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, APRIL 27, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vancouver Island hydro rates. Mr. G.

Hanson –– 785

Extension of B.C. Hydro grid. Mr. Guno –– 785

Pharmacy dispensing fees. Mr. Stupich –– 785

Ms. A. Hagen

Removal of Lac La Hache land from ALR. Mr.

Rose –– 786

Regulations regarding access to

legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 786

Facility for brain-damage victims. Mr.

Stupich –– 786

Federal-provincial council on economic

development. Mr. Harcourt –– 787

Price of beer. Mr. Blencoe –– 787

Ministerial Statement

Organ donor awareness week. Hon. Mr. Dueck

–– 787

Mrs. Boone

Tabling Documents –– 787

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second

reading

Mr. Jones –– 787

Mr. Peterson –– 796

Mr. Rose –– 797

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 801

Mr. Dirks –– 801

Ms. A. Hagen –– 803

Mrs. Gran –– 806

Appendix –– 808

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's certainly my honour

to introduce an

old friend and entrepreneur of this province. I got to know him in the

North Peace. He was one of those people who helped build the north. He

built up Kaps Transport in the oil and gas industry. I'm doing this on

behalf of the members for Okanagan South (Messrs. Serwa and Chalmers),

because he is now resident there, carrying with him that spirit of

taking risks and working hard in order to make things happen — with the

impatience that will make him do it. So it is an honour to introduce

Boomer Kapchinsky.

MR. ROSE: I just wonder, Mr. Speaker,

whether it's in order

and good taste to give commercials while you're doing introductions. I

have a few of my own, and I'm selling time downtown on these things.

I'd like to welcome a class of grade 10 students from my

riding of

Coquitlam-Moody. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Meronuk, and have

spent the day touring the Legislature. They're here to learn everything

about parliamentary democracy, but they were afraid to ask.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd like the House to make

welcome two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Harry Braun.

HON. MR. PARKER: In the precincts today are

a couple of old

friends of mine, and I'd like the House to bid them welcome: John

Williams of Terrace and Don Longstaff of North Vancouver. They are with

Wedeene River Contracting Co. Ltd., which is presently building a

brand-new sawmill in Prince Rupert.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like the House to welcome a

constituent, Mr.

Gus Froese, who is a businessman and has great dreams about

constructing a permanent link between the Island and the mainland.

Please welcome Gus Froese.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER ISLAND HYDRO RATES

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question for the

Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. In answer to my question on April 2, the

minister said that an announcement on lower rates for electrical space

heating on Vancouver Island would be forthcoming from B. C. Hydro. Now

we hear the Premier is resurrecting the concept of a gas pipeline to

the Island through the United States, even though the minister

expressed reservations about this idea in this assembly last May 12 due

to our public investment in the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line. My question is:

has the minister decided when he will be announcing specific details

about the lower electrical rates for Vancouver Island, or is he now

assisting the Premier with the pipeline project?

HON. MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro will be

announcing an electric space heating rate around the middle of June.

Hopefully the Utilities Commission will approve that rate and it will

be applicable across the province. That rate, or that energy, that

low-cost electrical energy, won't be available in areas which are

supplied with natural gas or which prospectively might be supplied with

natural gas.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary. We

certainly appreciate the

minister's comments. I'd just like to ask him if he envisions or has he

decided that the electrical rates for Vancouver Island would be at the

gas rate, similar to the distribution system on the mainland?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The rate would be uniform

across the

province. It would be available to all consumers on Vancouver Island at

the same price as elsewhere in the province.

MR. G. HANSON: Another supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. I was

wondering if he'd advise the House how he sees the construction of a

gas pipeline along with the electrical power from Cheekye-Dunsmuir. How

does he see both of those being financed?

HON. MR. DAVIS: As I understand the Premier

said in

Ladysmith, we'll look at any project which could bring natural gas to

Vancouver Island, and we're busy looking at the latest proposal.

EXTENSION OF B.C. HYDRO GRID

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of

Energy. After I

questioned the minister last Wednesday about the extension of the B.C.

Hydro grid to Stewart, he indicated publicly that it would likely

follow approval of the Mount Klappan project. Can the minister confirm

that it is the policy of the government that the extension of the grid

to Stewart is the preferred option?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DAVIS: The extension of B.C.

Hydro's grid to the

northwestern comer of the province is under study. There is no

assurance at the moment that the Mount Klappan project would proceed,

and it may be that the extension would occur without the Mount Klappan

project being an integral part of that development.

PHARMACY DISPENSING FEES

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of

Finance. Several

times since budget day, I and members of my staff have been trying to

find out the details of the increase in GAIN, with reference

particularly to the $5 prescription fee being charged, and all we get

are people who say that they've heard something about it but have had

no instructions yet in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and

the Ministry of Health. What I really want to know is, which ministry

would have the answer or answers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We will be clarifying

that matter in the very near future.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the policy was

announced in the

budget of March 19, and it would seem as though the message has not yet

gotten to the people responsible for administering GAIN, so I'd like

the minister to be able to tell

[ Page 786 ]

us in the House as soon as he can when

somebody tells somebody, whoever it is, what's happening.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That sounds like an

eminently reasonable query, and we will respond to it as soon as

possible.

MS. A. HAGEN: A question to the Minister of

Social Services

and Housing, in the same vein as the question asked of the Minister of

Finance. There have been a number of questions about processes to

ensure that those people who are not able to pay the $5 fee for the

dispensing portion of their drugs and who are not going to be covered

by the additional GAIN procedures have some assistance. Could the

minister please indicate what action he is taking to ensure that no

person will be deprived of drugs because of inability to pay?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member

is quite correct

that those people on income assistance will not have to pay that fee,

and the staff is working on the details at the moment. As the Minister

of Finance said, as soon as they're available, we will be making that

announcement.

REMOVAL OF LAC LA HACHE LAND FROM ALR

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the Minister of

Agriculture. On Friday we were talking about.... Acreage on the north

shore of Lac la Hache, technically known as DL148, was removed from the

land reserve in 1986 by the land use committee. I would like to ask the

minister if he's had representations from the Cattlemen's Association

and the Federation of Agriculture, or concerns of the regional

district. Has he considered making some move, because of pollution of

the lake and the loss of agricultural and grazing land, to put this

parcel back into the reserve?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I have had a

couple of

presentations made to me, but not by the Federation of Agriculture. In

both cases they are local people who have asked why the decision was

made the way it was, and I'm having my staff check into it. But I

believe that under ELUC a decision cannot be reversed.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary to the same

minister. The cabinet can

reverse all decisions, as can the regional district and the owner. They

can make representations to cabinet. So in view of the local concerns

and the minister's own words last Friday, what's going to happen to

humans if we don't have enough agricultural land to produce food? Could

I ask the minister if he will consider, upon these recommendations from

the various groups he's mentioned, pressing cabinet to reconsider and

to put that particular controversial parcel right back into the land

reserve where it belongs?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, the staff of

the Agricultural

Land Commission is reviewing the subject case, and I will expect a

report in my office very shortly. I agree with the hon. member that it

can come to cabinet, but ELUC itself cannot reverse that decision.

REGULATIONS REGARDING ACCESS

TO LEGISLATURE LAWN

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

Provincial

Secretary. On Friday the Provincial Secretary brought down by

order-in-council what I would consider to be very heavy-handed

regulations governing people out on the steps of the Legislature, which

proves all along that prior to this there had been no authority granted

to the government to move these people. My question is this: the

regulations talk about permits; what system has the Provincial

Secretary developed to date to allow people to secure permits before

they go on to the steps of the Legislature?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, the Hon. member is

a lawyer and I am

not; I don't have that advantage — or disadvantage, as the case may be

— with great respect to my colleague over there. However, the Hon.

member knows that we're acting under the common law on the previous

occasions, and that case has been dealt with in the courts and

conveniently put to one side. Beyond that, nobody requires any permits

to walk on the lawns or to stand on the steps of the Legislature, so I

suggest you go back and read the regulations again. Once you understand

them, you could ask some more questions.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't react to that in the

manner that the

minister would expect me to. Let me just rephrase the question and ask

it again. It talks in the regulations about a system for permits to

obtain the minister's approval to use the lawns and the precincts for

certain functions. Is there a system in place right now to issue

permits or a way in which to obtain the minister's approval?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can assure the hon.

member that there will

be no permits issued for tenting on the front lawn of the Legislature.

So if you have any relatives or anybody who wants to do that, they

can't have the permit. So I'm just putting that message out right now.

But if anyone wants to use the front lawns of the Legislature for any

legitimate purpose, of course they can apply to the Provincial

Secretary's office and they'll be granted that authority.

MR. SIHOTA: Supplementary, again. What is

the procedure for that application? Is there a fee? What are your

guidelines to obtain approval?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I suggest you read the

order-in-council

again, and read it more carefully. You'll see that it's not onerous in

any way and that the guidelines are fairly carefully spelled out in

that order-in-council.

FACILITY FOR BRAIN-DAMAGE VICTIMS

MR. STUPICH: I have a question to the

Minister of Health.

Included in the budget speech was a reference to a new facility for

treating victims of brain damage. I wondered whether the minister has

decided where that is going to be located now.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, that is

referring to the item in

the budget speech. It is under review now. A decision has not yet been

made, but we should come forth with a definite decision on that very

soon.

[ Page 787 ]

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask the Minister

of Economic Development about federal-provincial cooperation on

economic development. It seems, after some initial friction with the

federal government, that that council of ministers has settled down and

is addressing the serious questions about economic development. I would

like to ask the minister, given the good non-partisan precedents such

as the establishment of the Board of Internal Economy and the Premier's

inclusion of the Leader of the Opposition at constitutional

conferences, if the minister has given consideration to including

representation from this caucus at that council.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thank

the Leader of the

Opposition for that question. The memorandum of understanding which we

have entered into with the federal administration will see very many

representatives from the community, including the representatives of

councils, boards of trade and so on. If he is making the suggestion, we

will give that some consideration. It is not established as yet, Mr.

Speaker, but will be in the next few days or weeks.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate

that kind of

representation, but I was speaking about being able to participate as

an observer or in some other capacity with the council, so that we

could have a bipartisan presence on this very important council of

ministers. Is that something that the minister would also be prepared

to consider?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, what we

are embarking on in

the Pacific Centre for Trade, Commerce and Travel is probably one of

the most exciting economic initiatives for this province. Everyone has

an interest. That surely will be given consideration.

PRICE OF BEER

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister

responsible for

consumer affairs. Last week, two more breweries announced increases in

the price of beer. As you know, this government and the Premier during

the election announced that there would be reduction in the price of

beer. I am wondering if the minister has taken any action to actually

live up to the promise of a reduction in beer, so that working people

can see real action on Socred election promises and have a reduction in

beer prices.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of

all, I believe

the hon. member has the wrong ministry. I am in charge of liquor

licensing and certainly have no responsibilities in price control.

Certainly the price of beer is deregulated. The private enterprise sets

the price for beer, and my ministry is not intending to take any action.

Ministerial Statement

ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, today I wish

to announce the occasion of Organ Donor Awareness Week, which will be

observed nationwide from April 26 to May 2. British Columbia welcomes

this opportunity to join with the entire country in stressing the

importance of organ and tissue donations and meeting the growing need

of patients who require organs for transplantation.

In British Columbia the Pacific Organ Retrieval for

Transplantation

program is funded by the Ministry of Health and coordinates organ

retrieval efforts with the B.C. Heart Transplant Society. The program

will be observing the week with publicity campaigns in various shopping

malls and by promoting the need for organ donation through the news

media. The British Columbia Medical Association is also helping to

promote organ donation awareness and has recently approved the

distribution to its members of wallet sized cards containing

information for physicians on organ donation procedures. The Law

Society of British Columbia as well has expressed support and is

working with the PORT program to increase organ donor awareness among

the members of the Law Society and their clients.

I am pleased to note the increasing awareness of the need for

organ

donations. I am also confident that our recent rapid progress in

developing an integrated provincial transplantation service will

continue and increase.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, the opposition

welcomes this and

supports the government in any way that they can increase organ

donorships throughout the province, anything by way of, as my colleague

from Nanaimo stated, marking it on your driver's licence,

computerization for this service. Anything along this line would

certainly help the province of B.C. and we support the government in

their stand.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the eighth annual report of the

Science

Council of British Columbia, 1985-86; the Ministry of Universities,

Science and Communications annual report, 1984-85; and the British

Columbia Research annual report, 1985.

[2:30]

Hon. L. Hanson tabled a response to written question No. 11 in

Orders of the Day

for April 21; and the annual report of the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 20 — I believe the member for Burnaby North

adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby North

has I hour and 25 minutes remaining.

MR. JONES: I'd like to take a minute to try

to clarify the

concern I had on Friday about the timing of the introduction of this

legislation. My understanding of the sequence of events leading up to

the introduction of Bill 20 last Thursday afternoon is that there was a

tripartite meeting of government, BCSTA and B.C. Teachers to try to —

for the first time, I think — have meaningful consultation on this

legislation. Before that, the teachers in this province had taken a

vote, in which they would take some action if there was no meaningful

consultation. That was their threat. The Premier made a similar kind of

threat. The Premier threatened — and it was

[ Page 788 ]

reported in the Times-Colonist

last Tuesday

— that if the teachers were to go on strike, the Premier would only

encourage his government to push through the legislation more quickly

than originally planned. So we had threats on both sides. For the first

time we had the possibility of meaningful consultation.

At that point the teachers decided to postpone for a week

their

intended action. It seems to me that if the government was interested

in this meaningful consultation process and if, as the minister

indicated, they really wanted input into the process, that would have

been a point where the government could have proceeded with those

talks, without any other sort of action. Instead, the government chose

what might be called the preemptive strike — bringing in second reading

of Bill 20, which we're discussing today.

As a result, I think the government has to bear the

responsibility

for any sort of action that follows. I think it's clear from their

action that their agenda is really one of confrontation and not one of

consultation. I hope that's not true. I hope the talks will be

fruitful. But I'm afraid, from the actions that we've seen in this

House, that it is confrontation that the government is interested in.

On Friday I tried to frame my concerns about this bill in

terms of

three contexts: the context of the schoolchildren of this province and

what Bill 20 holds for them; the Canadian context, and how Bill 20 fits

into other situations across this country; and the historical context —

the timing of the introduction of this bill, looking at it in terms of

the last five or ten years, and its impact on our education system by

its introduction at this time. I think it was very easy to conclude

that in terms of what this bill does for the schoolchildren of the

province, it is a negative bill. It will have a negative impact on

relationships between teachers and schoolchildren; it will have a

negative impact on the students of our province. It's not only the bill

that will have that impact, but also, as I mentioned, the method by

which this process has gone on, which brought it to introduction last

Thursday. There's nothing in Bill 20 for children. It's not in the best

interests of the schoolchildren of this province or of the province at

large.

I also tried to raise the Canadian context and what Bill 20

does for

us as a province, in terms of what goes on in the rest of Canada. I

think it singles us out as a province, because there is no other

province in Canada that divides its teachers' organizations; and those

organizations in other provinces have had bargaining rights for years.

There's no other province with a college of teachers. I think it's

probably clear to most in this House that such legislation was

attempted in Ontario and Alberta, and was wisely withdrawn. There is

only one other province in Canada that separates principals and

vice-principals from their teachers' organizations. I think we were

left with the question, as a result of trying to frame Bill 20 in the

Canadian context: why doesn't B.C. fit? Why is B.C. different? I would

like to examine that a little further.

I also tried to frame Bill 20 in a historical context and

tried to

have a took at the backdrop, the stage onto which Bill 20 is being

dropped. I think everybody in this province would agree that we have

gone through the worst possible period in the education history of this

province in the last few years. We've seen our province, as far as

education is concerned, as being conflict-ridden, with a school system

that could be characterized as fighting for its life under continual

attacks in terms of funding and attacks on morale by the Socred

government. We see the loss of some 3,000 teachers. Not only have we

seen financial and morale damage, but we've seen education become more

than ever, and more in this province than in any other, a political

football.

We were hoping that this would be an end, with an election,

with

promises of an end to confrontation, with promises of more moderation

and of consensus-seeking; with the promise of a new minister who has an

excellent background and understands the education system; with the

maiden speeches that we heard in this House, where so many of the MLAs

praised the teachers in their constituencies. We saw virtually

identical briefs presented by the BCSTA and the BCTF to the Minister of

Labour on collective bargaining rights for teachers. So there was hope

there, and hope that we would see the much-needed stability and peace

in our school system.

Until last Thursday, I think there was a good chance that that

kind

of hope could have borne fruit. But the introduction of Bill 20 makes

no sense. It's very clear that by its introduction we're taken back in

time; we're taken back to that period of confrontation that all of us

want to leave behind us. We see that Bill 20 does not benefit the

half-million schoolchildren in this province. It is out of line in the

Canadian context. It doesn't fit; it's not appropriate; it's not the

kind of thing that exists in other provinces. Also, it was injected at

the worst possible time in history for the benefit of the school system

in this province. There could not have been a worse time — a worse day,

a worse month, a worse year, a worse session — to bring in this kind of

legislation.

Considering that, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves: what

does this

government want? Why is it bringing in this legislation at this time?

It certainly begs common sense, and it does not produce the peace and

harmony that we're interested in for our schoolchildren. The only thing

we're left to conclude is that there must be some political reasons for

bringing in this legislation, and at this time.

I would like to examine that further, but there are some

features,

some principles in and around Bill 20, that I would like to spend a few

minutes discussing. One of those features is consultation. I'd also

like to reflect on the role of principals and vice-principals in the

school system. I would like to comment on the concept of freedom of

association, on the concept of double jeopardy and on the idea of

defence of our education system — on due process. I'd also like to try

to give some analysis to what I think Bill 20 is all about.

On the first one, consultation, in the last while the minister

has

said a great deal about consultation in his public remarks and in

letters to the editor. Yet at 5:30 last Thursday, when we were

anticipating that we'd be dealing with the Attorney-General's

estimates, and at a time when the press gallery had gone home, we saw —

with threats on the government's side and on the teachers' side — that

we had a chance for good-faith talks, a real chance for consultation

and hope for a respite in confrontation, this bill was introduced. The

only reason I can conclude was that it was to disrupt the consultation

process; that the government is afraid of meaningful consultation and

does not want it. The government wanted the teachers out of the

schools. It wanted to provoke a reaction. It wanted to take the focus

off this bill and put it on the problems, as we will see in the news

probably tomorrow night, with teachers with their backs to the wall

taking a stand.

When the introduction of this bill didn't scuttle talks....

Apparently the talks went very well; there was a good agenda

established, and a timetable in which to pursue

[ Page 789 ]

those talks. When the introduction of

the bill

didn't scuttle the talks, the minister preemptively, again, issued a

press release indicating that all this would go ahead, when it had not

yet been agreed to by all parties. I think anyone can make mistakes.

But the minister is a very experienced minister, and I think mistakes

at this time are very serious. These are very sensitive discussions

that are going on in this province with teachers, school trustees and

the government. I think it's very sad and very unfortunate that these

two things, which I hope have not placed those talks in jeopardy, have

happened.

Those are some concerns I have in terms of consultation

leading up

to discussion of Bill 20 today. The concept of consultation is an

interesting one. If I hire a consultant, or the government hires a

consultant, I don't think I or the government would expect to agree

with everything that consultant suggests. But I don't think you hire a

consultant unless you're prepared to work with that consultant, to

accept something of their ideas and to try to incorporate those ideas

into the framework of the plans that the government might have. It's

expected that the government would take into consideration the

interests and the feelings of the parties involved in the consultation.

I'm not exactly sure what the Premier's idea of consultation

is. I

know he's reported as having said a couple of years ago that his type

of democracy would require "less involvement by people. The more people

get involved, the more gets lost" — Vancouver, April 1983. I know the

Premier and the Minister of Education have received the teachers'

Bargaining and Professional Rights Task Force report, which was some

three years in preparation, with a very involved discussion, debate and

democratic process producing that report. I think what we see in Bill

20 is some evidence not only of just having received that report, but

perhaps not even having read it, because it was very clear on page 54

of that report that the idea of a teaching profession act with a

college was a goal that had been eliminated by the B.C. Teachers'

Federation.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) has also received

reports

from the BCSTA and the BCTF, and has listened to presentations recently

by those two bodies. I think the extent of the dialogue there was that

the minister thanked those bodies for their presentation. Although

there was virtual unanimity in the presentations of those two bodies,

the minister, in his opening remarks, talked about divided opinion on

these issues. I'm left with the question: is the government listening

when they're receiving briefs? Is that what consultation is? Is a

thank-you enough?

I believe that may be the beginning of consultation, but

certainly

consultation involves a lot more. It involves discussion, dialogue,

debate and an understanding of the feelings and interests of those

parties that you are in consultation with.

[2:45]

This process that we're engaged in right now is, I suppose, a

consultation process. The minister, in introducing this bill.... The

very first thing he said was that the government welcomed the input of

various groups from the education community and from the community at

large. Well, I don't know how, by the introduction of Bill 20, the

minister is going to get input from the community at large. Certainly

the media are focusing on what the government wants them to focus on

now, and that is the problems in the school system. The focus is away

from the debate on Bill 20, which is where the focus should be. It

should be on the government and the government's bills, and what the

government and the opposition have to say about it.

The minister went on to say that the bill is proceeding to

second

reading at this time to ensure opportunity for full, public debate. I

don't see that full, public debate happening by the introduction of

second reading. Certainly if we wanted full, public debate, there are

numerous other vehicles for achieving that. Certainly us debating it

here precludes public discussion. To set up the kind of consultation

that is going on right now between the BCTF, BCSTA and government is

good consultation, but if it were referred to a royal commission, that

would provide an opportunity for public discussion.

I would like to comment further on the briefs to the Minister

Labour and try to decide whether or not the government was listening

during that consultation process. In the briefs to the Minister of

Labour, both the teachers and the trustees in this province made

recommendations. The teachers' position — and I think it is an

important one because I don't think it has been clear — in terms of

salary bargaining was one of choice. Teachers in this province wanted

the opportunity in the case of an impasse to choose between the strike

option and arbitration. The reason for that is that the arbitration

process has worked well for many years.

It had been particularly effective in terms of salary

determination,

and it's a process that avoided disruption of the schools. I think at

this time the teachers were after the kind of process that existed

under the Essential Service Disputes Act, which applies to nurses and

firefighters in order to maintain those essential services and avoid a

strike, if there is an opportunity for the choice of either the strike

option or arbitration.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The trustees proposed a similar idea — not choice, but they

wanted

strike-lockout. So there was similarity between the teachers' and

trustees' presentations to the Minister of Labour. In reality, the

government has offered.... Certainly the government can say that some

of what was asked for has been offered, because the strike-lockout

provision is there for those locals that will be certified. The

government might also say that the arbitration process is there. But

the strike-lockout provision is one that is tremendously limited by

Bill 19, a bill that really makes free collective bargaining in this

province a myth.

What the teachers and trustees are asking for is not there

anymore.

They were looking for the Labour Code; the Labour Code is gone, so

while the minister may say that we gave them what they wanted, we

really didn't. The appearance is there but not the reality.

The arbitration aspect is unlikely to be functional, Madam

Speaker,

because boards traditionally are unwilling to submit to arbitration

those items that they consider within their management prerogative. The

arbitration process right now is still governed by the ability to pay,

so it is very unlikely that the teachers or the trustees are going to

be submitting very many of their disputes to arbitration.

We are stuck with strike-lockout, and I think we are stuck

with

somebody asking for something and having the tables turned on them. We

are into predictable disruption as a result of this sort of fraud. On

the concept of the expanded scope of bargaining that was asked for by

both the teachers and the trustees, again it appears as though the

government has

[ Page 790 ]

provided some opportunity for an

expanded scope of

bargaining. However, the question of that scope is still up in the air.

The jury is out on that one; lawyers are still debating whether that

scope is really there. I think the minister was sincere in improving

the scope of bargaining; however, when there will be no bargaining on

issues that will prevent or limit the exercise of power, authority or

discretion of the school board, it is really questionable as to what

the actual scope will be in bargaining.

In terms of the briefs on strike-lockout and expanded scope of

bargaining, the government has given the appearance of satisfying those

needs. Teachers and trustees also asked for the end to the CSP, and it

is true that the CSP will end for the education sector in July 1988.

But any arbitrations that occur after that will still be governed by

the ability to pay as the paramount issue in that consideration, and,

because the government holds the cards in funding, certainly the

effectiveness of those arbitrations are going to be minimized. So in

terms of ending CSP and expanded scope in bargaining and in

strike-lockout, the appearance is there but not the reality. The

government argues that they did deliver on those issues. It appears

they delivered on the issues, but in reality they didn't.

It's not so much what was asked for and what was delivered in

terms

of appearance; it's what was not asked for. Neither teachers or

trustees asked for a college to govern certification, discipline and

professional development. Neither teachers nor trustees asked for a

separation of the professional functions and the employee functions of

the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Neither teachers nor trustees asked for

the removal of automatic membership or the removal of principals from

the bargaining unit. Neither teachers nor trustees wanted the

administrators' bargaining rights removed in the process. Particularly,

neither the BCTF nor the BCSTA asked for loss of control of the

methodology of teaching in this province.

I think this is a very serious one, and I think the Premier's

opinion on these kinds of things is significant. The minister spoke to

the BCSTA the other day, and the Premier spoke to the BCSTA in 1982. He

said at that time:

"When I went to school I was given 90

percent facts

and 10 percent opinion, and in the process I acquired the tools which

later allowed me to form my own independent opinions.... It seems to me

that somewhere someone somehow took a shortcut, in effect, by saying:

'Why give them the tools to form an individual opinion, when the

consensus should be one basic opinion'? I call that socialism, and of

course, from whence I come and where I stand, you can appreciate, I

think this is dangerous stuff."

That's what the minister said in 1982 about teaching

methodology. In

1986 at the Whistler convention he said essentially the same thing —

that teachers should teach facts, not opinions. I think it's a very

dangerous thing for the government to be trying to determine the

methodology of the teaching profession. There has grown up over the

years not only in this province or this country but, I think, in all

the western world a respect for teachers to be trained to do their kind

of job and to do it without government interference.

So I think we see, as a result of submissions to the Labour

Minister, that there were some issues that were granted in terms of

appearance, but the vast majority of the implementation of Bill 20 were

items that were not asked-for either by the employers or by the

employees. So we can only conclude that this government is not

listening and that it has its own agenda for Bill 20. I would like to

discuss further what that agenda is a little bit later.

1 would like to spend a few moments commenting on what has

happened

to principals and vice-principals under Bill 20. Every province in

Canada except one has their principals and vice-principals and their

teaching staffs in the same bargaining units. This is an issue that has

been discussed at length in this province, and the current Premier as

Minister of Education provoked a lot of this discussion. As a result of

that provocation of discussion, this item was dealt with in 1982 by the

B.C. School Trustees Association at their annual general meeting, and

the question was: should principals and vice-principals belong to the

same bargaining unit and be part of the B.C. Teachers' Federation? A

resolution was brought forward in 1982 that suggested that no, they are

management and they should be separated and should not be part of the

BCTF. That resolution was defeated. It also came forward in 1983 and

was defeated again. The same resolution came forward in 1984 and this

time it wasn't defeated; it was referred to a task force, and that task

force reported back in 1985 with the same resolution and it was

defeated again. By that time the momentum for this kind of separation

had run its course, and in 1986 this resolution did not appear.

The only other public opinion survey that I would quote on the

issue

of separation of principals and vice-principals was from the "Let's

Talk About Schools" report. In that report, the majority of the general

public did not support the idea of separation.

So this is a government agenda. It's not the agenda of the

BCTF, the

BCSTA or the general public. This is a Socred government agenda that

sees principals and vice-principals separated from teachers.

It's true, Madam Speaker, that within the ranks of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation there were family disputes between principals and

the BCTF as an organization. But those disputes were patched up. I

don't think the government was aware of that, and evidence of that is

very clear. On the day the Labour minister introduced Bill 19 he said:

"However, because school principals and vice-principals are assigned

significant management responsibilities, and in accordance with

resolutions passed at the BCT17's annual general meeting, we have

recognized their special labour relations status." Hence they are

separated.

[3:00]

In the debate on Bill 19, Madam Speaker, I read into the

record

every resolution affecting principals and vice-principals that was

dealt with at the 1987 BCTF annual general meeting, and there was not

one that could be construed as desiring any sort of separation. There

was a patching-up of the differences there. Principals do not want

separation. There is no record of any official representative body of

principals that is desirous of being separated from their teacher

colleagues.

1 don't know how a government could base the decision and read

into

the record of this House, in introducing a bill, that there was a move

on the part of principals within the B. C. Teachers' Federation and

that this was decided at their annual general meeting. It seems to me

that this is a drastic step, and I can't see such a dramatic step being

taken and rationalized with false information that has been made clear

by the record.

What we see, Madam Speaker, is the assumption of a problem.

The

problem suggests that if teachers and principals are in the same

organization, it's not possible for

[ Page 791 ]

principals to supervise those teachers

properly. I again quote the Premier on the Bannerman show in 1982, when

he suggested:

"I don't believe our principals are

managing sufficiently. They're a part of that team; they're a part of

the union. They tend to be much involved in group management. I think

we do need some fairly good management in the schools, as you would in

any other business...."

And from BCTV, also in 1982:

"I think a principal could be someone

from business. If he's a good manager, that's really all that ought to

be required, especially in a larger school. They don't necessarily need

to be teachers."

On the first point, that they aren't supervising

appropriately, the

Minister of Education, with his vast experience in that field, knows

better. He knows that there is good supervision by principals of our

schools now. He knows that there is good supervision in the schools in

every other province in this country as well, and they are in the same

organization as their teachers. The minister also knows that being in

the same organization does not prevent a principal from performing his

supervisory functions. Separation, Madam Speaker, is not the answer to

improve supervision. The minister knows that the separation proposed in

Bill 20 will only cause disruption in the school system.

The minister, because of his vast experience, also knows of

the

leadership role the principals have played in the B.C. Teachers'

Federation and their local associations. Often that role was a

moderating role and a valuable role in order to ensure that the actions

of teachers benefited from those principals' perspective and experience.

What we see now as a result of this separation is a "wethey"

syndrome. For the first time in this province, we're going to see staff

meetings in schools where principals are not present. That's a

tremendous precedent to consider. Those kinds of meetings have not been

held with any regularity in the past. The educational leader in the

school was always there to give his or her view on the matters

discussed in staff meetings.

I think this separation is going to result in school

principals being less supportive of their staffs. There's going to be a

less trusting climate in our schools. So many of the tasks that

principals do are completely in support of the education system, of the

children in the school and of the teachers, doing such things as

filling in for teachers when they want to observe other classes, being

advocates for their school, maximizing staffing and equipment, and

speaking out in the interests of the children in the school and the

potential for developing the best system within that school. I think

those are the things that are likely to be stifled, and I think those

are the parts of the principal's role that give the principal the

greatest job satisfaction — being advocates for their schools within

their district. As a result of Bill 20, I think we're now going to see

principals lose collective strength. They are going to be put in this

situation of having the potential of being fired without cause and

being stripped of rights. I think they are going to be agents of the

board rather than educators; they will be muzzled and will not speak

out in defence of education in the future. That's why I think Bill 20

is opening up a very dangerous situation. The Premier said on the

Bannerman show: "I don't think a principal even needs to be a teacher.

In a large school he could simply be a good manager.... I think the

majority of principals would agree. Certainly all of the good

principals would agree, because they want to manage and they can see

the need for good management. I would think that perhaps if the BCTF

were totally honest about it, they would have to agree as well...."

Is this where we're heading, Madam Speaker? Does the public

not have

a right to input into this dramatic change of course for our province,

unlike virtually every other province in Canada? They need an

opportunity to decide whether they want the principals of their schools

to be bosses rather than colleagues, whether they want those bosses to

create conflict in the schools that doesn't exist there now. They need

a chance to input into the decision whether our schools are going to be

factories or places of learning. What makes sense for factories does

not make sense for our school system. The human process of teaching and

learning that goes on in schools is a very special one. It's one that

needs evolution, not radical change. I don't think it can be

legislated, and it certainly cannot be legislated to fit a factory

mould or a military model. I think it's a dangerous piece of

legislation. It's going to be very disruptive, and I think it's one

that the government should reconsider.

I would also like to talk about some features and some of the

principles involved in the College of Teachers. One of the aspects of

the legislation that is quite unique compared to previous education

legislation.... Not being a lawyer, I don't fully appreciate the

language, but it's the kind of language....

Whereas before, when the

legislation was silent on an issue it was presumed that powers were not

granted under the legislation, under this legislation much wider powers

are being granted, and the opposite assumption is occurring: if a body

is not specifically prohibited from doing something, then that body can

do it. I think the minister understands the

section 1'm referring to,

which gives wide powers to the college and differs from education

legislation that exists for school boards now.

Central to the whole idea of a college, I guess, is the

concept of

freedom of association. It seems to me logical that it should be

possible for organizations to structure their own structure, that they

decide what the organizational framework should be. That kind of

situation should be agreed to by government and organizations, and not

imposed. I don't believe any other occupation is treated in this way,

and forced to accept a certain organizational structure that is not

their historical way. I think it's beyond comprehension for the

government to suggest to the IWA that they are going to set up another

parallel organization that is going to perform functions the IWA

performs now. Or similarly with the BCSTA. Those organizations

determine the kind of structure and operations they desire. They're not

forced to do things; they do not have things imposed upon them. They

operate with freedom of association and determine their own structure.

They have the freedom to determine what kind of organization they think

best. If it's respected for other groups in this province. I don't

understand why it's not respected for teachers.

Another principle of Bill 20 that I would like to comment on

is the

concept of duplication of service. The college really provides for

three main areas of operation: certification, discipline and

professional development for teachers in this province. If we have a

look at the certification aspect, this is an aspect that's now handled

by the Ministry of Education. It is primarily a bureaucratic function

and is handled very efficiently by the Ministry of Education. The

province, of course, bears the cost of that operation.

With a college of teachers, where every certificated teacher

that has held a valid certificate in British Columbia

[ Page 792 ]

automatically becomes a member of the

college, we

are in for a tremendously cumbersome process. My colleague from

Coquitlam-Moody has a daughter who will be a member of the college. The

college will have to track her down and try to figure out whether she

wants to pay fees to that college or not. There are going to be

teachers in the United States and all parts of the western world; there

are going to be retired teachers; there are going to be a vast number

of teachers in independent or private schools. The minister himself is

eligible to be a member of the college.

All of those certificates are going to have to be reviewed,

and all

of those people are going to have to have an opportunity to say whether

they want to be members of the college or not. The college is going to

have to hire a registrar and a deputy registrar and a vast bureaucracy.

It's going to have to keep records, and those records are going to have

to be up to date.

The college is going to have to collect fees. Right now the

certification branch has 11 staff; they used to have 23 and now,

post-restraint, they have 11. That half-million dollar bureaucracy,

because of the tremendous needs.... If you have a look at the College

of Physicians and Surgeons, or other colleges that operate similarly,

it's going to take millions and millions of dollars in bureaucratic

costs to operate those colleges. This is unnecessary bureaucracy. The

tremendous amount of red tape and rules and regulations that is going

to be imposed by this college, by a government that I thought wanted to

eliminate red tape, is going to be horrendous, and the costs are going

to be shifted from the Ministry of Education to the College of Teachers.

[3:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm reminded of a story of a couple in love who wanted to live

together, but they didn't really want to get married. They thought as

an alternative that they would establish a contract. They went through

all the details of figuring out who pays, and the division of labour,

and who does what on what days, right down to who is going to pay for

the telephone and the insurance costs. By the time their lawyers had

met and they had gone through all this process, they decided that they

didn't want to live together any more.

I think we can strangle things with rules and regulations and

red

tape and lawyers and

interpretations of clauses, and that's what I see

in Bill 20 and in the college — that it's going to be a job-creation

program for lawyers and a great deal of extra cost borne by the

teaching profession. So in terms of certification, what we see is a

tremendous bureaucracy at a tremendous cost, and the cost shifting from

the ministry to the teaching force.

In terms of professional development, another major function

of the

college, the ministry, boards, faculties of education and the B.C.

Teachers' Federation all contribute greatly to the professional

development of teachers in this province. The B.C. Teachers' Federation

alone contributes something like $5 million to that operation, and I

think it's agreed that there are already first-rate programs for

teachers by these bodies. I think in his introductory remarks the

minister indicated he supported certain aspects of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. I'm sure the professional development aspects were among

those he supported, because it was, has been, and will continue in the

future to be a job well done by those bodies and by the B.C. Teachers'

Federation.

So what we see, not only in terms of certification but also in

terms

of professional development, is redundant processes being set up.

Nobody asked for these kinds of redundant structures.

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers.

MR. JONES: No, I don't think the taxpayers

of this province ever asked for certification to be borne by teachers.

Teachers want to get on with the job of teaching. They don't

need

any more bureaucracy; they don't need to pay for any of the costs of

any unnecessary duplication of services, either in terms of

professional development or in terms of certification.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Education

wants leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On behalf of Mr. Speaker,

I would like the

House to make welcome 40 grade 10 students from Hillside Secondary

School in West Vancouver. They are visiting us this afternoon, and I

would like the House to make them very welcome.

MR. JONES: What I was suggesting was that

of the three

functions of the new college, those of discipline, professional

development and certification, the certification is a bureaucratic

function and it's going to be shifted at great cost to the teachers of

the province. The professional development is being done right now;

it's a job well done. Those are not the two main issues in the college.

There must be another agenda. The other agenda I suggest is the one of

discipline.

Under the heading of discipline and the College of Teachers, I

would

like to comment on the principle of double jeopardy. Suppose, Mr.

Speaker, that you are a teacher in a school. I know you would be a good

teacher in that school. However, it is just quite possible that the

Minister of Education might be your principal and you might not get

along with that principal. You may have some problems. You may have an

old car, or you may be a single parent. You may arrive late for class

the odd time. For this, but primarily for your dispute with your

principal, you may be terminated with 30 days' notice. Under this bill

there are certainly expanded and open-ended powers for boards to

terminate. Boards can terminate now for any cause that they feel

renders the teacher unsuitable for the position he held, or for

unprofessional conduct. So your dispute with your principal could lead

to your termination. You would go before your school board.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

However, let's assume, for argument's sake, that that was an

enlightened school board; they saw the merit of your teaching ability

and they understood the problems that you had and you were vindicated

by that enlightened board. One would think that that would be the end

of it, but that is not necessarily the case, because at that point that

principal, whom you do not get along with, and four of his or her

friends who would be members of the college — and they needn't be in

the same school district or from among classroom teachers, or even from

public school teachers — could ensure that you were called before the

College of Teachers. Any three

[ Page 793 ]

council members — and five of those

council members

are appointed by government — could investigate your case and would

have the potential to lift your certificate for conduct unbecoming a

member of the college. And, Madam Speaker, you would have no appeal of

that process on any of the professional decisions made by the college,

no appeal on the judgment of that college.

So you've been put in double jeopardy: you've been vindicated

by one

body, brought before another, and found wanting. Your employer

vindicated you as a good teacher but, because of the conflicts you've

had — personal conflicts — with your principal, and because of the

wording of this legislation, you've been placed in double jeopardy.

I think this kind of situation, with the expansion of powers

school boards and the double jeopardy of the college, places teachers

in a very vulnerable position in this province. I think now I

understand a little more the comments in the maiden speech of my

colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier), who suggested something

to the effect that this legislation would be welcomed by 90 percent of

teachers, in effect suggesting that 10 percent are dragging down the 90

percent, and this legislation has the power, I suppose, to shape up or

ship out what that member thought was the deadwood of the teaching

force.

I have also heard that there are other members on the

government

side who have names of people and so-called documentation of people

they think can now be eliminated with this legislation. So what I see

with this legislation is a prescription for a witch-hunt. It's a very

sad statement, Madam Speaker, in a province that has gone through the

kind of turmoil in the education system that we've seen in the last

five years, that this kind of legislation is being brought in. It is

very frightening to the teaching force in this province. Certainly

doctors, lawyers and dentists, who are self-employed, need a

professional body for discipline, because they don't have an employer

to do that function for them. The employers are really the only body

with the ability to supervise, to monitor and to counsel the

performance of teachers in our school system. The employer can do the

job properly. Anything a college is going to rely upon is going to be

evidence presented by the employers, by those supervisors. Again, it's

a duplication of services. Not only do we have double jeopardy with the

college but we have unnecessary duplication and we have a prescription

for a witch-hunt.

Another principle, Madam Speaker, that I am concerned about

that

relates to Bill 20 is the concept of defence of education. I know

members opposite are tired of hearing the official opposition on this

side defending the rights of minorities, disadvantaged and the poor.

They are also tired of hearing teachers defend another group of people

that needs advocates: that is, the children and the parents of children

in our school system.

Madam Speaker, who was it who stood up to the government

cutbacks in

the numbers of people teaching our children? Who stood up to government

in the cutbacks to the school programs and the narrowing of

opportunities and horizons of our young people? Who stood up to

government in the cutbacks in the resources, in such things as field

trips and other important resources in our education system? The

teachers of this province through their organization, the B. C.

Teachers' Federation, stood up.

Who has been fighting for decentralization so that we can have

better offerings at our local level that better meet the needs of our

local communities and our individual students in each community? Who

has been fighting for the rights of minority students in this province,

and for the rights of handicapped students? The teachers of this

province. The public record is clear: they have been the defenders of

public education within this province, a role that in any other

jurisdiction would be one adopted by government and wouldn't have to be

left to the employees of the system.

The government has not done the job of being an advocate for

the

school system. The teachers of this province have been vocal in

bringing to public attention the problems that face the schools of this

province.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, Bill 20 will stifle teachers as

defenders of public education by putting their tenure in jeopardy.

Those rights that provide the security they need to be advocates for

our public education system are jeopardized. Boards, as I mentioned,

will be able to give any teacher 30 days' notice for any action that

they deem unsuitable. Certainly after this legislation goes through,

teachers will think twice before they speak out in defence of

education. They've been placed in an extremely vulnerable situation —

principals and vice-principals in the school system in this province

even more so. As a result of this, our school system is going to lose.

The children in our school system are going to lose. In fact, even our

democratic way of life is going to lose those advocates who in the past

have felt free to speak out on behalf of education.

The minister is right, in his thinly veiled criticism, that

students

learn by the example of their teachers. Teachers were right to stand up

for public education yesterday, they'll be right to stand up for it

today, and they'll be right to stand up for it tomorrow. I would be

very proud to have my child taught by teachers who are willing to stand

up for public education in this province.

Another principle that I would like to comment briefly on that

impacted by Bill 20 is that of due process. As I mentioned, dismissal

under the former legislation was a fairly straightforward process. If

there was any gross misconduct or any behavior that really warranted

dismissal and suspension, boards had an opportunity to do that. If it

was a case of teaching competence, there was a process — and I realize

it was not a particularly popular process with many school boards —

that involved evaluation; it required that there be three

unsatisfactory reports written within a period of 12 months. All that

it required was three unsatisfactory reports. If the school system was

unsatisfied with the performance of a teacher, then three reports over

a period of 12 months would have seen the termination of that teacher

contract. Now we see termination within 30 days for any cause deemed

unsuitable by the board. I think it is sad that there is no evaluation

process built into this. Certainly evaluation was a critical part of

the previous process. To turn so radically away from any evaluation

process being part of terminations is, I think, a dangerous precedent.

Boards of reference upon appeal are now going to be very

restricted

in their latitude in terms of being able to treat these situations so

that the punishment fits the crime. Previous boards of reference were

able to uphold, reverse or apply any other sanction that they felt

appropriate. Now the only options for those boards of reference are to

reinstate or to confirm the decision of the school board. Boards of

reference being restricted in their latitude does not bode well for the

school system, because the punishment cannot fit the crime if we can

only reinstate or confirm.

[3:30]

[ Page 794 ]

Due process is also affected under teacher transfers. Formerly

there

was an appeal process for teachers who were going to transfer. Now

there is no appeal process. Now it is wide open to transfer teachers,

and there is a dangerous opportunity for abuse opened here. The

language in the bill suggests that teachers can be fired for the cause

that that teacher is deemed unsuitable for the position held. But now,

because there is no appeal to the transfer process, if you wanted to

make a teacher unsuitable for a position, all you would have to do is

transfer them. Suppose you had a secondary auto mechanics teacher that

you transferred to a French kindergarten class; the teacher would

obviously be unsuitable, would have no appeal for that transfer, and

would obviously be open to termination. There is no due process here,

and Bill 20 leaves teachers wide open to abuse by employers under this

section of the bill.

This legislation is a tremendous puzzle to me. We know it is

not

good for kids; we know that historically it is producing the opposite

effect from what we would like to see in our school system in 1987,

after the years of strife and turmoil. We know it does not fit in the

Canadian context, and I am sure what we are doing in this Legislature

here now is a puzzle to all other provinces in Canada, not only to me.

It is obvious that this bill is being poorly received by the

teachers of this province. More than 20 school boards have written

indicating their concerns and asking for a delay of this legislation.

At this moment — probably only a few hundred yards from us — there are

talks going on. Those talks are still pushing ahead. The minister says

he wants input; he says amendments are forthcoming; yet we are debating

this bill. It seems to me logical that the bill would be amended and

then brought forth in the amended form, and we would debate that

amended bill.

Many features in that bill were never asked for by anybody in

this

province or by any representative body. The principals and

vice-principals: nobody asked for their separation. We see that the

college violates the right to determine a workers' group's own

structure, that it involves duplication of service. It involves double

jeopardy in that teachers as advocates are being stifled and that there

is a loss of due process in this bill. It is brought in now to shift

focus away from the bill, because the government knew that that was

going to cause disruption in the school system, and that would be the

focus. I believe that the government wants confrontation, that they are

out to get teachers. They want to push through this legislation that

divides and conquers, that separates teachers from teachers on a union,

non-union basis. It is going to produce division and conflict in our

school system. It separates teachers from principals and produces a

factory model that we know will hurt those relationships that are so

delicate in our school system; it reduces the security of tenure of

teachers; it sets up a college that is going to drain the resources of

individual teachers in this province; and it's going to set up a

college that is in direct competition with the B.C. Teachers'

Federation.

We know, Madam Speaker, the long history between Social Credit

governments and the B.C. Teachers' Federation, and the confusion

becomes a little clearer when we look at some of the quotes from the

Premier of the past. The present Premier as Minister of Education said

in a speech to the Agrodome rally in 1982: "Was the decision [to cut

education funding] political? Not political in the sense of your

president calling me some very uncomplimentary names the day after my

appointment."

And to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce in 1983: "We're having

fight, as so often happens, the big machine, the people in their ivory

towers on Burrard Street in Vancouver.... That large organization is

more interested in power for the sake of power, and political power,

than...are really interested in ensuring that people maintain their

jobs and the system remains intact."

On the Bannerman show in 1983: "1 really don't wish a fight

with

teachers.... I think the problem is with the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

If there's a power struggle there, and if there's a desire for power

for the sake of power, or political power, and if there's a thought

that this might be a means of expanding that BCTF organization into

something more than what it presently is, it's with some of those

members on the executive."

From the Sun in 1982: "I'm not trying to pick a fight with the

B.C.

Teachers' Federation, but I believe its leaders have turned to union

work to get their kicks because they may not be as effective in the

classroom as they should be."

So what we see, Madam Speaker, from these quotes, is a

Minister of

Education, now the Premier of this province, who I think in those

remarks displayed pettiness and vindictiveness and I suppose is of the

philosophy that "I don't get angry; I get even." So what we see in this

legislation is vindictive legislation.

Certainly I can understand the Premier's feelings about past

disputes with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and their executive.

However, it seems to be small reason to bring in radical legislation

that is going to upset the education system in this province, that is

going to drastically affect the relationships between all those

concerned in education. When we were promised a fresh start, I think

this kind of vindictive legislation is totally out of place with that

dream that I think everybody wanted to see.

Certainly government has a difficult job. It's difficult to

represent the views of all British Columbians, but this government was

elected to do just that. I think everybody in this province respects

their right to bring in legislation, that they were democratically

elected, and that the decisions that this government makes have to be

accepted. However, the comments I heard a few minutes ago don't speak

to the same sort of principles when it comes to other organizations. It

seems to me that the same rationale has to apply to organizations that

the government deals with. When organizations such as teachers'

organizations operate perfectly democratically and they elect a

leadership, government has to accept that leadership and has to work

with that leadership. Attacks on that leadership are attacks on that

membership. So I don't think we can say that we like teachers but we

don't like the B.C. Teachers' Federation, because the B.C. Teachers'

Federation is teachers. In 1971 when automatic membership was last

removed, out of 22,000 teachers only 69 chose not to be members. I

think the membership supports the leadership, because they believe in

the democratic process just like we believe in the democratic process

in this province that put members opposite in government. So we respect

the decisions that government makes, but we also have to respect the

leaders that represent organizations and work with those organizations.

The organization that seems to be distasteful to so many

members

opposite was incorporated in 1919. The original objectives of that

organization were to foster and promote the cause of education in

British Columbia; to raise the status of the teaching profession in

British Columbia; to promote the

[ Page 795 ]

welfare of teachers of British

Columbia. The

economic welfare of teachers and the professional cause have been the

underpinning of that organization. Those objectives under which that

body was incorporated in 1919 are still the objectives.

Nineteen-nineteen is a very long time ago. If we think about

the two

political parties present in this House today, we see that it's twice

as old as the Social Credit Party, at least in terms of government in

this province, and probably three times as old as the New Democratic

Party. It has contributed in many important ways to the life of British

Columbia.

Yes, on many occasions that organization has had the

opportunity or

the responsibility to be critical of government. They've been critical

on such things as the funding or underfunding of education, and class

sizes that were too large. They've been critical of the government in

terms of the bargaining conditions of teachers. They asked for nothing

more than was present in other parts of Canada. But surprisingly,

that's a very small part of that organization's activities.

It might surprise members present to know that the vast

majority of

the budget of that organization goes to professional development. They

have tremendous support for conferences and symposiums on instruction

and curriculum. Each teaching area in this province has its own

organization that is funded by the BCTF. They are out there, meeting

the needs of teachers as they identify them, assisting them with

lessons in the lesson-aid branch. The organization publishes something

like 20 professional journals. They work with teachers in the Third

World. Since the inception of their international program, they have

donated more than $1 million to that cause, and those funds are matched

by the federal government through CIDA.

Not only in terms of professional development programs, but

also in

community outreach programs.... When the government stopped funding for

parent-teacher organizations in this province, the BCTF jumped in and

sponsored annually, bringing in parents from all over the province to a

parent-teacher conference. This organization, which this government so

loves to attack, has stood up for the rights of children and has a

rights-of-children committee. It has tremendous programs on

multiculturalism, on peace education and on status-of-women issues.

Since 1919 this body has been articulate and effective in

working

for the rights of teachers and students and in promoting public

education in this province. Although they have run into government at

times and there has been conflict, I don't think there's any evidence

that they have influenced the voting patterns of their membership. So

there is no need, Mr. Speaker, for a vindictive political attack on

this organization. There is no need to attack the teaching profession

through this body. In other societies the teaching profession is looked

upon as the highest in society. I don't know why, in British Columbia,

it is such a victim of government attack.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There is no need to carry on with Bill 20 when talks are going

across the way. There's no need to carry on with this legislation when

the Royal Commission on Education is just beginning its work. I know

the minister is thinking that I was one of those who suggested this was

an item that needed to be dealt with in a relatively speedy fashion,

and should not be part of the commission on education. But when I said

that, I was envisioning a real royal commission, which would probably

be a two- to three-year project. I was envisioning the small kinds of

changes that would put the bargaining and professional rights of

teachers in this province in line with those of other provinces, not a

radical change to upset the school system and a wholesale alteration of

long-standing traditions in this province, having a drastic impact, as

I predict this bill will, in terms of the delicate teacher-student

relationship which I think we all hold as so important in our school

system.

[3:45]

What we have left for the commission on education is very

little.

Nothing could be bigger in terms of education in this province in this

year than what this bill is dealing with. Mr. Sullivan is probably

feeling very insulted at this moment, that probably the major issue in

education is not going to be part of that royal commission.

I would think that it should be clear by now that the bill is

not

good for children, does not fit in the Canadian context and has not

transpired within the process of consultation. The government was not

listening at the time of submissions to the Labour minister. It's going

to have a drastic impact on our schools, particularly on the principals

and vice-principals of this province. It interferes with freedom of

association, and it's going to be cumbersome and involve a tremendous

duplication of service with the college. A real part of the agenda is

probably in the discipline

section of the college, which puts teachers

in double jeopardy. As a result, we're going to see a tremendous loss

of advocates in this province, who will no longer feel free to defend

education as they have in the past. We also see that due process is

being considerably reduced as a result of this legislation.

It is essentially vindictive legislation. It is out to get a

group

of teachers in this province through their organization, which has

certainly been in conflict with government. But government has the

opportunity to be big about this and work with that body, which is

democratically elected.

It's also clear that in its existing form this legislation

will not

work, that the college without the support of the teaching body is a

bizarre idea. Certainly Ontario's Premier Bill Davis, when this

situation occurred in that province, saw it as naive to try to

introduce the bill against the wishes of teachers and to impose a

college on teachers. It is unworkable. It's not good for kids. It's

going to hurt the education climate in this province. That's why

trustees are doubtful about this legislation, why teachers are opposed

to it and why we in the opposition are opposed.

If there's one thing we must have learned in the last five or

ten

years, it's that we don't need any more confrontation. Confrontation in

the education sector is particularly harmful, and it doesn't work. If

we care about our school system and about the children in that school

system, we'll find that there's no need for imposition of this kind of

radical legislation, that it doesn't have to be rammed through this

Legislature, and that there are alternatives. There is an alternative

for government and the interest sectors in education: to work together

for the good of children and to try some positive vehicles for

cooperation and consultation — such vehicles as the commission on

education and the talks that are going on now. Everyone respects the

right of government to govern, but they would respect government more

if it governed by consensus. That was the kind of thing that was

promised in the election — that there would be more cooperation, less

confrontation and more consensus.

[ Page 796 ]

Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to Bill 20, and in the interest of

British Columbians we ask this government not to proceed with this

legislation at this time.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to open

by saying that I

hope that everybody considers the most important factor in this

education debate to be the students. I know that our Premier feels that

way, I know our Minister of Education feels that way, and I know that

this whole government feels that way. Yet I hear some rhetoric that

makes me wonder about some other individuals in this House, and

sometimes some of the comments I've heard outside this House.

I must comment on a few things that the member for Burnaby

North

(Mr. Jones) spoke of. He came up with some words and some terminology

that really disturbed me — words like "teacher-bashing, " "mistrust of

teachers" and "government wants teachers out of the schools." I can't

believe that. What kind of rhetoric is that? What are your interests?

Are your interests political or are they those of the students in the

school program? I won't accept terms like that without saying something

about it. I'm usually a very calm individual, but when I start hearing

rhetoric like that I start getting a little bit upset. Please, let's

use a little rationale.

Anyway, some of the other things he said, talking about the

college: "There's no room for appeal." Well, I'm not sure he's all that

familiar with this legislation. There's some kind of distortion here,

because does he realize that the three member discipline committee only

constitutes a working committee, and if the respondent does not agree

with the suspension or any other type of discipline, it then goes to

the entire committee? I'm not sure he's aware of that. Let's look at

the entire committee. Fifteen members of that committee are elected by

the teachers themselves. That's 75 percent of the committee.

MRS. BOONE: This year?

MR. PETERSON: Well, there's got to be some

time to form it. Even you may realize that.

Anyway, some other comments by the member for Burnaby North:

he's talking about "a prescription for a witch-hunt." Again, I can't

believe my ears. What is the rationale over there? Is it a good

education for our students? Is it concern for our good teachers in the

system? I believe that the majority of our teachers are excellent.

They're committed, they're dedicated, they're well qualified, and their

interest is to teach our students, not this political garbage I'm

hearing from the other side. So let's put things in perspective.

I really, really must take issue with some of these

statements. "A

prescription for a witch-hunt" — you're going to tell me that the 20

members of that college, of which 15 are teachers, are going to go out

on a witch-hunt in their own profession? What kind of thinking is that?

"Out to get teachers, " and comments like that: we're not out to get

teachers. What we want to do, and what Bill 20 does, is to allow

teachers to get into the education system, to let them teach, to let

them educate those students without political interference. They have a

choice whichever way they go. What more could they ask for?

In my discussions outside of this House with teachers, with

members

of my constituency, I find that there is a lot of erroneous information

out there, and I would really like to publicly say to the teachers:

"Get a copy of the act and read it." If I may, I'd like to quote from

our Minister of Education and talk about the three fundamental

principles of the act that he wrote about in his own press release.

They are: "

(1) That teachers are given the same rights as all other

employees in the province to have full scope of collective bargaining

and the right to strike if they choose." Great stuff! I mean, who would

argue with that?

"

(2) That there be adequate separation of

the organizations that collectively bargain and represent the economic

interests of teachers from the organization that governs their

professional conduct and qualification."

Well, I would say that's common sense. Would somebody please

tell me how, if somebody is representing somebody under the terms of a

collective agreement, they can at the same time discipline? It just

doesn't make sense to me. What's the big deal? What's all the noise

about? The noise is political; that's what it is.

Let me get to the third point: "

(3) That principals, vice

principals

and administrative officers be recognized as managers equivalent to

excluded management personnel in other employee groups." Commonsense

stuff; it's not all that complicated. I don't know; I just don't know.

Anyway, as I said, there seems to be a lot of erroneous

information

out there, and I really would urge all teachers to get a copy of the

proposed legislation. Look at it yourself. Don't take somebody else's

word for it, because I'm afraid you're being handed some information

that is, in fact, faulty. I think it's quite important. Consider your

actions, too — remember those students. Don't be stampeded into doing

something that you don't want to do. That's relatively important.

In my maiden speech I made reference to teachers in Langley,

and in

a maiden speech in this House, that was a pretty important time for me.

I was pretty nervous doing it. But I really admire our education system

in Langley. It's great. The teachers are great; the principals are

great; the school board is great. They do a wonderful job. I have two

children in that system, and they were doing a great job with them. I

was talking to my children this weekend. They're a little young yet — 8

and 10 years old — but pretty astute. They're saying: "Dad, how come

there won't be any school on Tuesday? Can you explain it to us?" To be

quite honest with you, I had some difficulty. Was I going to say:

"Well, the teachers wanted the right to full collective bargaining.

We've given them the right to choose the right to strike if they so

desire, but now they're going on strike because they've been given what

they asked for"? That really doesn't make sense, does it? So I really

couldn't rationalize it for them. They said: "Well, Dad, you know,

something's wrong. We want to go to school. We enjoy our school. We

think our teachers want to be there too." I said that they were

probably right.

I really had a difficult time explaining it to them. Maybe it

just

won't happen tomorrow. Maybe a lot of teachers will show up at school.

Maybe they'll have a close look at this legislation and look at the

facts. I hope so. I have a lot of faith in those teachers. I think

they'll do that.

[4:00]

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) also talked about no

consultation. My understanding is that our Minister of Education was

meeting all morning with members of the BCTF.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not very long.

[ Page 797 ]

MR. PETERSON: That process is in play right

now. So I'm really having difficulty with some of the speeches from

over there.

I don't want to stand up here and speak for too long, because

others

have a lot to say on this, too. But I would just like to point out that

if you look at the structure of the new legislation, teachers are given

a choice. They can certify if they wish. They have also the right of

association without certification if they wish.

The new college. Let's not forget that 75 percent of that body

will

be made up right out of their own profession. Everybody says the final

decision of the college is it, but that's not true. There is the right

to appeal to court. That's everybody's God-given right. I think the

legislation is excellent. It will work. It'll give our teachers the

rights to do what they want to do: an excellent job of educating our

youth. I totally support it and I ask that everybody else in this House

support it.

MR. ROSE: The member opposite for Langley

asked some very interesting questions.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Is it the second member for

Langley? The first

member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) wants the second member for Langley to

know his place. We've got that over here.

He asked some very interesting questions, I felt. And he

objected to

some of the terms used. Sometimes terms used in the House tend to be

somewhat inflammatory. That is done for effect and emphasis. But that

doesn't mean that they're any less sincere, in my view. We've had five

years of cutbacks and a lot of unkind things said about the public

system over the last five years. If some of that comes out sounding

like teacher-bashing, some of us get fooled, because we can't look into

the heads of some of those members over there and we don't really know

what they're after. I suspect what goes on in their heads sometimes,

but I can't say for sure.

But if you were in a profession dealing with the young people

this province, and you found the funding devoted to those young people

year after year for the last five years proportionately cut back........

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It has been cut back $400 million

in the last four

years, if you count inflation. If you, year after year found that there

were fewer and fewer supplies in your school, if year after year you

found that the school classes became larger and larger, if year after

year you found your negotiations and your salaries and all the

bargaining that affects your job and young people were frustrated, some

people who were extremely sensitive might think that was

teacher-bashing. Now I wouldn't think that, because I'm not

particularly sensitive. But there are some sensitive souls out there

who do get that feeling. They may be paranoid. But just remember that

even us paranoids have enemies sometimes. That's question number one.

The second member for Langley made his speech almost but not

quite

saying that if we could only get rid of some teachers, the children

would be protected.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. ROSE: No, I didn't say he said that; I

said he almost

said that. He said that we were out to protect children, and therefore

this act is going to protect children from the nefarious activities of

some teachers who see it as their job to teach, for instance,

democratic responsibilities, professional responsibilities, curriculum

development, and all those other neat things that teachers do.

The other thing that I object to from the member's speech,

which

I.... And I admire the member and I admired his speech. I liked it best

of all because it was so short. That was what I liked about it most.

But if we wanted to go into what he said, he implied that if we as an

opposition oppose anything the government wants to do in terms of

education, somehow we're anti-pupil. This is good stuff for the kids,

therefore that opposition should roll over and play dead. That

round-heel opposition over there should keep quiet. Now it is the

government's job to govern; take none of that away from them. Everybody

knows it's the government's job to govern, and they are accountable at

each election time, and it's the opposition's job to criticize and

oppose and to make the legislation better. That's exactly what happened

in Bill 19. We criticized, we opposed, we moved a reasoned amendment,

and all of a sudden we heard: "There are going to be amendments." The

minister — I heard him on the radio the other day — said the door was

open for amendments to come along in this legislation. Maybe some of

the principles won't change much, maybe.... I can hardly resist the pun

that some of the vice principals won't change much, but I think they'll

all change a lot, because their roles will be altered.

We're critical of the legislation because we think that it

would be

better for education and for children if it were different. Not

necessarily legislation to maintain the status quo — teachers didn't

want that, the trustees don't want that, and the government doesn't

want it. We know the government doesn't want the status quo to prevail,

because of the six Education ministers we've had in the last six years

— and I'll name them: the present Premier; a Mr. Pat McGeer, wherever

he may be; the current Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) ; Mr.

Heinrich, wherever that good individual has found himself a place; the

current member for Boundary-Similkameen, or one of the members; and the

current minister. We've had six. Almost half a dozen, and every one bad

eggs, except of course the current minister. Only kidding. If that is

considered an insult or unparliamentary, I retract it. They're not bad

eggs. That's not the point. They haven't been very good for education.

So what has happened to them? The ministers are given the yo-yo

treatment. They're put in to do a hatchet job on education, and then

when things get tough they're yanked up and then we get a new one. It's

a constantly moving target. Moving targets are harder to hit. Now even

that large moving target over there is going to be hard to hit. As

elusive as he is — I know that he is fast on his feet; I know he's a

hunter and a sportsman and a good old boy — even he is going to get

splashed with this. But even he has suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this

is not perfect, that government draftspersons are not perfect. They

goofed up on Bill 19. It may be that they might have goofed up on Bill

20; there's another possibility.

So what happened to the second member for Langley (Mr.

Peterson)?

There he is, sitting over there in all his pristine splendour. What I

would like to know is what all the trouble is now, causing his

youngster to be worried about — since he loves his teacher so much —

the stopping in work for a day for a study session. I don't know if the

people in Langley are going to do what's been suggested he done here

[ Page 798 ]

in terms of study sessions, but I know

one thing:

this party did not organize any of those things. We are legislators; we

are not organizers. That is left up to the teachers themselves. Same

with the trade unions; same with any other body. And what they do is

what they do. If they're upset, I think that has implications for

education, because as a very good colleague and friend of mine wisely

observed just recently, this does not motivate teachers. Turmoil and

chaos in the education system does not motivate teachers to go the

extra mile. I quote my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley and

points east: "The teacher's working environment is the kids' learning

environment." [Applause.] I assume that the applause is from the member

for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). If you distort the

students' learning environment by disturbing the teaching conditions

and the teachers' working environment, that cannot possibly be good for

education.

Anyway, that is the thing that bothers me so much about this.

Yes,

talks are going on — rightly so, and I am pleased that they are. Talks

are going on as well in terms of Bill 19 and its implications and

possible problems. Nobody can knock those. But what I'm afraid of, Mr.

Speaker, is that the lines will harden. Some harsh things will be said

— not by me, of course, but by someone, perhaps blurted out; and from

that stance there will be no retreat or opportunity to expand the

discussions to make consultations really meaningful.

The minister will claim that he has consulted far and wide. I

admit

that he's gone around the province and talked to a few people. I don't

deny that he's done that. I think he probably has. But that is not the

same as getting down and working out a compromise on the legislation

that is now before us, which as far as the schools are concerned is so

unacceptable — I won't say reprehensible — in its present form

About a year ago, Mr. Speaker, I was down in a little town in

California called Victorville. That's in the high desert — that's why I

have to have a drink of water; it's very dry there — about 100

kilometres east of Los Angeles. I was down there to visit some

teachers. I talked to about seven or eight of the 15 teachers in

Victorville, and they came from British Columbia. They were among, the

3,000 teachers made redundant by the cutbacks in education of 400

million bucks over the last five years.

1 know he's shaking his head; he's saying: "He's a wild man;

he's

throwing these figures out of the air." I can document every one of

those figures. If you count inflation and 2 percent per year, I know

what you're cutting. It doesn't take any mathematical genius to figure

that one out. Anyway, these people have no jobs because of cutbacks and

various other things, and since they want to practise their profession

and since they want to make a contribution, they're making it not to

Canadian but to American youngsters. So they are down there working in

the high desert. They'd like to come home; at least they did want to

come home — about half of them. They're down there in a foreign

culture, far from home. Some of them like it and some of them don't

like it very much, but most of them would rather be home. I don't know

if they still would rather be home, after they see what this is all

about.

We don't know the implications of this. People say: "You're

fear

mongering." Unless you try to anticipate what might happen, I don't see

how you can make any informed decision at all. We're always guessing

what the future's going to bring, in some way or other.

Mr. Speaker, these people are down there. They're not making

any

more money than they are here; some of them are making about the same,

when you consider American dollars versus Canadian dollars at 75 cents.

I asked them what they liked about it, and do you know what they said?

"We get the feeling that our work is valued; that they want us here;

that what we do is important. The contribution we make to the

youngsters of Victorville is valued, and we don't feel that our work is

valued in British Columbia."

If you've had five years of the kind of chaos and turmoil that

we've

had in British Columbia, that's going to lead to people feeling that

the government is anti-teacher, whether the government or the minister

is anti-teacher or not. All I know is that whenever there's been

trouble and cutbacks, one minister is yo-yoed out and the other

minister is yo-yoed in.

[4:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your day will come, if

you're lucky.

MR. ROSE: Maybe the minister's day will

come, but he's the

first one who actually had any experience. He's the only one, Mr.

Speaker, who's had any sort of what we call "on hand" experience in the

classroom. I don't know how long ago that was, but nevertheless he has

experienced the classroom; he knows how to keep a record of attendance,

and all that stuff.

There were 15 of them there last January. Do you know how many

are

there this year? Forty-five. Do you know why they're there? Because the

Americans aren't producing enough teachers. Proposition 13, a few years

ago, displaced a lot of teachers. First of all, it cut back the

municipal financing of the schools to the point where they had to cut

way down on the numbers of teachers. It also made teaching so

unrespectable — almost one of the oldest professions and almost as

unrespectable as the oldest profession. The minister is sitting there;

he's reading or something like that. He's like the piano player in the

bordello; he doesn't really think; he's playing the piano. "That's all

I'm doing, playing the piano, " and he pretends he doesn't know what's

going on upstairs. Well, what's going on upstairs is that teachers are

very unhappy about the way in which they've been regarded, and that's

bound to affect the children.

Not many people like politicians; they love the buildings, but

boy,

they don't like politicians. I wonder if it's the same around the

schools, that you've got surveys to show that.... You know, a lot of

people like children but maybe they don't like teachers very much, and

therefore if you can whack them between the eyes, a big chunk of public

expenditure will be eliminated — about $400 million in the last four

years.

Anyway, there they are teaching down there. Many of them would

like

to come home. Many of them will never come home and we've lost their

contribution. But what is worse is that the reason they're there is a

combination of two things. Young people wouldn't go into teaching. They

went into something else. "Why should I do this? Why should I take all

this nonsense? My profession, what I'm doing for a living, is not

regarded, it's not valued, so I'm not going to go into teaching."

I talked to a radio reporter in the hall. This radio reporter

well known to all of us, and he said to me the other day: "You know,

Mark, " — is it permissible for me to use my own first name? "You know,

hon. member for Coquitlam-

[ Page 799 ]

Moody, I wanted to be a teacher, " he said. Here he is running

around armed with his microphone. He said: "When I got out of high

school, I wanted to be a teacher, but I wouldn't want to be a teacher

today. You couldn't get me into the classroom with a ten-foot pole. I

wouldn't do it because it's not respected, it's not valued, and I would

have no intention of doing that."

Now if we oppose this particular bill, it's because we do not

think

that it has been rationally discussed — there's the word rational that

was used down there — with the profession. Democracy means that the

government rest on the consent of those governed. Now if something is

coming along and is being imposed on a group of people to which they

object, and those people are reasonable people, then I think it's

foolish to proceed with it. I think it's politically foolish to proceed

with it. There are all kinds of suggestions here about how great this

is going to be. "We're going to bring some of you under the Labour

Code, that is if you're in a union." What happens if 40 percent of the

people decide they're going to have a union and 60 percent an

association? Then what happens in the district? What happens if the

people who want to join the union say: "The heck with you, we're not

paying into your association"? Do they have to pay? Is that voluntary?

If they don't pay, who finances the association?

AN. HON. MEMBER: The association.

MR. ROSE: I don't know about that. If those

people don't pay,

what are they going to do? How are they going to force them to pay? Are

you going to force them to join the association? It's voluntary whether

you want to become a union or you want to become an association, but

it's mandatory that you belong to the College of Teachers. Why don't

you let that be voluntary as well?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are with the BCTF.

MR. ROSE: You're not. You're saying

everybody has to belong

to that association. No, it's the same thing with the principals and

vice-principals. But anyway, think about that seriously. It might

trigger a little amendment for you. It just might, because if I were in

that 40 percent and I wanted a union, I might not want to support that

association. I might consider it just sort of an in-house kind of a

little group and I wouldn't want my money to go there. Are you going to

make me put it there? I hope not, because that would be highhanded of

you. That wouldn't be liberty that we hear about all the time, and

freedom and all that other stuff. We never hear this.

Anyway, principals and vice-principals — there's another gem.

Now

why would you want to do that? Why would you want to bring everybody

into a kind of a turmoil right now? Is it a hammer? "You guys are going

to take a day off on Tuesday; therefore we're going to bring in the

second reading on Thursday." Well, why then? Why are you bringing it in

while we're talking? Why don't you go away and talk? As a matter of

fact, I'm going to give you a perfect opportunity in about 15 minutes

so you can go away and talk to the teachers, and I hope you'll support

me.

Anyway, I'm sorry that the member for Langley has disappeared

into the sunset, because I have a letter here from a retired principal

in Langley. He has been everything from a principal to a director of

instruction, is a life member of the BCTF and has his master's degree.

His name is Roger Winter, a well-known, highly respected, highly

venerated man, a principal originally from Fort Langley in the Langley

School District. They talk about the wonderful teachers in Langley. I

quote Mr. Winter in his letter to me of April 13:

"I should like to comment first on the

intended

separation of principals from the teaching body. As the term implies,

the principal is the principal teacher. As a vice-principal and as a

principal, I always taught one or two subjects. This keeps a principal

down to earth" — if the principals cannot belong to the BCTF or to

their own local, how will that affect their ability to teach? — "and

familiar with both subject matter and methodology."

I guess some teachers, as they get older — like most of us —

get a

little bit rusty at various things, at numbers of things. Maybe

teachers, as they get older, get a little bit rusty too; they're not

quite up to date on methodology. I presume, though, that the college

will look after all that stuff. It won't be up to the teachers anymore.

"As a director of instruction, I

encouraged principals

to spend time in the classroom, thus retaining the knowledge of

effective procedures and keeping up to date with new needs in

organization and equipment."

So Mr. Winter is right on. He says that if you remove those

guys and

go for a factory model — those gentlemen, those women, those persons —

and make them managers and assistant managers, what you've gone for

is.... You've abandoned the idea of the principal being the principal

teacher, the organizer and stimulator of instruction, and the head

professional in that school, and gone to that of a factory model

turning out numerous dozens of widgets at a predictable rate.

Anyway, if we're concerned about this bill, it's not because

we just

want the status quo; it's not that at all. We're not interested in

protecting the incompetents; we're not interested in protecting the

child abusers. We're just as concerned, and so is the profession, about

people like that in our schools. So let there be no mistake about that

one. We want to see the profession have the highest standards and the

highest ideals. But you know how you get that, Mr. Speaker? You don't

get that by intimidating or browbeating them; you get that by

encouraging them. You get that by making their jobs worthwhile.

I don't know how teachers are going to react to this, but that

really isn't the point. The point is: does it affect the learning of

our youngsters? That is the real test, and the test is answered by the

statement I made a little while ago: if you have bad working

conditions, you probably have bad learning conditions. If you have poor

morale among your staff, the result will probably be poor morale among

those youngsters under their direction.

I was a teacher for 13 years, and I also was a teacher at the

College of Education, so I think I know a little bit about education. I

don't know that I know a great deal, but I know this much: I don't

think I had a lunch for seven, eight or nine years while I was in

Kelowna because I was too busy conducting noon-hour rehearsals. I

probably raised from $3,000 to $5,000 a year to provide high-school

band and orchestral instruments.

You know, all the years I was there, I never once felt that I

was

exploited. I think there are hundreds of teachers — thousands — who

have done similar things. They didn't ask

[ Page 800 ]

for overtime. They didn't ask for

extra money for

trips. They didn't ask for all these things that.... Normally, in an

industrial situation, there would be some kind of recompense; they

didn't ask for that. Those were the happiest times of my life, because

I felt that the community appreciated what I was doing. I felt that the

board appreciated what I was doing, but I was wrong, because as soon as

the teachers' organization decided that living in Kelowna wasn't worth

$300 extra a year in sunshine, in a salary argument they published our

names and our salaries in the paper, and made us, in many cases, the

topic of the month.

That's when I quit, and that's when I became politicized,

because

for the first time I realized I wasn't.... The minister knows what kind

of attitudes there are in Kelowna on this subject, because he went to

Rutland school and graduated therefrom. I know what a tough time he had

during that period because I knew his principal, a nice principal who

just recently died in Oliver. He talked very highly of the minister,

and I wouldn't want the minister to disappoint his former principal.

But I realized, Mr. Speaker, what I was. I wasn't an

independent

professional like an assessor, a doctor, a lawyer or a dentist; I was a

worker. And any time my superiors, my board, wanted to play hardball

with me, I was vulnerable, and that's when I became politicized.

What I think will happen is that after five years.... We've

seen

teachers becoming more and more politicized. Twenty years ago you

couldn't have got teachers to walk half a block to protest for their

own rights, because they were being granted to them — not everything

they wanted, but they were gradually developing a certain jurisprudence

of rights. These are being jeopardized, and I think this is going to do

more to politicize teachers than anything that has happened until now.

Whether or not it is benign is not the point. They don't want to have

this imposed on them.

Surely a professional group who have been frozen in their jobs

for

about five years, who have had catch-22 played on them with Ed Peck and

ability to pay, is not threatening to the minister or the government.

If they are, I haven't seen any evidence of it. Why you need to hammer

them again right now under this kind of arrangement, I don't know.

They get the feeling they are not very highly regarded.

Teachers are

greedy. Therefore you freeze their salaries. Teachers are incompetent.

So what do you do? External exams. Teachers are lazy. What do you do?

Larger classes. There may not be a causal connection on the part of the

government to those things, but that may be how it appears to the

victims.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New Democrats 11 want to

defend

the rights of B.C. children. I think that it is arguable that the

government's failure to provide enough funds for public education

discriminates against many of our youngsters and disadvantages the

future of a great number of them. The government says it is ability to

pay, or we can't afford it. Well, I don't know, but B.C. spends less of

its a wealth on education than most other provinces. I'll give you a

few figures. Figures are not very good in arguments, but they're the

best I can do right now. Quebec spends 8.7 percent of its budget on

education; Manitoba, 8 percent; Canadian average, 7.3 percent; B.C.,

5.1 percent. That's from Stats Canada. The rest of Canada spends

proportionately half as much again on education as B.C. does.

Let me give you a little bit of the history of spending. Only

British Columbia has spending per student in K to 12 gone down in real

dollars. All other provinces have kept up with inflation. Not us. We're

down. In 1983 under Bill 6, the then Minister of Education, Jack

Heinrich, predicted a cut of 2 percent per year for three years. You

add that to inflation, and you get that $400 million I was talking

about a little while ago. Oh, sure, you dipped in and stole some money

from textbooks, and you put a few bucks back into this, that or the

other thing when we caught you with your arm in the till up to the

elbow. You took it from textbooks and gave it to the excellence fund.

Some of you have heard me make this speech before, and I know it is one

of your favourites.

Only in British Columbia have operating grants to universities

been

cut 9.7 percent in the last five years. I'll give you the figures on

how other provinces have increased theirs.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I have 40 minutes because I am

mover of the

amendment. Is that right? Somebody wants to switch my light off? I

don't mean that literally; I just mean that.... A great number of

people would probably like to do that.

Anyway, here are the figures. Newfoundland increased theirs

9.1 percent, and Ontario 20 percent.

I could go on and tell you what these things mean. What they

mean is

that there are going to be larger classes, fewer specialties, less help

for individual needs, greater stress for staff and all the people

working in the schools, leaky school roofs, fewer sports services and

all this other stuff we've talked about before. There's likely to be

more of the same.

I realize the hon. House Leader from the government side has

gone out....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He said he'll be right back. He

doesn't want to

hear that, for instance, we raised the education budget 2 percent this

year, which doesn't even keep up to inflation, while we raised the

independent schools, the private schools — the Crofton Houses and the

St. Georges, with fees of $4,000 a year — over 40 percent.

What's happened to the local boards? They got their freedom

last

year to raise more taxes on the backs of their own citizens. The

argument was: "Well, you people are hollering all the time for

autonomy. We'll freeze your budgets at an austerity level, and if you

want any more, go to your own people and take the political

consequences." That's a neat move. "We won't give you any more money.

We'll take millions of dollars out, and we'll give it you — reward and

furnish — through the excellence fund." Another brilliant move —

wonderful, just wonderful. Taxes have been hiked in the provincial

budget, in provincial government policies, on the property owner 29

percent every year since 1983. Property taxes of $125 in 1983 are $350

in 1987, and there's more to come, I understand, while you even up from

the underassessed boards.

I talked about the pork-barrel of education funds. While we

were

rewarding with education funds, and didn't have enough for all the

applications, guess what Norman Spector.... There was $54 million in

education applications ending, and Norman Spector gets a big job at

UBC. He didn’t take it because there was so much hue and cry raised

about that kind of use of excellence funds. His excellent services were

acquired by Prime Minister Mulroney, and I hope Mulroney is pleased to

have Norman Spector, because

[ Page 801 ]

he certainly needs some help. I don't

know if Mr.

Spector can provide that help, but I rather think that his presence

will be a spectre he would rather not be associated with.

I talked a little while ago about the efforts of collective

bargaining — how that was wrecked. I didn't talk about the

centralization of control, though, in Victoria. Curriculum: fewer

options, more academics, less opportunity to take fine arts, education

and the various music, art and drama programs that I think make a

distinction. I know the hon. House Leader of the government would have

been one of the first to enter those programs in music. I understand

that he might even like to do that yet so he could learn to read music.

He told me he has an excellent ear — I thought that meant he didn't

need to learn to read. But if he were to come into the schools today,

for instance in Centennial Senior Secondary School, with about 2,000

people, he would have a chance at half a music teacher because of the

limiting of the options. And he would be very disappointed, this House

Leader, because he couldn't get the kinds of courses that he could get

20 years ago when he should have been taking them in the first place.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He did take them, and it's

because he took them, he

tells us, that he's such a success today in the music field. But I make

light of this, and I mustn't. I make light of this only to make the

point that the curriculum has been centralized, there are fewer

options, and therefore, with the range of ability, there are fewer

opportunities for students to meet the kind of needs that they should

be able to meet in our public school system.

In the meantime our public school system is demeaned as not

being a

very good product, and if we'd only send our kids to the independent

schools, something better would come out. I don't believe that,

personally. I think it serves another purpose entirely. It serves a

political purpose. It serves a purpose of providing those people who

are normally supporters of the government with an opportunity to

project their own values through their children — which I think is a

laudable objective; I don't object to that at all. But they're not

independent and they're not private, because they use public funds. I

do object to the fact that certain schools that provide networks for

those people who are the business elite of this province should get

public funding when their fees are up over $4,000 a year. That's just

an absolute waste of money. It's nonsense, and it's payola. It's pork,

and it's in the public trough. But I mustn't speak extravagantly on

this subject, because you know I'm always a subtle and very careful

person when I'm dealing with matters such as this.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of things that we could talk

about,

but I don't intend to, because I think that if there is any point to be

made — and maybe there isn't — perhaps I've made it by now. So I don't

think we should proceed with this bill right now. I think it will cause

a lot of turmoil. I think it's premature. We're going to have

amendments to Bill 19, so why do we want to pursue this turkey at this

time? Why don't we just wait and do the whole ball together? We don't

have to go through and cause a lot of trouble and chaos and concern

right now. It's unnecessary. What's the rush? Let's take time to

consult. Let's take time to discuss this matter with the people

concerned — the children and the parents. What is this going to mean

for education? What kind of future relationships with the students, the

parents, the teachers and the government does this bill imply?

This radical thing isn't something that we should rush into

right

now. Why impose it on various principals, teachers, parents and pupils

when attitudes will...? The second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson)

admitted that it's already filtering down into the classroom about

teachers taking time off and schools being closed down. Delta has

already said they're going to close their schools. It opts to do that.

It's not necessary. Government admitted that Bill 19 needs improvement.

I think we need a breathing space. We've had five years of hammering. I

think we just need a breather.

We've got a royal commission. What's Mr. Sullivan going to do?

He's

going to go and make some recommendations that they've already made

decisions on. What is he? He's not some kind of a yo-yo to be put out

there whose work needs to be considered irrelevant. I think it's an

insult to the Crown prosecutor to have him out studying education when

all the decisions have been made. What's he going to report about?

What's left for him to report?

So the whole thing is premature. Let's leave the door open.

Let's

stop the lines hardening. And to give us a chance to do that, Mr.

Speaker — I know that you've been waiting for this — I move that the

motion for second reading of Bill 20, intituled Teaching Profession

Act, be amended by deleting the word "now" and adding the words "on

this day six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll briefly enter into

debate and simply say that the government rejects the motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the hoist motion, the

Chair recognizes the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. DIRKS: There seems to be a little

confusion here, Mr.

Speaker. I have listened very carefully to the speakers opposite

talking about listening to the teachers and listening to the BCTF. I

wonder if I could quote out of the BCTF brief that was submitted to the

Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) on his tour — and this is why I

speak against the motion to hoist. The quote is: "We hope you will act

quickly to implement them, because the problems we have described are

aggravated by the passage of time. The provision of a basic system of

collective bargaining between teachers and boards has been on the

agenda for too many years, has been sought in too many briefs, has

eluded the action of too many ministers."

There seems to be a little confusion, Mr. Speaker, as I said.

listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). He seemed to be a

little less than enthusiastic about it all, and I wondered if he was

trying to find out how he could actually talk against the ability of

teachers to form unions and still be able to justify that to his union

bosses. Then I listened to the last speaker. He speaks very eloquently,

but I thought I was listening to a speech on the budget rather than

Bill 20.

There seems to be confusion as to whether consultation did

take

place. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that consultation did take place,

not only by the Minister of Education but also by the Minister of

Labour and Consumer Services on his tour.

[ Page 802 ]

We received 16 briefs from local organizations. One of those

briefs

represented seven school districts, or seven school associations.

Let me just read a little bit from some of those briefs, if I

may, Mr. Speaker. The Grand Forks Teachers' Association, on January 19:

"The solution to improved collective bargaining for teachers is to

amend the School Act to allow teachers to be included under the Labour

Code."

The Prince George District Teachers' Association, January 15:

"Teachers want the legislatively protected right to negotiate with

their employers on more than just salary and bonus items."

The Peace River South Teachers' Association, January 29:

"Teachers in B.C. have neither the right

to interest

arbitration or the withdrawal of services. This is an unjustified

distinction. Teachers in B.C. have no access to independent and neutral

agencies to assist parties in getting negotiations on track, such as

industrial relations officers, industrial inquiry commissions, special

officers, trouble-shooters, under Code

section 112 and the Labour

Relations Board. The value of an outside party to the bargaining

process between two groups cannot be overemphasized. Teachers should be

provided access to such people and bodies."

The Peace River North Teachers' Association, on January 29:

"We need

an ability to bargain on all items and conditions of employment, access

to a meaningful dispute resolution mechanism and grievance procedure.

The compensation stabilization program must be eliminated."

Greater Victoria Teachers' Association, on February 2: "We are

not 'employees,' as that term is defined in the Labour Code."

Saanich Teachers' Association, on February 2:

"In the interest of labour peace, we

would hope that

the government will take action that will bring the bargaining rights