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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

823 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 823

Expropriation Act (Bill 22). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 824

Oral Questions

Report on Prince George forest region. Mr. Williams –– 824

Health care for women. Mrs. Boone –– 825

Aquaculture. Mr. Guno –– 825

Farm Credit Corporation moratorium. Mr. Rose –– 825

Cabinet committee on social policy meeting. Mr. Cashore –– 826

Ministerial Statements

Volunteer Week. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 826

Ms. A. Hagen

Workplace fatalities. Hon. L. Hanson –– 827

Ms. Smallwood

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Lovick –– 827

Mr. Loenen –– 829

Ms. Smallwood –– 830

Ms. Campbell –– 831

Mr. Cashore –– 833

Mr. De Jong –– 836

Mr. Sihota –– 837

Mr. Mercier –– 841

Mr. Miller –– 842

Mr. Vant –– 846

Mr. Guno –– 847

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I have some very good friends visiting in your gallery today, from Santa Barbara,

California: Mr. Jesse and Mrs. Patricia Nimocks and their daughter Mary

Beth, and I would ask the House to extend them a big welcome.

Mr. Speaker, we also have with us a West Vancouver Secondary School class headed

by Mr. Odegaard, their teacher. There are 25 students here with Mr. Odegaard,

and we would ask the House to bid them welcome also.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to welcome to the House today some young people from Maillardville-

Coquitlam.

First of all, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Bob

Walker, Timothy Walker and Mark Overgaard. Timothy and Mark are here

interviewing some MLAs with regard to a paper that they're doing at

Centennial School on gambling. I invite you to join me in welcoming

them.

Also visiting we have members of the Young New Democrats from Maillardville-Coquitlam:

Shawna Olynyk, David MacLean, Sarah Deforest, Heather Deforest, Cindy Van Ginkel,

and their counsellor Anita Van Ginkel. I ask you to join me in welcoming them.

MS. CAMPBELL : Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is a constituent,

Dr. Serge Vanry, who is the president of the College of Dental Surgeons, and

in your gallery are his wife, Brenda Vanry, and their son Steve Vanry. I'd

ask the House to make them welcome.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Glen McKenzie,

who is also visiting.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery Mr.

Mike Rann, Member of Parliament for South Australia, from Briggs

constituency. The member joined us on our team yesterday in softball

against the press gallery. Despite his efforts, we didn't rout them

after all. Would you welcome the member from Australia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : On behalf of the government, let us join with the

first member for Vancouver East in also welcoming Michael to our province and

to our country and to the Legislative Assembly. I hope that his skills at baseball

are just as remarkable as his skills, as he described them to me last night,

at cricket; I'm sure they were. In any event, thank you very much, Michael,

for joining us today. Welcome to British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have the executive

director of the University of Victoria local of the B.C. Public Interest Research

Group, Dr. Josephine Payne-O'Connor. She is accompanied by a number of student

members of PIRG. PIRG is a student-run research group at UVic and Simon Fraser

University. Every semester it funds the student press gallery intern here in

the Legislature. Would the House please welcome these people today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : In the gallery today and in the precincts this afternoon

is Mr. Jim Bowman of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who will make himself

available to any members this afternoon and all day Thursday for any consultation

they would like to have with him. I'd like the House o make him welcome.

MR. ROSE : Just apropos to that introduction of Mr. Bowman by the Minister

of Education, I'd like to maybe offer goodbye to Mr. Bowman from this House,

because he'

s) been a representative visiting both sides of the House on

) behalf of the federation for a number of years, and he's retiring on May

1. I'm sure we all wish him great fun in his retirement; he's going

to Italy, first off, he says.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I'd just like to add my few words, of good wishes

to Mr. Bowman. I'm sure he's not going to Italy; he's going to Louisville

for the Kentucky Derby. Mr. Bowman is one of North America's premier handicappers,

and I wish him well in his new career.

MR. SIHOTA :

Two introductions. First of all, I'd like to ask the House to join me

in welcoming in the gallery today Doris Baxter and 13 other teachers

from Glen Lake Elementary School in the Sooke School District.

Secondly, in the precincts — more specifically, in my office — visiting the

Legislature for the first time is my six month-old daughter Karina. Would everybody

welcome her as well.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to ask the house to join me in welcoming Mr.

Ian McCoy, who is a former Victorian now living in the West End of

Vancouver and who has helped me in so many campaigns; I can't remember

how many. I'm very pleased to know that he's here his afternoon.

[2:15]

MS. MARZARI : I'd like the House to welcome the executive director

of the British Columbia Association of Social Workers, who is in the gallery

today: Mr. Christopher Valinsley.

Introduction of Bills

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, this act contains three minor amendments: one to the

Corporation Capital Tax Act, two to the Fire Services Act and one to the

Grasshopper Control Act — matters of great import. I move the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 37 introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be laced on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EXPROPRIATION ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour he Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Expropriation Act.

[ Page 824 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, it is really a privilege to finally give birth to an

offspring that has been gestating for some 15 or 20 years in this

province. The commissions that were established to review the laws of

expropriation go back to the Clyne commission in the early seventies,

an excellent report of the Law Reform Commission, a Green Paper that we

put out in 1982. Finally, we have produced a bill that will unify all

expropriation of land in this province, with a few minor exceptions;

eliminate 30 different statutory procedures for expropriation; provide

a uniform bill, a one-stop shop, so that everyone whose property is

taken compulsorily will have a fair and accessible procedure open to

them.

For the first time in Canada, there will be an

expropriation procedure where if the owner doesn't wish the property

taken, an independent commission will establish an independent

investigation into value and immediately will pay upon the taking the

total appraised value of the land, which will be given to the owner

without any strings. He can then go to the tribunal and contest the

amount. If he gets less, he still keeps what he got and he doesn't pay

the costs of the expropriation. He only pays his own costs. But if he

gets more, he not only gets more but he gets full costs.

is a model piece of legislation. It's one of the most advanced in North

America and it's the result of our Green Paper consultation for six

years. I'm very pleased to bring this forward as a model, and I move

that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON PRINCE GEORGE FOREST REGION

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Forests. The minister released a major report last

week on the Prince George region. It indicates that there have been

meetings between the various forest operators in the region and the

ministry for over two years to carve up the public land base in the

Prince George region, clearly a form of collusion and the very

antithesis to free enterprise. Can the minister advise the House

whether he condones this activity?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Again I extend the courtesy that the member for Vancouver East extended

this House in his term as Forests minister, and I'll take the question

as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's a simple question. There have been these meetings; there is a form of collusion in terms of access...

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Order!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS : ...to the public lands. Can the minister advise the House whether he will take any action to prevent this from happening?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, hon. member. The question was taken on notice. Does the member have a new question?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Can the minister advise the House how any new enterprise that wanted

access to the public forest could get established in the Prince George

region? Can he advise how any new free-enterpriser in the province

could be given business using forests in the Prince George region?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take the question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister released the study. I would assume the minister read the

report. The report indicates that the profile of the forest is not

being cut in the Prince George region; that is, that balsam, cedar and

low-quality woods are not being cut, that high-grading has been the

pattern in the Prince George region. Can the minister advise the House

if he has taken steps to prevent the continued high grading of the

resource in the Prince George region?

HON. MR. PARKER : Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise us what steps he has taken to see that that will indeed be the case?

HON. MR. PARKER : The question will be taken on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : You don't know. Somebody's writing reports for you, and you're not able to answer the question.

The

report also indicated that the valley bottoms are being cut and the

hillsides are not. That too is a form of high grading, and this is a

region that is wood-short. Can the minister advise the House if he has

taken steps to end that kind of high-grading in the Prince George

region?

HON. MR. PARKER : These matters are currently being addressed.

MR. WILLIAMS : Supplementary. Can the minister advise us how they're being addressed?

HON. MR. PARKER : Forest management is an involved process. I'm pleased to take the question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The report indicates that the Prince George region is the largest in

the province –– 38 percent of the provincial forest, the size of New

Brunswick — and it indicates classic mismanagement. Part of the problem

is size. Can the minister advise the House if he's reconsidering the

size of the TSA in the Prince George region, in view of the terrible

problems of mismanagement within it?

HON. MR. PARKER : Question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The report also indicates that in this region there has not been forest

inventory for the past 20 years, that the ministry in fact does not

know what is there because of lowdown, bug-kill and other forms of

devastation in the form of mismanagement, an area with a clearcut 40

kilometres long, the longest in North America. Are there no plans to

begin inventory of this area?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, British Columbia subscribes to a continuous forest inventory program.

[ Page 825 ]

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, there has not been an inventory for 20 years. Could the minister explain the term "continuous?"

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, the continuous forest inventory program covers the

province of British Columbia, and various areas within British

Columbia, such as the Prince George timber supply area, fall into a

schedule.

MR. WILLIAMS : ...another 20 years we may wait.

Mr.

Speaker, the former minister, the member for Omineca, indicated that

section 88 credits to the companies, excessive grand credits, would be

ended. There is talk of using the credits for the extension of the

Dease railway into the Sustut. Can the minister advise the House

whether he is going to follow the program of the former minister and

end

section 88 credits?

HON. MR. PARKER : I believe that question is out of order, Mr. Speaker. It is future policy.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The future policy had been announced by the former minister. Could the

minister advise if there has been any change in that policy?

HON. MR. PARKER : If the question is in order, I will take it on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : Can the minister advise the House of anything?

HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

MRS. BOONE :

I am talking today to you about the situation that has arisen in

Kamloops involving a 14-year old girl who has been denied an abortion.

The health of women? No, it's girls; young girls in this province are

in jeopardy.

Has the minister taken steps to ensure that

all women in this province are given adequate health care and access to

health care, especially those who are 14 years old or younger?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this girl having had an abortion or

having been denied an abortion. I only hear it from the news media, and

I suppose it is correct. However, I should point out to the hon. member

that in Kamloops there is an abortion committee duly appointed by a

board that was duly elected. The therapeutic abortion committee

consists of physicians. They operate according to the Criminal Code of

Canada. I do not believe that I would enter into any discussion or any

disagreement with a doctor, being a lay person myself. The system is

working as it is set up by the federal law.

MRS. BOONE : Will the minister investigate, then, if in fact a 14-year-old girl was denied access to an abortion?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I do not investigate on specific people who have either been denied or

have had abortions, unless it is brought to my attention by some

authority. I have no reason to investigate this at all if it's done

properly with the therapeutic abortion committee that is in place. I

cannot second-guess doctors or physicians who are doing their job

according to the Criminal Code.

MRS. BOONE : Is the

minister saying that if a complaint was lodged with you by the parents

of this child or by somebody in the know in the Kamloops area, you

would then investigate this?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Speaker, if that were the case, if I got a report from the parent or

from any other one, I would probably be obliged to investigate and

would probably do so.

AQUACULTURE

MR. GUNO :

My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Last Thursday, Hagensborg Resources Ltd. announced its proposal for a

new land-based salmon farm near Nanaimo. Can the minister confirm that

the hastily completed finfish aquaculture inquiry did not review

land-based aquaculture?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : That is

correct, but the reason that we're looking at land-based aquaculture

operations for finfish is that it will very much minimize disease in

the natural water systems.

MR. GUNO : Supplementary

to the same minister. On that note, can the minister provide an

indication if any other review is being done to provide information for

the government on the effect of the tons of waste which this facility

will discharge, or the effect of the use of artificial feed on the

local environment?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the waste materials will be funnelled out and dried.

MR. GUNO :

This is a supplementary to the Minister of Environment. Can the

minister assure the assembly that a thorough environmental impact

assessment will be conducted before the facility receives final

approval?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I thank the member for

his question. Yes, I have discussed this with officials of the fish and

wildlife branch of my ministry, and they are quite convinced that the

process of this type of tank farming, or ranching if you will, is the

appropriate way to go in terms of the ecology and in terms of what

we're putting into the ocean, and the ministry is looking at it quite

closely, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

[2:30]

FARM CREDIT CORPORATION MORATORIUM

MR. ROSE :

To the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is undoubtedly aware of

the decision to end the moratorium on the federal Farm Credit

Corporation, and he is probably also aware of the vulnerability of

Peace grain-farmers. I wonder if he's had a chance to assess the impact

of this federal decision, and what plans he may have to take the place

of the federal assistance?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr.

Speaker, to the Hon. member, that is future discussion. I don't think I

can release any details at this stage, but we are working on the Peace

River problem.

MR. ROSE : I wonder if I could ask the minister by way of supplementary if he plans to pattern some of his assistance.

[ Page 826 ]

Has he decided to pattern some of his assistance or use as a model those currently operating in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

No, those are not part of the discussion. It's a much more complicated

discussion that is going on, for longer-term consideration.

CABINET COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY MEETING

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing.

Last Friday the cabinet social policy committee met in Vancouver East

and I understand that there was great public distress expressed over

the many, many briefs that grassroots people wanted to present but

didn't have the opportunity. What plans does the minister have to

listen to these people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for his question because it gives me a

chance to tell this House that the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy

had a very successful day in Vancouver East attended by all members of

the committee, wherein we heard some 31 presentations from interested

groups in that geographic area. We do apologize, Mr. Speaker, to all

those groups that we were unable to hear. We had over 80 requests to

make submissions and couldn't possibly handle them in one day. As I

explained to the people at the time, we will be coming back into that

general area, and we'll be able to hear more. In the meantime, the

committee will hear representations from time to time from individual

groups. I did promise them all that every group that made a written

submission would receive a written answer.

Mr. Speaker, it

was just physically impossible for us in one day to hear any more than

31 briefs. But I thank the member for the question.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary question. Would the minister tell the House the way in

which this process will be reported to the House? Are there plans to

table the findings and the intentions of the social policy committee

after these discussions have been completed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, these hearings throughout the province are designed to

enable the committee on social policy to chart a course or direction

for the next five or more years. The results of these hearings will

manifest themselves in the policies that come forward from this

government.

Ministerial Statements

VOLUNTEER WEEK

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a ministerial statement.

is with a sense of pride and gratitude that I call to the attention of

the hon. members of this House the occasion of Volunteer Week, which is

being observed throughout our province.

Today, from one end

of British Columbia to the other, volunteers from all walks of life are

giving their time and effort in virtually every area of our vast health

care program.

They include volunteer auxiliaries in our

immediate and intermediate extended-care facilities and our acute-care

hospitals, in adult day-care programs and in home-support services.

They serve as drivers and as helpers to the elderly in getting around.

an example — and only one of many —

the number of volunteers serving in

the Meals on Wheels program all over the province is an impressive

4,100 and steadily growing. Last year they served more than 406,000

meals to those less fortunate citizens unable to Prepare food for

themselves. These figures, I should add, pertain only to those Meals on

Wheels programs funded by the Ministry of Health.

There are

numerous other organizations worthy of mention who similarly add to the

hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer work every year in British

Columbia. These organizations provide care, raise funds to assist in

the purchase of necessary equipment, promote awareness and

understanding, and support research in health care. These exceptional

people also serve unstintingly on the boards of our province's care

facilities, freely giving their time, talents and energies to ensure

the proper and efficient functioning of these facilities and the

well-being of patients and residents.

Mr. Speaker, I do not

hesitate to say without reservation that the spirit of volunteerism is

alive and thriving in British Columbia. It is that spirit of

assistance, that extended hand of help to our fellow citizens, that

adds to the greatness of our province.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join with all members of

this House in acknowledging this week the many volunteers in our

province. It is a very special week, and I want first to endorse the

comments of the hon. minister, and commend him particularly for

choosing a group of people who work with older people. I think that

that was a very appropriate choice of the minister.

We do

acknowledge people who work in many sectors in our province — with

older people and children, in sports, in cultural and ethnic

activities, with special needs people; people who work in institutions

and who in fact establish new programs and services. I think it is a

good time for us to recall and acknowledge that very often the work of

volunteers identifies areas in our communities where we need to expand

and enhance our social services to people. They are the precursors of

many of the services that we as the body politic need to support.

I would

note just a couple of those. In the seniors areas we had a large number

of volunteer drivers taking people to hospitals and therapeutic

appointments, and we now have a comprehensive handyDART program across

the province, something that came as a result of volunteers making that

need known, so that people both old and young could be served in

transportation. I would also like to acknowledge very briefly the work

of the volunteer coordinating centres, who do such a fine job matching

the many people in the province and in the country who participate in

volunteer activities, who make sure that those agencies and programs

that have volunteer opportunities are known to people who wish to serve

in their communities. So I join with all members of the House in

saluting the energy, caring and commitment of volunteers. It is really

a time for all of us to acknowledge their motto, which is: "We share."

[ Page

827 ]

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

HON. L. HANSON :

I would like to bring to the attention of this House today that April

28 has been designated by the labour movement in Canada as a day to

commemorate those workers in British Columbia and across our country

who have lost their lives in workplace accidents. This day has been set

aside in recognition of workers who are fatally injured on the job and

in respect to the profound grief of their families and co-workers.

Unfortunately there are work-related deaths and serious injuries which

pass largely unnoticed by most of us, unless we are personally affected

by the loss of a family member or someone with whom we have worked

closely. Let us dedicate ourselves to finding better ways to minimize

the inherent risks in our more dangerous industries and to eliminating

the unnecessary hazards and risk-taking which can occur on any job site.

would like to commend the worthwhile initiative of the Canadian Labour

Congress and the effort put forth by the many labour representatives

who have written to the Premier and to my office to request the

government to observe a day of mourning on April 28. Henceforth this

will be recognized as an annual day of commemoration, and hopefully it

will serve as a vehicle to encourage workers and employers alike to

redouble their efforts to improve workplace safety.

I can

assure you that through agencies like the Workers' Compensation Board,

the employment standards branch and the various inspection services of

this government, we will continue our efforts to put in place

initiatives that are preventive and designed to promote and improve

workplace safety. We will continue to consult with employers, employees

and other governments in order to ensure that problems are identified

and that responses are coordinated and effective.

I would

also like to announce that the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of the

government, has issued a proclamation in support of the second annual

Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. The dates are June 14-20,

1987, and it will be circulated to all joint health and safety

committees across the province.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House to please join me now in a minute of silence in the memory of

workers whose lives have been lost in the pursuit of their livelihood

and in the service of their employers and, in fact, all of British

Columbians.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'd also like to thank

the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services for his kind remarks and

join with the government in commending the Canadian Labour Congress and

organized labour throughout the province for bringing this important

issue to the forefront. We would like to add our sad feelings and

support to those families of injured workers and workers who have given

their lives in the interests of production and moving this province

forward to prosperity.

I'd like to add to the minister's

comments by noting that almost two million days were lost in 1986 due

to injuries. That's an incredible number, a number that only begins to

parallel the days lost due to management-labour disputes in this

province. This is an incredible problem that needs the support of both

sides of this House to begin to address.

Perhaps it's also timely to mention another anniversary at this time. We

have just passed the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, an incredible industrial

accident that this planet of ours has not overcome and will not overcome for

many generations. I bring this up at this time because there is a nuclear reactor

in Hanford, Washington, that is exactly like the Chernobyl reactor. This reactor

lends the possibility of an incredible industrial accident that would not only

affect the people of Washington but the people of B.C. as well.

while we are joining in the moment of silence in respect for injured

workers and workers who have given their lives for B.C.. it's timely

also to look to the future and the opportunity this presents for the

government to initiate programs with the support of the opposition to

avoid the possibility of any further injuries or deaths.

MR. SPEAKER : Members will rise for a moment of silence.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Adjourned debate on the amending motion to second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Nanaimo adjourned debate.

While I think of it, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have all members of the House join me in thanking Hansard

for this excellent synopsis they're printing now for the benefit of

members, indicating bills that have been read, times, members who have

spoken.... The Industrial Relations Reform Act — we debated that

for 37 hours and 21 minutes, for those of you who are into that type of

statistic. And that was just the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann)!

But seriously, thank you very much, Hansard . It's a great service, and it's very nice to see this type of synopsis before us. It's a great assistance, I can assure you.

[2:45]

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, given that some time has indeed elapsed since I left off

my remarks, it is well perhaps for me to begin by reminding everybody

what a hoist motion is. The hoist motion is simply asking this House to

take that bill away from the House for a period of six months, so that

the parties directly affected can consult and confer together before we

bring it back to the House for attention by this Legislature. We

suggest, obviously, that it is a reasonable motion. We suggest it is a

motion that ought to receive the support of both sides of the House.

Mr.

Speaker, to launch the second part of my remarks on the hoist motion,

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is fond of pointing out

that he and his government are indeed predisposed and prepared to

consider amendments. On the face of it, that is a commendable and

congratulable kind of sentiment for the minister to take. If, however,

one pauses to reflect for just a moment about that, a couple of

questions arise.

The first question is, if indeed it is

already perceived that this notion that the bill under discussion,

namely Bill 20, ought to be amended, how then can the minister continue

to tell us that this same bill is (

a) what the teachers wanted and (

b) the product of consultation? It would seem to me that pretty clearly

that cannot be the case. If we have seen the need rather recently to

make significant amendments to the bill, then it probably has not been

everything that was asked for by

[ Page 828 ]

the teachers. Secondly, it would not seem to be the case that it has been the product of consultation.

The

second point I would make, though, is this. Let us grant for the moment

that this response to suggest that amendments will be allowed is in

fact the product of consultation and collaboration with the parties

directly affected. If that is the case, surely it is also reasonable to

conclude that insofar as we are recognizing the need for amendment, we

are also implicitly recognizing that we perhaps misjudged and we erred

in our earlier assessments about what was required. Is this not then a

very good argument for suggesting we should hoist this bill for six

months so we can allow all of the parties directly affected to have an

opportunity to sort out those kinds of questions and differences? I

suggest to the minister that that does indeed make eminent good sense.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

want to make a few substantive comments about why we think the bill

ought to be hoisted, in the time remaining to me. I want to start that

process by reminding this House that the most significant argument of

all is the fact that as we stand here and debate this motion in the

Legislature there are somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people not

at school today. Now if ever there were evidence to suggest that we

have been precipitate, that we are perhaps acting too quickly, that

there is a time now to weigh, consider and rethink what we have done,

surely the very fact of that many of our fellow citizens doing what

they are doing would be that evidence. Surely that evidence must count

for something, unless of course we want to pursue the kind of

convoluted logic the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) seems to use:

namely that this is all the product of a leadership of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation that is somehow misleading the rank-and-file

membership. I think, however, none of us is prepared, if we seriously

reflect on the matter, to draw that conclusion.

The

evidence surely counts for something. If it is the case — which it is —

that all of those people who are directly affected by the legislation

are saying, "We are going to forgo a day's pay; we're going to accept

and reluctantly live with all the criticisms, the castigations and the

aspersions because of the fact that we deprive the community of the

service we normally provide," if teachers are indeed going to do that,

surely that must make the comment that this bill is presented to us in

inordinate haste and that it ought to be given some breathing-time. We

should give it some breathing-time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to

suggest one predominant argument that I think is the best case possible

to defend a hoist motion. I've struggled with how to phrase it, but I

think it can be rendered in this simple sentence: the reason above all

else that the education profession has decided to go to the wall on

this issue is that this government does not have the trust of that

profession. It follows that this government ought to make its first

priority the matter of gaining the confidence and the trust of the

teaching profession. It further follows from that that the means to do

that would be a six-month period in which the sides could indeed talk,

discuss and come to terms. That may sound a little simplistic, but if

you pause to reflect on the argument, you'll discover that that is not

in fact the case.

Teachers perceive — my bias is "correctly perceive"; others will

take a different point of view — that they have been victimized for a number

of years. They perceive that this government has been no friend to education,

all the claims from the other side of this House about how much teachers are

loved and respected notwithstanding. That is the perception in the teaching

profession. I'm suggesting that what this government ought to do if it truly

wants to succeed in this legislation, if it truly wants to redraw the legislation

and draft anew the legislation governing education in this province, is make

its first priority regaining the trust and confidence of the people it is designed

and is intending to serve and service. That's what ought to happen, and

that's why the hoist motion makes good sense, above all else perhaps.

Mr.

Speaker, when I have spoken on a number of other motions in this House

and at some length, it has often been remarked that my comments are

perhaps too abstract, theoretical, academic, cerebral and all of that

kind of thing. I am therefore resolved to do something somewhat

different. I want to do something anecdotal, and I have not yet done

that in this House. I want to talk based on my own experience within

the profession, because as you know, I have been a college instructor

and have some familiarity with the system.

When I was

elected to this Legislature, I made only one stipulation to my caucus

colleagues, and that was that I did not want a critic role that had

anything specifically to do with education. Of course, one can

understandably wonder why I should say that. I want to suggest that the

reason was that I had become like so many of my colleagues in that

system: disenchanted, disillusioned and, dare I say, burnt out to some

degree. The reason for that was, more than anything else, the fact that

we who serve the public in the field of education felt unappreciated —

not by our students but, rather, by the public we were intending to

serve and provide good service to. We felt that somehow everything we

had done didn't matter; it didn't count.

Let me give the

illustration of my own experience. As I say, I taught at a community

college. I went there directly out of graduate school at university,

and I thought that we were indeed going to build the new Jerusalem in

Nanaimo's fair and pleasant land. We had a missionary zeal, a crusading

spirit that said, by God, we were going to bring education to the

people; we were going to make sure that students who had hitherto been

denied opportunity were, by heaven, at last going to get that

opportunity. We believed it and we worked 16 hours a day. We never

thought twice about that, because we believed.

MR. RABBITT : Hallelujah!

MR. LOVICK :

Somebody said "Hallelujah," and that's precisely the point. We weren't

exactly Handel's chorus, but we came damn close. We believed. We

thought that what we did was significant, was important, that it

mattered. Sadly, what has happened in this province is that teachers

from K to 12 and beyond into the colleges, universities and technical

schools all have come to the simple conclusion that it does not matter

whether or not one does a good job, because what's going to happen

instead is that government, through its intermediary, namely

administration, is going to say: "We still don't think you work hard

enough and, by heaven, you'd better do more." That is the malaise that

the system has been suffering from. To try to suddenly change that by

legislation and say "Here is the way to solve our problems. We're going

to legislate happiness and harmony. We're going to all make you feel

good about what you do, because we, the government, in our collective

wisdom, say 'thou shalt feel good about it"' is simply misguided,

muddle-headed and, frankly, stupid. It is not good policy.

[ Page

829 ]

The hoist motion is giving this government an opportunity to save

its political backside and also to save any kind of credibility it

might have within the educational institution of this province. As I

suggested, the predicament above all else is that this government does

not have any kind of credibility with the profession. Even if members

on the other side, such as the Minister of Education, are entirely

sincere and well-meaning in what they want to do — and I hate to be

blunt about this — nobody believes you. That's the problem. And what

you need to do, I suggest, is to find some means of redress. Find some

means of saying: "Let us in fact talk together in an environment where

we can see that both of us have the interest of the whole system, the

students and the people involved in the system at heart. You will not

do that in the powerfully charged environment of this Legislature,

given the constraints of the legislative process. For heaven's sake,

surely now is the time, if ever, given the evidence, to consider

hoisting this bill. Let us put it on hold for six months, Mr. Speaker.

[3:00]

MR. LOENEN :

The second member for Nanaimo never fails to lecture this House. He was

true to form. Once again we were subjected to a lot of paternalism. He

told us that at one time he was very enthusiastic and idealistic. He

thought he was going to usher in paradise. No wonder he feels

disappointed. No wonder he feels a little bit let down. No wonder he is

burned out. Such misguided idealism is bound to fail. Don't blame the

government for that. Be realistic. Come down to earth.

would like to speak against the motion. I am disappointed that once

again we have another attempt to further delay. There's absolutely no

reason for it. This is excellent legislation, if only we look at it

positively and stop being so negative. I would like to outline to you

why some of the main features are not only to be applauded but ought to

be welcomed and implemented forthwith.

Full bargaining for

teachers. They have asked for it, and it's something that teachers in

all other provinces of this country have. What is wrong with it? Why

should we not proceed immediately? An end to the compensation

stabilization program. We've been told that the legislation is to be

criticized because it does not immediately abolish the CSP. This hoist

motion would simply delay that further still. Teachers in my riding

have asked that that be eliminated forthwith. We are responding to what

the teachers tell us. I do not understand why we need to wait any

longer.

The removal of the principals and vice-principals

from the bargaining units. Every other bargaining unit in society has

exempted staff. This is not unusual. This is common practice, built on

historical precedent for which there is good, sound reason. There is

nothing revolutionary, nothing unusual, nothing experimental. In fact

we know that the principals and vice-principals have for many years

felt uncomfortable within the context of the BCTF Again, it is a move

that is defensible in every way.

Finally, the professional

college. As was pointed out by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith)

this morning, our teachers are both part of a profession and part of

what is normally called a trade union, a labour union movement. It

makes good sense to split those two functions and to not mix in with

the bargaining over dollars and cents those issues that ought to be

decided on educational criteria and on the basis of what is best for

the kids in the schools.

I just wanted to touch on those

main issues because I have yet to hear any cogent, reasonable arguments

that attack those main features of the bill. All we hear, from the BCTF

as well as from the members opposite, are criticisms which are on the

periphery of things, which deal with the methodology, which deal with

"perhaps we should wait longer," etc. We have yet to hear strong,

substantive arguments against the major components and the principles

embedded in this legislation.

I am pleased to stand up and

defend this legislation, because I want everyone in the province to

know that the Social Credit government cares for education. There is

perhaps little that is of greater importance to our lives, to our

economy, to our community and to our families than education. It is of

utmost importance; we need no convincing of the importance of

education. I predict that these measures will become a hallmark and

that other jurisdictions are going to look at this and are going to

emulate us, because under these provisions there is the possibility for

teachers to contribute their professional expertise in ways that were

never possible before. We have to recognize that as a government we not

only have a duty and an obligation to the teachers of our province; we

also have a duty and an obligation to the parents, the taxpayers of

this province. We have to recognize these things and balance all of

these interests.

I have talked to the delegation from the

Richmond Teachers' Association. Last weekend I had an opportunity to

meet with a number of the principals. I spent a whole hour on a TV

phone-in show. I have yet to hear reasoned arguments that are cogent

against the main features, and, as I said, I think these main features

of this legislation are entirely reasonable and defensible.

This

motion to hoist in my opinion is frivolous and silly. There are no

other words for it. We are wasting good time which we should use

instead to get on with the challenges that lie before us. We should get

on with doing what is best....

MR. BLENCOE : Democracy's frustrating, isn't it?

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, all of us are willing to defend democracy, but I'd like

the hon. member to know that there is such a thing as an abuse of the

rules, and I cannot wait for the day when these proceedings are going

to be put on TV, because the people of this province are going to

recognize when good rules are being abused.

There have been

suggestions that somehow this legislation will spell the end of the

BCTF I don't believe that for one minute. There is a good role to be

played for the BCTF, and the BCTF is going to be around for years to

come. There is nothing in this legislation that will spell the demise

of the BCTF, but their efforts will be channelled in ways that will be

very constructive.

We ought to recognize that, and we ought

to encourage each other to be positive and to make a positive

contribution to our educational system. I would like this House to know

that in Richmond today 268 teachers are at work, that all of the

schools are open in Richmond. I congratulate those teachers. I

congratulate them for not participating in what is clearly an illegal

walkout.

This legislation has a lot of things to recommend

itself to us. It provides for choice. The member talked about

democracy. We have built into this legislation democracy. The teachers

at the local level can choose their own bargaining

[ Page 830 ]

unit if they so wish. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any cogent reasons why we ought to delay this any further.

There

have been suggestions that somehow this government does not consult

with the people, and that therefore we have to create the opportunity

for consultation. Well, let me tell you the Premier has set the

example. He is on the open line show. He has made himself available day

and night, and I challenge anybody to look back in our recent history

and to find a government that is as open as this government is. We are

happy to be open to the suggestions that come our way, and there is

still ample opportunity for input, for making modifications, and for

suggestions that are good and positive and wholesome.

Mr.

Speaker, anybody who suggests that somehow this process that we go

through allows for railroading, for quickly passing something without

consultation, simply is not aware of the process. It is a very open

process that allows and will allow for ample consultation. The kind of

suggestions that have been made, the kind of reasons that the second

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) suggested just before I spoke, to make

us provide more time, all of those kinds of suggestions can be dealt

with under third reading, should be dealt with under third reading. We

ought to get on with doing what is good for the kids in our schools.

Let us do the job that we were elected to do, and let us be proud of

the good educational system that we have and the good improvements that

we are about to make.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Speaker, I

have spent a great deal of time since the bill was tabled before this

House, quite by surprise, thinking about the bill and thinking about my

opportunity to speak.

I rise in support of the hoist motion

and encourage the government to delay the bill for six months, and I am

really pleased to have the opportunity to tell in particular some of

the previous speakers why. When some of the previous speakers have

referred to their government as an open government and the

opportunities that the Premier has taken to go on open-line shows, it

is on the verge of being laughable.

I find it completely

and totally outrageous that a government is talking about consultation

when they invite the teachers to sit down and talk to them about the

bill and then use a heavy hammer, a heavy fist, and surprise the House

by bringing down legislation as a threat to the teachers, while the

teachers are trying to have some meaningful discussions about a bill

that is going to devastate their organization.

The previous

speaker talked about the Premier going on open-line radio in this

province to talk about the issue of education. He has in the past

talked about the issue of industrial relations, he has in the past

talked about hungry children, and the list grows and grows and grows.

Is this a one-man show? Is the Premier going to go to my schools in

Surrey on an individual basis to talk to the principals, to talk to the

teachers, to talk to the parents and the children about this serious

problem that is before us? I think not, and if he tries to, he is doing

a tremendous disservice to the people of this province.

We have put this motion to this House because we want some meaningful discussion.

We want the government to engage in a process that will begin to address the

incredible inequities that the erosion of our education system in the past few

years has undergone. When previous speakers on the opposition side have made

mention of $400 million worth of erosion to the budget of the education system,

the numbers are not only staggering but it's very difficult for anybody

to relate to what that really means.

would like to take this opportunity to tell the Education minister —

because there's been no indication from the government side that

they're going to support our motion to delay this bill — some of the

things that he would hear if he went out and talked to the teachers and

talked to the people in my riding. What he would hear is that the high

schools in my riding don't have enough textbooks for the kids to do

their homework. What he would hear is that the textbooks that they do

have are so badly dog-eared that it's very difficult for the kids to

use them, that many of the kids in the schools in North Surrey have to

stay after classes to share a textbook to do their homework.

[3:15]

Now

when this government brings down a bill that deals with the working

conditions of teachers in our province, it seems to be totally without

the understanding that the working conditions of teachers in this

province are the learning conditions of our children; that teachers in

this province have been backed into a comer over the last few years of

having to take this incredible stand; that the Education minister must

understand that the teachers themselves have avoided these kinds of

discussions historically, but they have come to the point where they

have no choice.

Previous Social Credit governments have put

teachers in a situation where they now are fighting for our children.

Teachers in this province are heroes, and I'm prepared to say that both

inside this House and outside of this House. The teachers in this

province are in a situation where they're having to face hungry

children in their classrooms, children who are not able to concentrate

on the learning that they're supposed to be doing. Teachers in this

province are putting money out of their own pockets to provide peanut

butter and crackers for those kids. They are putting money out of their

own pockets to provide paper for our elementary classrooms to be able

to involve the kids in art projects.

Teachers are trying to

teach our children and they are not supported by this government in the

very primary needs of resources, of textbooks, of paper. Our education

system has been eroded to the point that teachers are now walking out

of classrooms, and I say shame on this government and shame on the

minister for bringing this bill before us and further eroding-their

opportunity to stand up for our children.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Why are they working to rule? For salaries, not for children.

MR. BLENCOE : What an incredible remark!

MS. SMALLWOOD : I think that is an incredibly callous remark, and I hope that Hansard

picked up that comment from the minister. The minister said that the

teachers are striking for money and that they're not striking for

children. Well, I want to tell you a little bit about what it's like to

work with children. I know that that might be a little bit difficult

for some of the members in this House, and I recognize the fact that

the Minister of Education has worked in the schools and he should know

how difficult it is to be able to help a classroom along, to be able to

work with children, to make sure that they're able to move out into our

society equipped with the kinds of skills that they need. Given the

fact that they don't have the resources, given the fact that they don't

have support, given the fact that they are constantly bashed by

[ Page

831 ]

government,

and given the fact that the government is in the process of

mainstreaming many special needs children in the schools and not giving

the schools and the teachers the kind of support that they need, I

think that they're doing an incredible job — and, quite frankly, I

wouldn't thank them for it.

find it really difficult to

make a great deal of sense of some of the previous speakers. When the

members on the government side get up and talk about, "We've given the

teachers everything that they want; we've given them everything that

they've asked for; they wanted the right to negotiate, and we've given

them that; they wanted the right to strike, and we've given them that,"

that is nothing more than doublespeak. The government members making

those statements should read their own bill. If indeed they have read

their own bill, then they are being nothing more than deceptive and

manipulative.

The government, in Bill 20, has given

teachers the right to strike, and in Bill 19 they have taken that right

away. The teachers have gained nothing. The teachers, through the BCTF

and their democratically chosen and developed organization, have

historically looked after their working conditions and their training.

The government is eroding the work that the teachers have historically

put in place, the work that protects our children and protects the

quality — yes, the quality — of the work that our teachers do for our

children.

It's ironic that while the government talks about

children in a very romantic way, when they talk about how our children

are put at risk because of the actions of the teachers, the government

is not able to make that next leap. They're not able to understand that

fundamental principle that the teachers are fighting for; the

government is not able to understand what the working conditions are.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : What were they fighting for in March, before the Legislature?

MS. SMALLWOOD : To the Minister of Education, through the Speaker: you'll have your time to respond, and I'll thank you to take that.

There

are many important issues that need to be explored. This bill, like the

industrial relations bill, cannot be dealt with in isolation. The

government, if it could see past its own agenda, could understand what

not only teachers but children and parents in B.C. are struggling with.

I think also that the reason the government is trying to push through

this bill — the way the government is using this bill, in its

heavy-handed way, to force the teachers to deal with the negotiations

that are going on right now.... If the government was to look

beyond its agenda.... And the agenda has been speculated on.

Whether or not it is a personal vendetta, I can't say; I can only look

at past history.

If the government would look beyond its own agenda and look at the realities

in this province, it could only come to one conclusion: that it must join in

true partnership with the people of this province; that it must stop working

in isolation. One of the previous speakers talked about welcoming the TVs into

this House. I, too, welcome the TVs into this House. I welcome the opportunity

to truly put the case of what is really happening in our province to the people

in our province; and with the kinds of statements that we have heard coming

out of the government side, the kind of manipulation and doublespeak, I would

like to have the people of this province make the decision for themselves. I

suggest to you the reason that the TVs aren't here right now is because

it would be too revealing; that the people of this province, if they had the

opportunity to really look at what is going on with the Industrial Relations

Reform Act and with the Teaching Profession Act, clearly wouldn't put up

with it for a moment. And if the government believes in its legislation, then

it's a challenge to the government to go out to talk to the people, let

them understand what's going on in here, and then let the people decide.

If they are that committed to this legislation, if they truly think it's

something good, then support this hoist motion.

MS. CAMPBELL :

Mr. Speaker, there have been a great many harsh words spoken in this

House this afternoon, and when the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

(Ms. Smallwood) talks about fond expectations of television in this

House, I'm not sure I share her enthusiasm when I see the way in which

members of this House are prepared to play even to a gallery, which is

clearly full of teachers today; and I welcome them to the House. I

welcome them to this debate.

We're debating a hoist motion,

a motion to delay the discussion of Bill 20 for six months. I find it

interesting that arguments are raised on the philosophy of democracy

and yet it appears that the thing that most offends the members of the

opposition is that the democratically elected government is presenting

its legislative agenda. They are offended by the introduction of Bill

20, failing to notice that it gives some time for further discussion

and deliberation in the drafting of amendments to Bill 19.

This

is an appropriate time to discuss the philosophy of Bill 20. What is

being delayed by this hoist motion is a discussion of the philosophy of

the bill. When the bill receives second reading, we will then move into

Committee of the Whole where the members of this House — the

democratically elected members of the government of British Columbia

and the democratically elected members of the opposition — will discuss

this bill

section by

Section in the presence of the press, with the

verbatim transcript being taken which is available to members of the

public. This is a public and open forum, and that is the essence of

responsible government — that governments make their decisions, they

develop policy in the cabinet, but they defend those positions and

defend that legislation in the greatest detail, and under the scrutiny

not only of the public but of a very active opposition whose role it is

to criticize that legislation.

The hoist motion deals with

timing — the question of the timing of the consideration of this bill.

It's been suggested, for example, that this bill ought not to be

considered while the royal commission on education is deliberating. And

yet it was in fact the specific request of the president of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation, Elsie McMurphy, that the government not delay

putting teachers under the Labour Code and giving them full bargaining

rights until the conclusion of that royal commission.

It is

also the case that the government wishes to remove teachers from the

compensation stabilization program. Teachers were the last to enter the

CSP. They will therefore be the last to leave and they will have the

same time in it as other employees, but one of the provisions of this

bill is to draw those provisions to a close for teachers.

is interesting that the opposition thinks this bill needs a six-month

delay in order to have full public discussion, but the BCTF appeared to

believe that after two weeks the public

[ Page 832 ]

had

enough knowledge or the teachers had enough knowledge of this bill to

put a strike vote to them, to encourage them to vote on an illegal work

stoppage.

This concerns me, Mr. Speaker, because I believe

in fact that many members of the teaching profession do not understand

this bill. It has some new and innovative factors, and I have seen the

materials put out by the B.C. Teachers' Federation which in my view

distort the meaning and the intention of the bill. I am making myself

available in my constituency to meet with teachers, parents groups and

anyone else who is interested in having a fuller discussion of Bill 20.

So we have the rush for an illegal strike, the rush to take teachers

out of the classroom, but a delay in allowing the elected members of

this government the opportunity to debate the bill properly.

There

has been the suggestion that there wasn't consultation on this bill. In

fact there was considerable consultation, and the BCTF in its own

publications has acknowledged the consultation with its own

organization and with the B.C. School Trustees' Association. But

consultation means having your say, not having your way, and there is a

difference between consulting and taking dictation from an organization.

[3:30]

The BCTF is very quick to acknowledge its consultation with the

government when it gets what it wants, and in a recent newsletter it

was full of praise for what is probably the best early retirement

program in Canada for teachers which has just been instituted in

British Columbia. This is an early retirement program which does not,

in my view, suggest a hostility to teachers or an insensitivity to

their working conditions. On the contrary, I think it recognizes two

factors very closely that I was able to observe as a school trustee in

Vancouver for four years. One is the rate of burnout in the teaching

profession — particularly among men, interestingly, in their early

fifties — and the fact that teaching is a demanding job and an

emotionally stressful job. So it provides an opportunity for those who

have worked hard and have given very much of themselves to the teaching

profession to retire in health and with the prospect of a happy and

healthy retirement.

It also provides the opportunity for

young people to enter the teaching profession. It is very popular to

talk about the causes of lack of employment for teachers as being

restraint; in fact, that is not the primary cause at all. The primary

cause is declining enrolment. The reality of the influence of the baby

boom on employment patterns in this country, and in fact in the western

world, is one that we are going to have to take into consideration in a

great many public policy areas.

But

as a school trustee in

Vancouver, I watched our school population decline from a peak of

76,000 to just over 50,000, and the impact on the ability of our board

hire new teachers was extremely severe. I believe this early retirement

policy is an extremely effective way of dealing with those two

considerations and, as I say, is a policy that reflects a concern for

teachers for the quality of their working life and for the quality of

our schools and for the continuity of a young and vital teaching staff.

The BCTF asked for a number of things from government, but they didn't

get them the way they wanted. They wanted full bargaining rights, and they wanted

other provisions of the Labour Code to apply to them. But they did not want

to be subject to the certification rules of the Labour Code, and that is the

great hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. The government has brought the teachers of British

Columbia under the Labour Code, but they are not prepared to give the B.C. Teachers'

Federation a monopoly, a prejudged certification. Perhaps those who argue for

bringing teachers under the Labour Code.... They are not under the Labour

Code in other provinces; in that sense we are much more advanced than other

provinces. I might add that there are many people who oppose putting teachers

under the Labour Code.

But

the request was there to have the provisions for dispute resolution

which are under the Labour Code. That request was granted, but we did

not give the BCTF the automatic certification. They may organize every

district in this province, and it may be that they will do that. God

bless them, but they will not get that from the government. That is

undemocratic; it is totally unfair to force teachers in this province

to be subject to union discipline when they have never had the

opportunity to participate in a certification vote.

It is

not a minor point, because when a union has to get that certification

vote, it has to be responsible and accountable to its members, and it

has to continue that responsibility and accountability, because under

the Labour Code it runs the risk of being decertified if it loses the

confidence of its members.

That is the right that teachers

must have, the same as anybody else who comes under the Labour Code, so

if they choose that route for bargaining, they must have that

protection. We are not prepared to entrench the BCTF as a bargaining

union under the Code without the consent of teachers. If the teachers

give that consent, that's fine. The opportunity is there to do that.

The

BCTF also asked the government for authority in areas which in fact are

the responsibility of democratically elected school boards. They wanted

their authority and their range of control in areas of curriculum and

teaching methods to be expanded. As someone who has been a member of a

democratically elected school board, I would like to say that I am

opposed to that, because that is the purview of the community. The

basis for having school boards is to allow local communities to have

input on their own philosophy of education, their own concerns in the

curriculum. That is what they are there for; that is the essence of

educational democracy.

I have served on a school board with

teachers who are trustees. They didn't teach in my district; they

taught in another district, and they didn't happen to belong to my

party. I can tell you they were very jealous of their prerogatives as

trustees to make those kinds of decisions in Vancouver.

The

BCTF asked for a say in the certification of teachers. This was granted

to teachers, but it was not granted to the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

It was granted to the college. What I find extraordinary about reaction

to the college among those who refuse to understand it is that they

fail to recognize that the powers granted to the College of Teachers

are powers taken from the ministry and given to teachers. The ministry

is saying: "You should be on the same footing as every other

self-governing profession in this province."

The registered

nurses, for example, are a self-governing profession, and they are a

good analogy to teachers because many of them are public employees.

They have the B.C. Nurses' Union that bargains for them, but the

Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia is their

professional association, the college that determines the curriculum

that should be required for accreditation as nurses, controls their

licensing and controls professional discipline.

[ Page

833 ]

There was a column in this morning's Province by Crawford Kilian,

who certainly is no friend of the government. His comments about the

provisions for the college are kind of strange, because he says they

aren't so bad. The problem is that the teachers will never use the

provisions; they'll never use them to turf anybody out of the corps.

It'll just become another self-perpetuating bureaucracy. We won't get

people picking on teachers because of their political-party point of

view, but any anti-BCTF teachers will get into problems. I find that an

extraordinarily patronizing and condescending attitude.

see no reason why teachers shouldn't make the same success of being a

self-governing profession as do lawyers, architects, engineers,

dentists and nurses. I hope they will welcome that challenge. I think

they will find it enormously invigorating and exciting, and it will

provide an opportunity for many teachers who are not interested in

political activism of the sort that has characterized the BCTF but who

care very deeply about professional concerns. It will encourage those

teachers to become involved, to get active and to give the benefit of

their experience and their expertise to the profession as a whole.

think that what the government has done with Bill 20 is to allow the

teaching profession to come of age, to recognize them. Bill 20 says

that the government has every expectation that teachers are perfectly

capable of governing themselves in the workplace and as a profession,

and that is what they are being allowed to do by this legislation.

There

has been some comment that Ontario doesn't have a college. Several

people, including the BCTF newsletter, have quoted Bill Davis as saying

in the Ontario Legislature that he would never put in such a college

without the teaching profession's approval. I gather he had submitted a

proposal. He must have at one point thought it was a good idea, but

backed down.

MR. BLENCOE : He was reasonable.

MS. CAMPBELL :

The second member for Victoria talks about him being reasonable. I

think that the Ontario Conservatives would be very grateful for the

endorsement and support of the British Columbia New Democratic Party.

Ontario

is not British Columbia. The Ontario Teachers' Federation has very

little professional power. The professional power which the Ontario

Teachers' Federation has is confined to the right to develop a code of

ethics. They don't have anything near the breadth of authority which is

being granted to British Columbia teachers in the teachers' college as

a self-governing profession.

Why did Bill Davis withdraw

his proposal to create a teachers' college? Well, perhaps the Ontario

Teachers' Federation, like the BCTF, did not want to have its ox gored,

did not want to have to rethink its role with respect to the teaching

profession, did not like to think that perhaps some of its prerogatives

were being infringed upon. I'm sure they created a great tumult. Some

of you may remember former Premier Davis of Ontario, and I would

suggest he is not a man who could be said to relish the tumult of a

political confrontation. In fact, Bill Davis calls to mind the words of

Gilbert and Sullivan in Iolanthe — you can see I've been Nanaimo-ized

by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick); Gilbert and Sullivan at

50 paces — when they were talking about the House of Lords during the

Napoleonic wars:

The house of peers throughout the war

Did nothing in particular

And did it very well.

think that could characterize Bill Davis's approach to government. So

he is certainly not the Canadian politician who would have been likely

to institute such an innovative program. In British Columbia we take

the view that governments are elected to govern, not batten down the

hatches.

We've listened to the BCTF and the B.C. School

Trustees' Association. We have responded to their wishes according to

our own philosophical commitment, which has been endorsed by the

electorate of this province. This legislation does not create

confrontation. This legislation pays homage to the teachers of this

province and their ability to govern themselves. It is opposed by those

who would like to usurp that opportunity for self-determination with a

statutory monopoly. The unworthiness of that premise will become amply

apparent as this bill is debated and subjected to full public scrutiny.

I therefore urge the defeat of this hoist motion in order that this

process of enlightenment can begin.

MR. CASHORE : Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to point out that I understand that by the rules that

govern this place it's not possible for persons in the gallery to

applaud; but comments have been made about people playing to the

gallery. I would Re to acknowledge that the young people from Coquitlam

whom I introduced earlier are still here and listening with a great

deal of interest to the debate, and in some ways I will be hoping that

the comments I make will be heard and valued by those very fine young

people who are representatives of our community.

Mr.

Speaker, at the outset I would like to point out that the hon. first

member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) has recently been

appointed to quite a significant task, and I wish to congratulate her.

It's a task to deal with the heritage of British Columbia, and I would

hope that the hon. first member from Point Grey, and all members of the

government, would consider the heritage of this province with regard to

education, to our educational institutions, to the time-honoured record

of advocacy on behalf of better education and on behalf of the children

of our province that is a record of the teachers of this province, who

happen to be involved in a heritage organization, an organization that

has existed for 75 years, the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

But

as other of my hon. colleagues have pointed out, and referring to a

comment that has been made by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

(Ms. Smallwood) which has helped to crystallize much of our argument,

in getting the proper focus on this issue we need to be aware that

teachers' working conditions are students' learning conditions. I think

that's a very valid and valuable observation, which would help us as

legislators and which would help all members of society as we seek,

through a consultative process, to enter into the dynamics that have

been foisted upon the people of British Columbia with the calling of

the bill at this time. Clearly any kinds of values that we might have

that would uphold the principles of consultation are in danger of going

out the window by example. If the government insists on forcing this

legislation through at this time, the hoist motion is indeed

appropriate.

[3:45]

I have a great

honour at this time to tell the members of the House that the Coquitlam

School Board has requested the provincial government to delay

consideration of Bills 19 and 20 until full consultation takes Place

with appropriate parties.

[ Page 834 ]

That's

a democratically elected board. Here's a partial list of other boards

that have done the same thing: Vancouver, Stikine, North Vancouver,

Vancouver-North Island, Prince George and Surrey. I think it's very

important to take note as we consider these wise recommendations coming

forward from democratically elected school boards throughout the

province — and I understand there are several more that have been added

to that list — that there are members of those boards who come from a

wide spectrum of political perspectives. I don't think it would take

too great a power of deduction to understand that many of those boards

have majorities that consist of Social Credit members. I don't think,

when we hear government member after government member rising and

stating the same old arguments about consultation and the democratic

responsibility, that they can assume that they necessarily have a

support as widely based as they would like to think. I would like to

remind the government that when they were elected, they were not

elected by a majority of the voters of British Columbia. As has been

pointed out before, the number of seats in the House do not reflect by

any stretch of the imagination the ratio of votes that were made for

each party in the election. But I think it would be very valuable for

the government at this time to take note of the fact that on a

percentage basis they did not have a majority of the votes of the

people of this province. Indeed, many of the people who did vote for

this government are among those — I think we can assume that — who are

calling for the kinds of measures that would support our argument at

this time for this hoist motion. I would suggest that the members of

the government pause and reflect on that.

One of the very

clear reasons for asking for a hoist motion is that there is an

emerging call for consultation out among the people of our province.

The Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), when he was speaking this

morning, said that he had been to over 50 hearings when he was Minister

of Education and that he had read a very large number of briefs on the

subject of education. I would like to point out to the hon.

Attorney-General, and to other members of government, that attending

hearings and reading briefs is not an indication of consultation. I

don't think that we can form the conclusion that because somebody sits

down in a room and goes through some sort of process, that's

consultation. It may be some form of considering an engagement, but it

certainly doesn't go beyond that to any type of relationship or

creative interaction between the ideas presented by those who present

those briefs and attend the hearings, and those who are sitting there

listening to them.

I think that we have a policy being

evidenced by this government which seeks to support the view that this

government is a consultative instrument, by having had consultations

throughout the province, as they call them, on labour and education.

Today we were reflecting with the Minister of Social Services and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) on the consultation throughout the province

on social policy, and here we have something like six or seven cabinet

ministers going and sitting down at a table and listening to 30 or 40

briefs. I don't think we can call that consultation.

I'm

sorry, the best I can do right now is to come up with a clich, but the

proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we haven't seen anything in

the eating of the pudding that would indicate that the ingredients that

the people of British Columbia have brought to this process have been

taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I think it's a kind of a sad

thing when there is an effort to put an image out there saying we are

consultative when in actual fact nothing could be further from the

truth.

Consultation that is really consultation is a

process of consensus-building, of interdependence and of working

together. It's a process in which the various parties have respect for

each other. It is not a process in which one group seeks to say to the

other people of the province: "By doing this we hope you'll like us,

because we're out here listening to you." It should be a process that

says: "We're out here to listen to you. We are going to take your input

very seriously. And yes, it is our task as government to put forward

legislation." But we have not seen within the activities of this

government the kind of presentation of legislation that would really

indicate that that is taking place. Instead what is being put forward,

unfortunately and sadly and tragically, is an insidious manipulation of

the populace of this province through this image of consultation. I

find this deplorable.

We must hoist Bill 20 to enable the

consultative process to take place, to enable this government to

indicate in good faith that it really means it when it says

consultation.

What is the product that we seek to produce

when we are involved in the enterprise that we call education? Are we

seeking, through education, to produce adults? Is that the goal of

education? Or is the goal of education to produce obedient beings so

that everybody, after they reach the age of 21, will be obedient? Is

the goal of education perhaps to enable our finest resource, our

children, to appropriate the tools of knowledge and the ability to be

able to use knowledge so that they can produce the finest, most

creative thinking possible, to enable them to take their position of

leadership within this province and within this land and help us get

into the coming century with the foundation, the values, the respect

for one another, the willingness to uphold democracy to the extent that

we truly believe in it and in truly believing in it truly consult with

one another in our decision-making? Are we wanting to produce an elite

few to manage the masses, or are we wanting the end product of our

education system to be young people becoming adults and through that

process having great self-respect, the kind of self-esteem that enables

them to participate fully and seriously and creatively in addressing

some of the very difficult problems that we have in our world today? I

suggest that that is the goal of education.

Another way of asking the question is: what are the values that we seek to

see coming forward when we talk about education? Are they values of high ambition,

values of enterprise, values of entrepreneurship — values that all of us could

support — but also values of compassion, values of participation and values

of interdependence, when we see the kinds of values that would be present with

our young people?

Mr.

Speaker, the point that I'm trying to make in talking about the product

we seek to produce in education, and in talking about values, is that

Marshall McLuhan was right to the extent that the medium is the

message. What we as adults do as we take our place of responsibility in

this House becomes very much part of the medium that is the message

that gets out there to our young people. That education does not take

place, for the minister's edification and education, only within the

school system. I think that we all embrace that, and feel good about

that. Education takes place, in fact, in everything that we say and do — certainly in all of our waking hours and possibly even in our

sleeping hours too, depending on the kind of dreams you have. I'd be

interested

[ Page 835 ]

knowing something about the kinds of dreams and nightmares the Minister

of Education has been experiencing lately as he forces this legislation

through the House. But, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about values,

these are values that we must be very serious about in our role as

educators here in this House, for we too share the role of being

educators in our society. That is a sacred trust, which brings me to

the crab story.

One day there were a number of old crabs

walking around on the ocean floor. They started to bemoan the fact that

the young crabs weren't learning how to walk straight, so they decided

that they would set up a school system and teach these young crabs how

to walk straight so they could straighten out their lives.

They

looked all over for a teacher, and they finally ended up hiring a

shrimp, because shrimps can walk in a straightforward direction. So

they set up classes, and the classes went on for some time. Finally all

the old decision-makers — all the old crabs — got together and decided

to have a bit of a royal commission, you might say, They decided to

investigate and see how it was going, and they got another old crab to

be a representative of the minister of education and go and observe in

the classroom. While this old crab was in the classroom, he shook his

head when he saw that all the young crabs were still walking sideways.

they called the young teacher — the shrimp — into one of their meetings

and gave her quite a dressing down over her lack of success in the

classroom. They were really disturbed and concerned about this, and

they felt that what they were paying her certainly should indicate

better results than this. Finally she realized she was probably going

to lose her job on 30 days' notice anyway, so why not go for it and say

what she really felt? She said: "How do you expect me to teach these

young crabs how to walk frontwards when all the rest of you — all you

decision-makers, all you important people — insist on walking sideways

all the time out there in the community?"

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, the medium is the message. By insisting that this

legislation be railroaded through at this time, you are walking

sideways, to the detriment of the children of this province. Make no

mistake about that because, the medium being the message, it will be

very clear to the young people of this province that the values of

compassion, consensus and consultation are values that are being

presented in name only, but not in reality. If we insist on doing that

within this House, then we are teaching our young people to walk

sideways, not to walk as we would hope they would walk, and not to walk

in the way that they will need to be able to walk if they are going to

be able to face the problems of tomorrow.

So, Mr.

Speaker, the kind of process that is being entered into when we in this

Legislature would dare to be involved in any changes in education, when

we would dare to be involved in such a bill as this, therefore becomes

a process where we have to be absolutely exemplary in terms of the kind

of teaching that we're involved in and the kinds of lessons that we're

giving as we go through this process.

Mr. Speaker, I would

like to suggest to you that teachers have a very good and time-honoured

reputation for having understood this process very well in this

province. Teachers do function as advocates for children; they do so at

a time when they are often under duress and under attack, but they do

so very capably. I believe it is tremendously important that we find

some way of being mutually supportive in terms of showing some

appreciation for the kind of valuable work that they do in this way,

being advocates for children.

We've heard the Minister of

Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) say that the

superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children. We

also have him, in the estimates, saying that different people in

society are advocates for children. Certainly the teachers of this

province have taken that advocacy very seriously.

I know

there's been a great deal said about the actions of today. We've heard

some very pious comments coming from the government, criticizing the

fact that many of the schools are closed today and many teachers did

not go to work today. I would suggest — again, the medium being the

message — that if you're going to indulge in that kind of piety, you

might for a moment stop and consider that this government at times has

had its hands dirty. Stop and think about that when you indulge in this

kind of piety. Remember the scam to arrange for the tax loopholes in

order to finance SkyTrain. Remember the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Hon. member, it seems to me that at one time during the course of

debates over the past few weeks we decided that the use of the word

"scam" was not parliamentary. Perhaps you'd retract that.

MR. CASHORE :

I retract the use of the term "scam." I thank you for bringing me up to

date on that. I don't think I was present that day; that was one of the

few days, Mr. Speaker, when I didn't read Hansard .

The

point is, Mr. Speaker, that there have been actions on the part of this

government that have left this government in a position of being

severely criticized for those actions with regard to the

appropriateness of them, and with regard to allegations at least about

their legality. We have also the example of the charging of user fees,

contrary to the relevant federal statutes. So I would suggest that we

be very, very careful within this House when we decide that we are

going to pull a long face and jump all over the teachers because of the

actions of today. I think it is important that this government not

dally with the hypocrisy of saying "shame," when this government has

blatantly indulged in acts of disobedience and wrongdoing. Enough said

on that.

I wish to say a few words about the record of

consultation that has been the record of this government going back to

1982. In February 1982 we received from the government the Compensation

Stabilization Act and all that that entailed, and the Education

(Interim) Finance Act. This resulted in centralized control of

teachers' salaries and centralized control of school board budgets. Mr.

Speaker, how much consultation was there with teachers and trustees in

that process? Absolutely none. And what was the result? The result was

that restraint was imposed and that there was a great deal of

opposition and bitterness that developed and grew. This was a combined

representation by many, many people in the public; indeed a majority,

including teachers, trustees and parents.

Then in October

1982 Bill 89 came forward, and this resulted in a measure to save money

and a six-day school closure. Again, sadly, consultation with teachers

and trustees was non-existent. What was the result? The result was

chaos and confusion in the school system. Again, I don't think that the

government should be pious in their critique of what's happening today.

[ Page 836 ]

Then

in July 1983 we had the major restraint package, Bill 3 making it

possible to fire without cause; Bill 6 giving tighter central control

over school board budgets. How much consultation was there at that

time? None. No consultation. What was the result? The result was major

provincewide withdrawal of services, including a three-day teacher

walkout, and a government-planned and manipulated process which was

destined to produce more confrontation and no consultation. Subsequent

to 1983 there were budget cutbacks and teacher layoffs, and again there

was no consultation. This resulted in centralized budget control, the

school board of Vancouver was fired, the Cowichan School Board was

fired, and there was further chaos and disruption. We now find

ourselves in a situation where this process of beating up on education

is continuing.

I can't understand what on earth it is that

causes the government of this province to continue its attack on

education. There was a clear message that came through during the

provincial election that you weren't to do that anymore. There was a

clear message stated by the Premier of this province that the ways had

changed. Yet what are we left with? We're left with a wolf in sheep's

clothing; we're left with "Bill Bennett lives"; we're left with the

situation that we saw in a cartoon not too many days ago, where Bill

Bennett was sitting in a rocking chair, wherever he is right now, and

saying: "I sure like that . and the name of the Premier of this

province.

Why is it necessary to go ahead and go through

this process at this time, when you have every opportunity to be

diligent about what you see and to truly be in consultation with the

people of this province? I haven't heard a good reason. I've heard

people say: "Well, we've got to go on with it; we've got to get going.

Time is short. We have to do it right now." But I'm talking about

reasons, real reasoned reasons, and I submit that there aren't any.

The

hon. Minister of Education has been in the political process for a

long, long time. I wouldn't say that he's becoming long in the tooth or

anything like that, but I know he's been around for a long time and

he's far more experienced in this than I am. As a result of having all

this experience, surely he understands the value of consultation with

the people you seek to work for in your role as a cabinet minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I do it all the time,

MR. CASHORE :

You do it all the time, and I'd like to suggest that you teach all of

us how to walk in a straight line and straight forward by doing it some

more. Show us how it's done. I think this is a tremendous opportunity

for the Minister of Education of this province to do some in-House

education that would be for the edification of all of us. I know I

would be willing to learn from your example, if you could show us that

you're serious about consultation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to encourage that the hon. Minister of Education make use of his

God-given talent to be an educator, because some of us forget we have

that talent and we revert to autocratic, non-consultative ways of doing

things. Here's a golden opportunity for the Minister of Education of

this province to show us a better way, and I encourage him to do so. I

know that he's wanting now to stand up and give the rest of his remarks

because he's so inspired by what I've said. I don't know if the hon.

minister is planning on confession or just what, but anyway I was glad

to see your eagerness.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. DE JONG :

I rise to speak in opposition to the hoist motion, representing the

constituents of Central Fraser Valley riding and expressing my own

position on the matter.

You know, the residents of Central

Fraser Valley constituency are highly appreciative of good work ethics,

but they not only appreciate good ethics, they also practise them out

in the valley. It's a place of real free enterprise and competition,

and resulting from that it's probably if not the strongest economic

community in British Columbia, then very close to being at the top.

They are a people who believe very strongly not only in the free

enterprise system but also in complying with the laws of the land. This

applies to teachers and school boards as well. In fact, Madam Speaker,

all our schools are open in Central Fraser Valley today and nearly 60

percent of the teachers are at work. In fact some of the high schools

are attended by as much as 70 percent of the student population.

Interjection.

MR. DE JONG :

I'm speaking of the public schools, not the private schools; they are

all in school and are certainly believers of free enterprise and good

work habits.

Having had the opportunity to speak to several

teachers over the weekend, there is no interest in job action among the

teachers in Central Fraser Valley. I was amazed at the dedication to

their profession expressed by a number of the teachers. They want to

teach and not revolt. Teachers in our community do not want their

professional standards jeopardized each time bargaining comes along.

They do not favour being tied to a big union or labour organization;

they prefer the status quo so they can be their own organization and

deal with the local school board on an individual basis. They are proud

to have the local school board as their employer; they are not so proud

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

[4:15]

The individual teachers really do not appreciate paying dues as high

as $800 or $900 annually to the BCTF Our constituents, the parents,

fathers and mothers, are generally proud of the fine facilities and

equipment that have been provided in our community for the education of

our children, contrary to the second member for Nanaimo who said that

this government has been bashing education. It's not so. The people of

Central Fraser Valley are equally proud of the dedicated teachers

teaching their children in those facilities. They expect the teachers

to employ their professional techniques and understanding in the

teaching of their children. The parents of the Central Fraser Valley

riding expect the teaching staff to further the basic training of their

children based on their beliefs and values and respect for law and

order and those in authority.

For the people of my riding

it is a dark day which will not be forgotten for a long time by some. A

good average day for the community, specifically for the parents and

children, has been turned into a day of utter confusion and frustration

by one person, the president of the BCTF This person has encouraged

revolt without reasonable grounds for it. This person has initiated an

action which is not condoned under current laws. I'm sure that most of

the teachers participating in this illegal act are for principle

reasons against such illegal action, simply because they would not

expect such flagrant disobedience from their students either. In my

opinion, the teachers have fallen prey to the powers of the

self-interest of

[ Page 837 ]

the

federation president. I'm sure the teachers would have had no

inclination to take

part in this illegal action, but the president of

the BCTF has encouraged them to do so. The president of the BCTF has

had almost four weeks to study Bill 20. The point is that before the

president of the BCTF took the time to study the details of Bill 20,

she indicated job action and said she was going to go through with it.

She wasn't carrying on because of Bill 20, which provides the

federation all they've asked for, but only to retain her initial

position, and as a result, many teachers have become the pawns of the

federation president.

Children throughout this province are

the victims of this action, not so much because they lost a day in

school but because of the impact that this illegal action by the

teachers whom they loved and held in high respect for so many years may

have had on their lives. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Cashore) said that the workplace of the teacher is the place of

learning for the student. Does he really mean that when he takes those

things into consideration?

If members of the opposition are

indeed concerned about some of the specific points in Bill 20, why are

they prolonging the debate by moving this hoist motion? Six months of

delay. Are they asking for a further six months of frustration — and

perhaps misinformation, because we hear lots of it from the other side?

Why not come to grips with the specifics in committee before third

reading? It appears to me that hon. members of the opposition are

making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to foster further

confusion.

I believe that in order to respond to the wishes

of the majority of the citizens of this province and to clarify to all

of the teachers and school boards the position of the government, which

embodies all the requests made by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, we

must defeat this hoist motion as quickly as possible and get on with

the job we were elected to do. Our job is to deal with the specifics

rather than political rhetoric.

MR. SIHOTA : It was

interesting listening to those words about rhetoric and specifics

within the legislation. I want to start off by talking not about free

enterprise, as the member just talked about, but the comments that were

made by the previous member. It strikes me as somewhat strange that

we're sitting here today — or standing here, those of us who are

speaking — and commenting on the number of teachers who went out in our

individual ridings. If statistics mean anything, I should say that of

the 423 teachers in Sooke School District, approximately 85 of them

showed up at work today. The balance chose to take the action that they

voted upon in their organization, the BCTF Of the 2,500-odd teachers

in the greater Victoria area, about 200 went to work; the balance

attended the study session at the Memorial Arena. I find it somewhat

disturbing that there is this funny kind of scorecard going on as we

ping-pong between each other here in this debate — "Well, look, in my

riding 60 percent of them showed up" or "In my riding 90 percent of

them didn't show up" — as if pointing to the figures somehow lends

further credence to our individual arguments and shows that teachers

are on the side of whichever proponent is speaking at the time.

I'll

tell you something: I think it's a shame that things have got to the

point that teachers have had to make the decision to walk off the job

and engage in a study session. I don't think there's any need for any

of us to expand our chests and pout about the number of teachers in our

ridings at work or not at work. It's a shame that the situation has got

to this point, and I don't think that the numbers or the turnout should

be used as justification or support for our respective positions. The

fact of the matter is that there is legislation before this House in

the form of Bill 20 that has caused, as was the case with Bill 19,

chaos, confusion, anger, bitterness, betrayal, and all those other

words we've heard in the last few days.

As competent

legislators who are in this chamber to deal with the problems of the

day, it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about the basis of

that anger, that bitterness, that sense of betrayal, and be asking

ourselves, as reasonable men and women in this chamber, what we can do

to try to put an end to that chaos, instead of sticking out our chests

and talking about how many people in our respective ridings showed up

and how many people in our ridings hence believe in free enterprise and

all that kind of stuff. It seems to me that that may be appropriate for

other debates, but for the purposes of this debate I think we ought to

recognize that there are a lot of people in this province who are

affected by this legislation and who are angry about this legislation.

Sure, there's a public relations game to be played as to the people who

aren't affected by this legislation and how they feel, because I guess

there is "some political merit" in trying to get people to step on your

side of the line. What I'm saying is that we should perhaps step back

for a moment and ask ourselves why it is we're in the situation we're

in.

Well, let me address that point by saying that it's

evident that the legislation has just not won the support of teachers.

I know the members opposite, and particularly the Premier, have a great

habit of saying: "Well, we gave them what they wanted. I don't know

what they are complaining about." First of all, it seems to me that the

Premier may well have picked up the newspaper and seen that there was

this wish on the part of the B.C. Teachers' Federation to have the

ability to bargain collectively and freely; or, to put it in the

inverse proposition, the right to strike, as the headlines say. I don't

really like putting it that way. So you try to incorporate that into

Bill 20. You may have captured the buzzword, the right to strike or the

ability to bargain freely, but you may not have captured in the

legislation the essence of what they wanted. It seems to me that it is

on that point that the legislation is lacking.

It is easy,

when you are trying to get a 30-second clip on TV or a 60-second clip

on the radio, to say: "Well, we gave them everything they wanted, and

now they are complaining, and I can't figure it out." That's really

easy if you want to play the public relations game.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : I think we all know that game, Mr. Minister.

But if on the other hand we are here as responsible legislators....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

I am sorry to see that certain members of the House are a little upset

that some of us tend to be better at getting 30-second clips, but the

master of that is the Premier, I'll have you know,

In any

event, if you want to come here as responsible legislators, then it

seems to me that we ought to put aside those 30-second clips and begin

to deal with the real issues. It

[ Page 838 ]

not a matter of taking the buzzwords of what the teachers wanted and

putting that in the legislation, It is a matter of capturing the

essence of what they wanted and making sure that the legislation

captured that. That's exactly where the legislation fails.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

The member asked: "What is the essence? Show me the light. Let me

understand." Well, let's deal with that. Let me give you a couple of

examples.

Free collective bargaining, the right to strike.

You have got to understand that the provisions.... I don't mean to

lecture, but the members did ask for an explanation here. You've got to....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Oh, I can just see her, excited now.

Free

collective bargaining under the provisions of Bill 20 is of course tied

in with Bill 19. Take a look at Bill 19. What does it really say about

free collective bargaining and the right to strike as it pertains to

teachers? It says that at the best — I am glad you are listening —

you've got one day that you can strike.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's what the legislation says. Read Bill 19. If the minister says to

me, "That's not the way it is going to be interpreted," then I guess

my crystal ball has a different cloud in it than his does.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : But they want to know.

You

indicate in Bill 20, or you try to indicate in the propaganda that

flows on Bill 20, that there is going to be an end to wage controls, in

1988, I believe. But you forget to point out that Bill 20 is dovetailed

in with Bill 19, and when you begin to read Bill 19 and the provisions

of ability to pay, and later on in the legislation it's tied in with a

phrase that talks about existing revenue, then it seems to me at that

point you have actually allowed the CSP to remain as it pertains to

teachers.

Silence.

Maybe for once the penny is beginning to

drop. But it seems to me that what you've done through Bill 20....

This is why I am saying it ought to be hoisted off the floor and come

back in a better form six months hence, or after you've listened to

the.... It surprises me that everyone is prepared to say we'll listen

to the teachers the first time, but you are not prepared to listen to

them a second time when they try to point out to you the flaws in this

legislation.

Anyway, I pointed out the fact that the right

to strike under one

interpretation is actually limited to one day. I

pointed out secondly, for those of you who wanted to have more

information, that the compensation stabilization provisions really have

not been removed when you dovetail it in with Bill 19. Thirdly, when

you begin to look at Bill 20 — and I am going to go into a little bit of

detail on this — I would ask the members opposite to take a look at

section 122. 1 and in particular 122.1 (2), which talks about the basis

for termination of teachers. It says in that

section that teachers may

be terminated for cause; I think that is the wording that is used. But

listen to this. Let me quote from the section:

[4:30]

"Where notice of an intention to terminate a contract of

employment is given by a board under subsection 1(b), the reasons for the termination

required by that paragraph to be stated in the notice may include professional

incompetency, unprofessional conduct, immorality," — immorality? — "mental

incapacity or any other cause which, in the opinion of the board, renders the

teacher unsuitable for the position then held by him...."

Let's take a look at that.

MR. VANT : Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think that this clause-by-clause discussion should be during committee stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The point is well taken, hon. member. I wonder if we could have the remarks addressed through the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA :

Fine. Madam Speaker, I'm quite prepared to address you through the

Chair or the House through the Chair as well. Let me say this: I don't

want to spend all day on that section, but the members asked earlier

what was wrong with Bill 20. I gave them philosophy, as one member

asked for, on the right to strike and the compensation stabilization

board. Now what I'm giving them is a specific in the legislation which,

if I was a teacher, I would be upset about. It seems to me that that's

one of the reasons why this ought to be hoisted, because that's a very

poorly drafted section. Let me point it out. Under that section, what

it says is that a teacher can be terminated for cause for moral reasons.

MR. REE : Illegal strikes.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's right. What's a moral reason? Is it immoral, in the opinion of

members opposite, that someone may have engaged today in an illegal

strike? Is that justification — if indeed it's illegal — for firing

somebody under the provisions of this act? That's what the teachers are

asking. I think that's a valid question.

MR. VANT : Absent without leave.

MR. SIHOTA : The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) says: "Absolutely." I take issue with that.

MR. VANT : No. Absent without leave.

MR. SIHOTA :

Oh, "absent without leave." I apologize for that. I didn't hear the

member properly, and I certainly don't want it said in the record that

he said "absolutely," so I'll correct that at this point.

What is immorality? What are moral considerations?

MR. ROSE : Belongs to the wrong church.

MR. SIHOTA :

There was a case once. Being a lawyer, I take interest in this kind of

stuff. It was the famous case of McPherson v. City of Toronto. On that

occasion the individual was living with another woman out of wedlock.

They

[ Page 839 ]

were living out of wedlock, and the city of Toronto chose....

MR. VANT : What year was that?

MR. SIHOTA : I'll get to that.

The city of Toronto chose to fire the person for moral considerations. You know something? It was upheld.

AN HON. MEMBER : The year?

MR. SIHOTA : The year was 1918, for those members who are concerned. [Laughter.]

But I'm coming back to the point. To excite the members opposite even more...

MR. ROSE : Titillate them.

MR. SIHOTA :

...to titillate the members opposite a little more, I would draw

your attention to the decision of Reilly v. Steelcase Canada Ltd.,

which is a more contemporary decision — 1979. It can be found at 103

D.L.R ., 3rd, page 704. In that case the employee had engaged in an

adulterous relationship with his boss's wife, and he was taken to task

and was told that he was going to be fired. I'm sure that members

opposite will be pleased to know that in that case the court said that,

well, no, that wasn't sufficient reason to fire somebody from their

work. So the 1918 law was overturned in 1979. But the point was that at

that time that was considered to be morally offensive.

There was also a time when I think some could have argued that it was immoral to be a communist. And now ....

AN HON. MEMBER : They still think that over there.

MR. SIHOTA : They still think that over there? Oh, I thought that ended in 1950.

MR. MILLER : The silent Minister of Forests thinks that.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, I'm not the Forests critic, otherwise .... He's going to take that comment on notice.

any event, is that a moral factor, the fact that a teacher may be a

fascist or a communist by political affiliation and participates in

political actions neither one of us may condone? Is that moral grounds

to fire somebody? I don't know. But it could be. Because when you

inject the concept of immorality into the legislation, you begin then

to do the very thing that was done in the 1918 case and the 1979 case,

and you begin to invite the types of arguments that I thought we had

put aside in the fifties.

People cannot be dismissed from

their tenure or their employment for moral considerations, because then

you are asking people to make judgments on things that I don't think

ought to be appropriate. What is, for example, a moral consideration? I

heard one of the members quoted the other day as saying that if someone

is a homosexual, that's a moral factor to be considered. Is that what

you want in Bill 20? I think we're walking in on a territory that none

of us really wants to see.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You of all people should know that it has to stand the test of the courts.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, under this legislation, Mr. Minister, as I understand

part 7....

MADAM SPEAKER : Hon. member, could you please address the Chair?

MR. SIHOTA : Sorry, Madam Speaker.

The

Minister of Education, Madam Speaker, points out that this will

withstand a challenge in the courts. Well, as I read

section 122.7 of

the legislation, I'm not convinced that one has the ability under that

section, under

part 7, to go to court, because the

section says that

the board of reference will make a decision on this matter as to

whether or not there should be suspension, whether or not their

contract of employment should be terminated, whether or not the

contract of employment should be continued; and then it may file a

certified copy of that decision with the Supreme Court, in essence

giving it the same result and effect as a Supreme Court decision

without a Supreme Court hearing. So I think the point, Madam Speaker....

MR. REE : Point of order.

MADAM SPEAKER : A point of order has been called by the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. REE :

Madam Speaker, I recall sometime early in this session the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew asking for relevancy and whatnot from the

government members in the debate on an issue, and I would ask that

probably he could do the same. We are not in committee; we are on a

hoist motion dealing with the hoist of Bill 20 — a time delay. Now

possibly he has had three or four minutes of his speech on the hoist

motion. We'd like to hear the rest of it on the same.

MADAM SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member; your point is well taken. I do

believe a great deal of latitude has been allowed to all of the members, and

I would ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. SIHOTA :

Madam Speaker, I'm delighted to hear that the member wants to hear

more, and I'm delighted to deliver more, but let me say this: my reason

for raising that whole issue was to point out a flaw in the legislation

which I think is of concern to teachers. It certainly is a concern to

me, and hence is a reason why the legislation ought to be lifted or

hoisted. It seems to me that there is a flaw, and I think it's quite

relevant to talk about it. But that's fine, I've made my point. The

point is that teachers are concerned about the right to strike in the

fashion that I've talked about it, and about compensation

stabilization. I've tried to provide, for the enlightenment of members

opposite, another specific example of what ought to be of concern to

anybody who reads this legislation, and hence the reason for it to be

hoisted.

Madam Speaker, I wasn't in the House earlier on

when the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) was

speaking.I believe she was talking a little bit about the Labour Code

and extolling the virtues of Bill 20, and was saying, as I understand

to be the case as I heard it over the speaker, that nowhere else in

Canada are teachers governed by the provisions of the Labour Code, and

isn't it wonderful that this government is doing so much for teachers?

I want to point out to members opposite that that's just not the case. For example, in Alberta teachers are covered under

[ Page 840 ]

the

Alberta School Act and the Alberta Labour Relations Act. Bargaining is

under the general Labour Act and covers all employees in the province,

specified — and there are some minor exemptions in the School Act — are

bargainable. In the case of Alberta the impasse is a resolution by

economic sanctions, including strikes or lockouts. The Alberta

legislation provides for the inclusion of administrative, supervisory

or consultative positions in collective bargaining. In other words,

administrators in practice in Alberta are included.

I bring

that forward to the attention of those members who have participated in

this debate and have argued over and over again that the situation in

British Columbia is somewhat unique, and that perhaps principals ought

to be exempt. I'm just pointing out that there is precedent elsewhere — the case of Alberta — which can be utilized to cite as an example that

the industrial relations argument that principals are managers and

teachers are employees has not been embraced in other jurisdictions

where teachers have been given the right to free collective bargaining.

Another

jurisdiction where that indeed occurs — where there is free collective

bargaining — is Quebec. Teachers there enjoy the right to strike. So I

want to correct for the record again the first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey, Madam Speaker, who argued that elsewhere these

rights never extended to teachers. It's interesting to take a look at

the legislation in Quebec, and it would be my submission that the

government would be well advised to take a look at some of those

provisions; not all of them, but I think some of them actually make a

lot of sense. Hoist this bill at this time and bring it back after

taking into consideration what was done in Alberta and now in Quebec.

Quebec, bargaining is also under the general Labour Code of the

province. It generally covers all conditions of employment. Bargaining

issues are divided between the provincial and local levels; an impasse,

again, is resolved through the formation of economic sanctions.

The

legislation in Quebec is very interesting, because it mandates that

negotiations commence at all levels, between all parties, 180 days

before the contract expires. It mandates the establishment of a

committee of information on negotiations, in which the parties must

make known their relative bargaining positions early on, both to each

other and to a specific committee. It has within the legislation a

method of voluntary arbitration by a council of arbitrators, and it has

in its legislation.... Remember my point earlier on, about Bill 20

here dovetailing with Bill 19. It states that employer interference in

employees' associations is not allowed. In any event, that's for

another debate, another time.

So you've got the precedent

in Alberta and in Quebec, which set out totally different schemes but

still allow for free collective bargaining, or the right to strike, if

you want to put it that way, for the teachers in those jurisdictions.

New

Brunswick is another example, which the first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey failed to take note of. Bargaining in New

Brunswick is under labour legislation. That specific legislation

governs most of the public sector. Negotiations there are provincewide,

legislation in New Brunswick — again, distinct from British Columbia — says that all employees are covered. There is reason to believe, in my

reading of it; I haven't been able to phone.... The wording of the

section seems to exclude persons acting on management's behalf in the

grievance process from the collective bargaining regime, but nobody

else, which to me seems to indicate the principals are not covered.

Once again, under the legislation in that jurisdiction, bargaining must

commence two months prior to the contract expiry, and must continue for

at least 45 days. Then there's another mechanism if agreement is not

reached within 60 days: the parties have the ability to elect to go to

a conciliation board for a report, and ultimately have the ability to

strike as well.

So it's not unprecedented, as the first

member would say. There are at least three other jurisdictions in this

country, jurisdictions which, in the case of Alberta, have rejected the

concept of the college that is incorporated in Bill 20, that have

allowed for free collective bargaining, and that have resolved the

matter of principals and their ability to form collective units. There

are those precedents elsewhere that can be a better way, or better

guidance to us, than what we've got here.

[4:45]

Once again, I would say to the minister that there are better

examples, something that will indeed capture the support of teachers.

As I said at the outset, nobody in his right mind would like to see the

type of event that happened today.

I was disappointed

when the member who spoke before me said this has all got to do with

the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, as if in some magical

way the president of the federation has the ability to dictate to all

of the teachers of this province that they must participate in the type

of action that took place today. That's not the case. There was a

democratic vote, and 70 percent of the teachers voted in favour of

taking the action that they did. It was on that basis that....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, here we go again. The member opposite indicates it's only 70

percent of the 70 percent who voted, which I guess is true, just as

it's true for provincial elections. Once again, I don't think that we

should be using that as a way of bolstering our arguments.

AN HON. MEMBER : Why are you?

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm not. I'm accusing the members opposite of saying, over and over

again: "Sixty percent of the teachers in my riding showed up." In my

case, 90 percent of the teachers did not show up at school. The point

is that we shouldn't be using those figures to stick out our chests. We

should be recognizing the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement

with the legislation that has resulted in this ty