sure that what is spelled out in this legislation is

clearly the intent of the legislation. The first draft, the intent, was

very clear to us. People were able to confuse it. Even if we have to

add extra words here, we're trying to make sure that we make it as

clear and fair as possible.

MR. LOVICK: You will notice that I am smiling as I pose the

question, Mr. Minister. I hasten to point out that I don't do so with

any ulterior motive. My point, however, is that it is precisely because

we have put in that single word — "including" that we have opened the

door to the problems I've just enunciated. Surely the way to solve the

problem is to say "for the conduct of the first election, specifically

the rules respecting." That way, what we do is exclusively state that

these are the things the commission is charged with doing. That way, it

is absolutely clear that no other agenda is possible. I suggest, Madam

Chairman, that as long as a possibility is perceived that another

agenda might be around, we're going to hav