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, MAY 12, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1087 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Legal Profession Act (Bill 25). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 1087

Oral Questions

Proposed national park on South Moresby Island. Mr. Harcourt –– 1087

Competence of VSE officials. Mr. Sihota –– 1088

Vancouver log market review. Mr. Kempf –– 1088

Liquor policy review. Mr. Lovick –– 1089

Ingenika Band reserve. Mr. Guno –– 1089

Delisting of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Hon. Mr. Couvelier replies –– 1089

Mr. Sihota

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) ––

Mr. Jones

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Miller

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Boone

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Sihota

Appendix –– 1113

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This House is graced today by the presence

of two very distinguished individuals. Seated in the members' gallery

is His Excellency Abd'el Kader Fall, Ambassador of Senegal, accompanied

by Mr. Balla Dia, counsellor of the embassy of Senegal in Ottawa. Would

the House please bid them welcome.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today we have two Surrey residents:

Mr. Jack Whittaker, a former alderman in Surrey, and his wife. I would

ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, we don't have just two

visitors from Surrey today. I have five more that I would like to

acknowledge: Mrs. Jeanne Eddington, Mr. Swaran Singh Mahli, Mrs.

Surinder Kaur Mahli, Mr. Pritam Toor and Mrs. Kartar Kaur Toor. I would

ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today are a number of visitors

from New Zealand who are visiting the fine city of Victoria and the

Legislature. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Annette

Lewisham and Robin and Viv Wildman.

MR. REE: Today we have a number of people from that great

mid-Island city of Nanaimo, representatives of the Social Credit Party

up there: Wes Sheard, president of the Nanaimo constituency

association, and his executive: Dick Winkelman, Mike Fall, Bill Smith,

Norm Hobson, Jim Moffatt, Aggie Flett, Laverne Kilner and Diana

Hryhorka. I would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and to

this Legislature.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in

congratulating the Richmond Sockeyes, who over the weekend won the

Centennial Cup Canadian championships. I think this is a remarkable

victory, not only for the people of Richmond but for all of B.C. Please

join me in congratulating them.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

introduce to the House two longtime supporters of the Social Credit

Party, and personal friends of our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mrs. Johnston) and our Premier: Mr. and Mrs. John and Mary Vertin, who

are now residing in the great constituency of Langley.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two

very dear friends of mine, Arleigh and Heather Fair. I would ask the

House to welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT

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

a bill intituled Legal Profession Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that was

introduced in the 1986 session, and it was the first update of the

Legal Professions Act of any significant dimensions since 1955. It's

the same legislation that the Law Society has worked on for many years,

and it has been the subject of drafts by the Canadian bar. It

represents the culmination of many years of self-examination, and I

think the House will find it to be a very good bill.

First of all, it provides for an emphasis on the public interest in

this profession, and provides for three lay benchers for the first

time. Also, it provides that this profession must examine competency

for the first time in a way that empowers them to discipline and to

deal with competency. Hopefully, it will set very high standards and

provide for effective enforcement. It also has a change from last

year's bill, which we didn't pass last year, which allows for the

practice of law by corporations, with very strong safeguards that

professional liability cannot be avoided or professional conduct

diminished. So it's the same bill, with a few changes to meet the

requests of the profession; and it's a modem, sunshine bill which will

make the legal profession more publicly accountable.

Bill 25 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

PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK ON

SOUTH MORESBY ISLAND

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about South

Moresby. Mr. Premier, what assurances are you able to give this

assembly that the government is in fact negotiating in good faith with

regard to a national park reserve on South Moresby? For example, would

you be willing to table an outline of the negotiating positions of the

parties to date?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we always negotiate in

good faith. Certainly there's an interest by many, which makes the

negotiations more interesting perhaps than they might normally be. I

can recall visiting New York, and they seemed to know more about South

Moresby than they knew about the province or western Canada; similarly,

at a large gathering in Toronto there was a great interest in South

Moresby. Many Torontonians are very keen on seeing us establish this

park on the Pacific coast. So it certainly makes it interesting to

negotiate with a federal government which encompasses all of the

provinces and all of the interests in all of the provinces, including

the city of Toronto and other places I visited. Therefore, obviously, I

think there's recognition on the part of the federal government that,

when people elsewhere in the country call for the establishment of a

park, they must consider as well what the impact is on the province in

which the park is located and what the effect is on people who are

employed in such an area and who really count on that area for their

employment. It certainly has been interesting thus far, and

negotiations are continuing.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Premier is such

a strong Canadian, because Parks Canada has estimated that if this park

were to be established in South

[ Page 1088 ]

Moresby, it would establish twice as many jobs as logging would. I

would like to know what the position of the province is on continued

logging, and has the Premier any target date in mind for an early

resolution of this situation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The moratorium is still in place, and I

appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition says when he quotes Parks

Canada and their suggestion that the return, job-wise, from parks may

be considerably more than what it is from our primary resource,

forestry.

However, I think we have to look at that particular statement

carefully as well. There is a great deal that needs to be done before

such a statement made by someone in Parks Canada in Ottawa is taken at

face value, because at the moment it's still much easier to fly from

Vancouver to Toronto or Montreal — and probably cheaper too — than it

is to fly from Vancouver to the Queen Charlottes.

MR. HARCOURT: The throne speech of March 9 contained a pledge

that the government would attempt to expedite the bilateral

negotiations for the establishment of the national park on South

Moresby. Can the Premier assure us that he is prepared to meet with the

Prime Minister personally in order to ensure that meaningful

negotiations do not break down?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We as a government initiated all of the

actions with respect to South Moresby. Again, the latest round of

negotiations were at our initiative, so we have been proactive in all

of this. In part, too, there's a lot of uncertainty among the people

who have looked upon some of those areas for their livelihood, so it's

not without a degree of selfishness on behalf of British Columbia,

because we recognize that there is a concern by people there.

One could argue that, well, it's only 60 people, and I've had people

from Vancouver come to me — as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition

has had come to him — who say: "What's 60 jobs?" Well, to the Queen

Charlotte Islands, 60 jobs is as important, maybe, in some respects as

6,000 jobs in Vancouver. They would impact heavily. So we are anxious to

see these negotiations proceed for a variety of reasons. We've taken

that sort of initiative, and we're making good progress.

I've discussed it with the Prime Minister, and I'm awaiting a call

from the Prime Minister's office or the Deputy Prime Minister

momentarily.

COMPETENCE OF VSE OFFICIALS

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday

in this House, the Minister of Finance indicated that the VSE had moved

very quickly on the Tillex matter. It seems to me, as I analyze the

matter, that there are some serious questions about the competency of

VSE officials in dealing with the Tillex matter.

For example, on January 9, 1986, I have some documents that show the

VSE had been given disclosure documents from Tillex which showed that

Tillex had cash assets of approximately $18,000 but was acquiring a

company that was worth up to $10 million. My question to the minister

is this: has the minister determined why this did not raise alarm bells

with anyone at the VSE, and why was it the VSE waited until June — six

months later — to issue a cease-trading order?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, that's a pretty exhaustive

question, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be pleased to answer it in similar

detail. As I indicated yesterday to a question put to the Premier last

week by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, the matter of the

International Tillex Enterprise corporation has received some media

publicity, and to the questions that were put last week and again this

week — to which I indicated that I would make a statement today — I'm

pleased to do that now.

The initial distribution....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the minister going to make a statement? I think he could save it until after question period.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the questioner, if I

understood him properly, had some dates and dealt with some dealings of

the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am about to give you the dates and the

actions that took place on those dates. I can do it in the form of a

statement. I'm happy to do that but I have trouble answering the

question unless I do use the material that I was going to give later on

anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I might suggest to the hon. minister that

the.... I was going to suggest to the questioner after you'd finished

your short answer that his question was very long to start with, and if

we get into a long answer I think it might be better to save this until

after, when you can make your statement and the member can also reply

to it.

VANCOUVER LOG MARKET REVIEW

MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the Minister of Forests and

Lands. Recently, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

made in this House some comparisons of log market prices between the

Asian-Pacific market and the Vancouver log market which proved

conclusively that there is something rotten, not in Denmark but in

Vancouver, with the Vancouver log market.

My question, Mr. Speaker: just prior to leaving — if you can call it

that — as minister responsible for forests and lands, I had obtained a

quote for a totally independent review of the Vancouver log market. Can

the minister tell this House if he has decided to go ahead with that

review, in view of the serious discrepancy between logs valued on the

Pacific log market and those valued on the Vancouver log market?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall seeing any

correspondence from my predecessor on this matter. I'll be happy to go

back through the files, try to find that and report to the House.

MR. KEMPF: I can find that documentation, Mr. Speaker. I'm

not a lawyer, but it could appear from the figures given by the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and from the 1975 Pearse

report that wash-trading — as it is known in the stock market — has

been a regular feature of trading in logs by the coastal timber

monopoly.

My supplementary, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: The first question was taken as notice; the member will have to ask a new question.

[ Page

1089 ]

MR. KEMPF: New question. Has the minister decided to capture the nearly

$1 billion going astray in this situation, which could be going into provincial

coffers instead of into the pockets of the multinational corporations?

HON. MR. PARKER: I can look into that. I guess if my predecessor missed it, I might be able to find it, I'll let you know.

LIQUOR POLICY REVIEW

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Premier. It concerns the

activities of the liquor review commission. At the moment, as we know,

the commission is apparently considering allowing restaurants to sell

liquor without food. In response to a question about this, the Premier,

when asked whether that might not be profitable for him and put him in

an apparent conflict of interest, said: "I suppose that change would be

profitable for Lillian, definitely." If it is profitable for Lillian,

it is obviously profitable for the Premier.

My question is this: will the Premier at least assure us that, given

that apparent conflict of interest, he will suspend the activities of

the current liquor policy review and replace it with an all-party

committee to examine this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The liquor review committee has done an

excellent job. They've received many oral and written submissions from

all across the province. It's a first, certainly. It's been a good

experience, no doubt, for all those who participated, but also for the

people who were wanting to make their views known and wanted to present

their views with respect to liquor distribution, or anything to do with

liquor and its handling in the province. I'm very pleased that progress

is being made in that regard. The committee will now gather all of the

documentation and presentations they have received and draft a report

to present to the government. A date has been set for that.

It will be the committee's report, not the Premier's report. I don't

know what those changes are, or the effect, but undoubtedly some of the

changes could somehow affect members on either side of the House.

Perhaps there may be those who are involved in other activities that

possibly relate; it depends on how far you wish to take this. But I

don't have any fear at all of conflict.

MR. LOVICK: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, let us get to

specific cases. Fantasy Garden World, we estimate, stands to have some

$7 million added to the capital value of its property if the liquor

review approves the sale of liquor in restaurants without food. Will

the Premier not then assure us that he will take some steps to

demonstrate to the people of this province that there is in fact no

conflict of interest, because clearly people perceive that there is a

conflict?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Next time Lillian talks about seeing

the banker, I'll tell her to see that member instead. Undoubtedly,

considering where it comes from, it probably wouldn't carry much weight.

Having said that, however, and getting serious — which is difficult to do considering

the question — I can assure the hon. member that I have no fear of conflict.

INGENIKA BAND RESERVE

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier

and concerns the Ingenika band, which is presently living at the north

end of Williston Lake. These people were flooded out of their homes 22

years ago and at that time were promised a new reserve. The only land

they have ever been offered was chosen without consultation and lies

far outside their traditional territories. What direction has the

Premier given to ensure that quick action is taken on the establishment

of a reserve at Ingenika Point?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question on notice.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to

an oral question that was taken on notice dealing with the question of

Tillex Enterprise Ltd.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I wonder if the Speaker could

perhaps clarify for us who are in the opposition whether this is a

question taken on notice that is being answered, or a ministerial

statement dealing with a general topic. When we agreed that further

questions would not be asked of the minister today, we did it on the

understanding — perhaps misunderstanding — that it would be a

ministerial statement to which we would have an opportunity to respond.

It was on that basis that we gave up our place in question period. So I

would like to have a ruling from the Speaker on that particular point

before we hear any more.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To respond, Mr. Speaker, it is common that

a minister will take a question on notice and then, when the minister

has the material available for the Legislative Assembly, he will, out

of courtesy, wait until question period is finished and say that he is

responding to a question taken on notice.

I have the Blues from yesterday, which indicate that the Minister of

Finance did indicate that he would be bringing the answer to the

question tomorrow, which is today. So the minister is simply replying

to a question taken on notice.

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was very

clear during the exchange, when the Finance minister was beginning his

response and pointing to his notes, that the Speaker indicated to the

House that the minister might more appropriately make his comments

after question period, and that the opposition would have a chance to

respond at that point.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, after listening to both sides, would

say that the minister did say during question period that he would be

making a statement. I will allow the member from the opposite side to

make a statement.

DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL

TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Following questions that were put

previously, the initial distribution of shares in International Tillex

Enterprise Ltd. was in early 1985, according to my information.

Subsequent to that, the firm in question changed its business from

mineral exploration to

[ Page 1090 ]

insurance. On June 10, 1986, audited financial statements were sent

to the shareholders of that corporation within the time-frame required

under the Securities Act. On July 8, 1986, trading in those shares was

suspended by the VSE, and a temporary cease-trade order was issued by

the superintendent of brokers. The reason given for that action was

that audited financial statements for the year-end 1985 did not contain

adequate disclosure. On July 23, 1986, the cease trade order was

extended to March 31, 1987, by the superintendent of brokers.

Investigations were launched by the corporate investigations branch and

by the Vancouver Stock Exchange. These investigations were concerned

with the initial distribution of the shares and what appeared to be an

abnormal price rise compared to earnings. In January 1987 a broker with

Continental Carlisle Douglas was suspended by the VSE for 30 months and

fined $100,000 in relation to the matter. On March 20, 1987, an

extension of the cease-trade order was issued by the superintendent of

brokers. On April 2, 1987, the VSE delisted the company for failure to

file the required audited financial statements.

The current status is that there is an ongoing criminal

investigation and that our corporate investigations branch continues to

monitor the case and is seriously considering the options. In view of

the fact that this investigation is underway, I trust that the member

might understand my reluctance to discuss current actions, but that is

the chronological, historical sequence of events.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in reply, the minister started with

his comments on June 10, 1986, and the thrust of our concern is not

about what happened June 10, 1986 — the minister has documented that.

Nor is our concern over the investigations that are taking place by the

commercial crime unit right now, because, after all, the provisions of

the search warrants that were issued are now public information. Our

concern on this side of the House is about the competence — or

incompetence, if you want to put it that way — of the officials in

charge of monitoring the affairs of stocks on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange.

We all know that in the past the Vancouver Stock Exchange has not

enjoyed a very positive image. We know that its credibility has been

brought into question a number of occasions, and we know that the

government, by proclaiming the new Securities Act on February 1, 1987,

tried to take steps to ensure that a lot of the fraudulent actions on

that stock exchange were remedied.

What concerns us on this side of the House is the actions — or the

inaction, to put it more precisely — of the officials of the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. For example, on March 12, 1985, International Tillex

Enterprises issued a press release stating: "The directors of the

company wish to announce that they have entered into negotiations for

the purpose of acquiring British Insurance Management Co. Ltd." On

March 14, 1985, there was another release which said: "The president of

the company is pleased to announce that the company has reached an

agreement in principle to acquire 100 percent of the outstanding shares

of British Insurance Management Co. Ltd." That was on March 10.

Now first of all, financial information filed with the Vancouver

Stock Exchange — and I could be off by a few thousand dollars on this

matter — indicated that the cash on hand of International Tillex was

around $10,000. How was it that a company that had cash-on-hand assets

of $10,000 could turn around and acquire a company which, on the other

hand, had a value of up to $10 million? Surely at some point, or at

that point, the alarm bell should have rung at the VSE.

If that wasn't good enough, I have with me today documentation dated

January 9, 1986, which is the quarterly report required under the

Securities Act of International Tillex. According to that report, as of

that day International Tillex had cash assets of $18,000 on hand and

yet had concluded negotiations to acquire British Insurance Management

Co. Ltd. This is a public document that's filed with the VSE.

Mr. Minister, why did it take six months for the VSE to take a look

at these documents and determine whether or not there were any

improprieties? How could a company with $18,000 worth of assets

possibly acquire a company worth up to $10 million? Surely that ought

to have been investigated at the time. Our question relates to that

investigation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister took about two

minutes for his statement, and the member is into four minutes in his

reply. Replies to statements, hon. member, are not meant to get into an

argumentative state or into other questions. I wonder if the member

could wrap up and possibly put this on members' statements for Friday.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, let me make the following point:

when the acquisition was supposed to take place, the Vancouver Stock

Exchange indicated publicly that the acquisition was subject to an

appraisal and valuation to the satisfaction of the VSE. That appraisal

was never conducted. We have concerns as to why officials on the VSE

never conducted that appraisal. We know that officials of the VSE

acknowledged that they knew that the principals of Tillex and British

Insurance Management Co. Ltd. were one and the same, yet that

information was never disclosed to the public. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, at

that point some investigation should be done. Certainly in my mind, Mr.

Speaker, that raises questions about the competency of VSE officials.

There's more, and if Mr. Speaker wishes to cut us off at this point,

or make the comment that you have, I'll step down. But it seems to me,

Mr. Speaker, that the minister, if he wants to fulfill the mandate that

he has under statute to look into the operation of the VSE, should be

answering questions related to what happened before June 10, 1986 — not

after.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. member has a full opportunity in the minister's estimates to go into that in detail.

Orders of the Day

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

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

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

section 23.

MR. JONES: I'm pleased to continue debate on committee stage of the Teaching Profession Act. In particular, this

[ Page 1091 ]

section is a significant and interesting one. The debate that has

taken place in this House is interesting. This

section is the one that

allows cabinet to disallow bylaws dealing with teacher training,

qualifications and certification and provides for filing of the bylaws

with the Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, it has been central to some of the debate with the

minister that what we are doing with the Teaching Profession Act is

setting up an autonomous professional body. I think the word autonomous

is one that is subject to

interpretation, but to me autonomy means the

right to selfgovernment and certainly freedom to conduct one's affairs.

While the minister is suggesting that we're setting up an autonomous

professional body and decentralizing powers in education and giving up

powers formerly held by the minister, and that he trusts the members of

the council and the college to behave properly and reasonably, that he

has faith in the college and the members to do that, and while the

minister is writing legislation and also, I presume, regulations to

that legislation — although one of the last comments that the minister

made this morning somehow left that in question and I didn't realize

that was a question as far as the minister's authority to write

regulations.... So not only do we write legislation and regulations and

appoint at least four members to the council; we now have a

section of

the act that is approving the bylaws.

I understand that there is nothing specifically unique or unusual

about this kind of section, but it does seem to me to contradict many

of the statements that the minister has made. Certainly the college

that's being set up will have a certain degree of autonomy. It is

receiving some powers formerly held by the minister, but there are an

awful lot of checks and balances in this act, and this is one of the

sections that provides those checks and balances. It seems to me in

debate that we can't have it both ways. We can't say it's an autonomous

professional body and at the same time have the right to regulate the

bylaws of that body.

I think what we're doing here is establishing a body that appears to

be an autonomous professional body but in fact, in reality, is not. I

suppose in politics perhaps style and appearance are important, but I

would wonder what the arguments would be from the other side of the

House if it was this side of the House that was setting up a body where

the government had the right to approve the bylaws. I'm sure we'd have

cries of "state socialism" and "interventionism" and probably lots

of other kinds of "isms" as well.

Mr. Chairman, in looking at this

section in the legislation, I think

it's important to compare it to other acts in order that we're seeing

that the teachers vis-a-vis other professions in this province are

receiving fair and equitable treatment. While it is true that the

bylaws of doctors and lawyers are not subject to the disallowance by

cabinet, all the bylaws of the accountants, nurses and engineers are

subject to such disallowance.

So we do see some anomalies here. I would like to ask the minister

why it is that in the case of teachers only some of the bylaws of the

college are subject to disallowance, and what could be the rationale

for such differences between doctors, lawyers and other professions and

teachers and all other professions. We see inconsistency here. We see

teachers being disallowed, or the possibility of disallowance in some

cases; none for doctors and lawyers; and it looks like wide-open

disallowance for accountants, nurses and engineers. I wonder if the

minister could comment

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps I should get something straight

first of all. The member — I don't know whether he intends it or not —

keeps talking about the disallowance of the bylaws of the organization.

I think it's fairly clear in this

section that except for three

specific areas all they have to do is file the bylaws. Or if you like,

it could he encompassed as one area: training, qualifications and

certification of teachers or of members. That is simply with the new

organization starting — that when their bylaw to deal with the

teachers' certification, training and qualifications is put in — I

fully expect, and I have the faith, that the bylaw will he accepted.

[2:45]

This is a protection so that should a group perhaps want to say that

the minimum teacher training shall be seven years — and none of these

exists — then there is an opportunity to protect the existing

membership who now have certificates. So I think it's just a legitimate

caution that's built in in the one area of teachers' qualification or

certification. That's all; they are the only ones. The rest only need

to be filed. So I'd like to make sure that that's clear; that it's only

in that one specific area that the caution is built in. The rest of it,

it's a matter of filing; they are required to file them. We don't have

the option.... The Lieutenant-Governor does not have the option to

disallow the bylaws.

MR. JONES: Certainly, to the minister, that was clear in my question.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, I think we'll have a chance to check that.

The point of my question was specifically that: there is inconsistency.

It's not the minister's fault there's inconsistency, but there is

inconsistency between the various professional acts. This act, as I

said clearly, allows the cabinet to overrule certain bylaws in those

three areas that the minister mentions.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, that's not what the minister has just said. You should listen, Mr. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser).

The minister has said that in these three areas bylaws can be

disallowed and in the other areas they are filed. That's agreed. My

question to the minister is.... There is inconsistency, and I don't

know how I would view this. I suppose if I was comparing these

provisions to doctors and lawyers, I would say teachers are being

treated unfairly. However, if I was comparing them to accountants,

nurses and engineers, perhaps those are being treated unfairly, in that

all the bylaws can be overruled by cabinet. So, Mr. Chairman, I

certainly don't disagree with the minister. It was a question as to

fairness and equity between the provisions, and I was making the point

that certainly there is discrepancy between the various professional

acts in terms of the cabinet's ability to over-rule these bylaws. But I

would like also to make the point to the minister, and I think he's

clear on what I'm saying now, and I don't know whether there's a

response necessary or not.... There is a discrepancy, and I think the

minister would agree with that, and that was the point of my question.

I think, too — the point I made earlier — that we are providing

checks and balances, to use the words of the minister, in this section.

We are having a high degree of

[ Page 1092 ]

specificity. In other areas, as we talked about this morning, there

aren't checks and balances where I felt there should be. So in debating

this legislation, I'm suggesting to the minister that we do have a body

whose bylaws in these areas.... And we have a body which the minister

says he will trust, but just in case they pass a

section requiring

seven years' training to become a teacher, the cabinet can disallow it.

We trust the college in some areas, and we don't trust it in others.

All I'm doing, Mr. Chairman, is pointing out that the minister argues

that in certain areas we will trust the college but in others we won't

trust the college. There is an inconsistency there, and it's our

responsibility to point out that inconsistency.

I would also like to ask the minister.... When I look at this

section and see these checks and balances that the minister is

referring to, and I try to envision the kind of circumstances under

which the cabinet may overrule one of these bylaws in these three

areas, I harken back to the inclusion of that expression "public

interest" that we referred to in

section 4. I just wonder if it is the

kind of area.... Maybe the example that the minister used, of teacher

training being seven years, would not be in the public interest. So I

would like to ask the minister if it's that

section — the public

interest part of

section 4 — that necessitates the cabinet, which I

suppose does represent the public interest, being able to disallow

bylaws regarding teacher training, qualifications and certification

because in the opinion of cabinet they will not be in the public

interest. Is the example the minister used of teacher training being

seven years an example of where he is invoking something in the public

interest, or if the profession decides it should be seven years, should

not the minister respect that decision?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly intrigued

by the member's imaginative juxtaposition skills in order to try to

make a point from one

section on public interest. I think if the member

stopped to think for a moment.... We have something like 30,000 people

in the province — give or take — who are going to be eligible; their

certification now is determined by the minister; they are in place;

they have all of these things that have given them those

qualifications. When that is being done in one full move, before any

bylaws are in place, I think it's a protection to the members to make

sure that something extreme or accidental couldn't happen. The example

that I gave was an extreme. Maybe I should quit giving examples of

extremes to make a point, because you take that as though that is the

total position. But I suppose that is part of the game here to try to

pick and choose, and point and counterpoint and that sort of thing. The

legislation is fairly clear; the intent is fairly clear. When you are

involving the certification and qualifications of some 30,000 or more

people in the province in one transfer of authority, then I think it's

legitimate to say.... And there is a built-in protection should

anything go wrong. Now I'm quite confident — and I'll repeat that —

that once the college gets its bylaws in place and gets operating,

their bylaws will be quite in accordance with this act, which the act

requires, and there will be no problems, no reason for us to disallow

those bylaws.

MR. JONES: I would like to attempt a light-hearted comment,

somewhat at the expense of my friend the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch), who is my neighbour MLA. I would suggest that maybe the bylaws

should be submitted to that minister, because I know he has an interest

in qualifications and certifications. I know he has either a BA or an

MBA either from Columbia or Columbia Pacific, and I know he would be

very interested in the standards and qualifications. I hope that

minister is perhaps listening, because he gave me advice as a rookie

MLA to keep my powder dry, and I would like to know whether I'm doing

that or not. I'm not clear on what that expression means.

Section 23 approved,

section 24.

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

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, procedurally, because there are

two amendments to

section 24, could I clarify whether we're dealing now

with the amendment to subsection (2) and the new

section 3.1, or

whether we're just dealing with the amendment to subsection (2) in this

section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the total amendment to

section 24, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: Then let me begin by looking at the amendments

to subsections (1) and (2). It would appear that there is some

separation of membership and qualifications in these amendments,

because there has been some suggestion that admission and certification

are somehow to be separated. There is also, I think, something in this

particular set of amendments that may deal with independent school

teachers, or teachers who are teaching in that sector.

Let me look at amendment (a), and just ask the minister if he could

please tell me what process we would follow here. Does this mean that

one first applies for admission to the college and then, once one is

admitted, one automatically receives some certificate of qualification?

What is the intent of this amendment at this time? Can you just clarify

for us what this is all about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member probably answered her

own question, Mr. Chairman. We separated admission to the college from

maintaining the teaching certificate, if you like — the certificate of

qualification. So we said in subsection (1): "The council shall

establish standards of fitness and qualifications for the admission of

persons as members of the college...." That's the purpose of deleting "and

certification."

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Moving then to the second section, and dealing with the possibility

of a person who ceases to be a member — "who is a member under

section

3(l)(

a) or (b), whether or not such a member resigns under

section

3(3)...." The same thing applies in 3.1, but staying with (2)(

b) at

this point, it appears to be dealing with the independent school

teacher who may choose not to remain as a member of the college. I

think we discussed this issue earlier, and the minister noted that in

order to teach in the public schools of the province, one must remain a

member of the college, but that such a requirement

[ Page 1093 ]

did not apply to a person teaching in the independent school system.

Can the minister explain, if it is his desire to regulate the

teaching profession in the province through, first of all, this matter

of certification, and then through a discipline procedure and through

professional development — the maintenance of the qualifications of

that person — why the teacher in the independent school is in fact able

to opt out? Is there indeed to be another standard or other procedures

that govern that teaching body, as distinct from the teaching body

which is performing its professional duties in the public schools of

the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. Firstly, there's no intention for the

minister to regulate the teaching profession. The idea is that the

teaching profession regulate the teaching profession. The member says

this amendment could apply to independent school teachers who don't

teach in the public school, and that is correct. It could also apply to

teachers who resign and go into politics for a while.

As I gave my own example, that does not nullify the teaching

certificate that I once earned and still hold. But if I want to go back

to teaching in the school, then I have to apply for reinstatement as a

member of the college; in this case, for admittance to the college —

and, hopefully, they would grant it to me, or to any other.... It also

allows for people who step out of teaching for a few years to come back

in. This was a protection that wasn't anticipated initially. It was

brought up in our discussions with the BCTF and others whether you

would lose your certificate if you lost your membership. We said no,

that was never the intention and we would correct it. So you can retain

your certificate. That's why membership and the certificate is here.

For instance, right now people have certificates. In future the college

could take a new teacher-training graduate and issue them a certificate

for teaching. And then if that person, say, four years later, left

teaching for three or four years and dropped his membership in the

college, he retains the certificate. The certificate is retained once

the college has issued it, or if it is issued now. So I hope that

lengthy answer explains that to the member.

[3:00]

MS. A HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate the

explanation that you have given. Perhaps at this point I would just

note again that we do have the option for teachers not in the public

school system to resign from the college, to have gone through the

process of certification, which they must do if they are to meet

certain requirements within the independent school system in what I

think is called the class 2 area, and then to have no further

involvement with that profession. We do have two standards here set up,

as far as membership in the college is concerned: a compulsory

membership, which must be maintained by any teacher who is continuing

to teach in the public school system; and the right to opt out by a

teacher who is teaching in some other system than the public school

system.

I have no further questions on the amendment. I understand that the

amendment is clearly to protect the certification of people who may not

be practising the profession at that particular time. I thank the

minister for that clarification.

MR. RABBITT: Under

section 23(3), am I to interpret that this would be the equivalent to a temporary certificate for a teacher?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't involve a

temporary certificate. I'm sorry, I'm working on the amendment. I guess

it gets us into

section 3. As amended,

section 3 says that the council

may issue letters of permission for teaching to suitable persons who

are not members and whose services are required for a special purpose

for a specified period of time. That's simply the extension of an

emergency case, or something of that nature. It's really a letter of

permission, which is a temporary certificate — whichever you want to

call it. It's basically a letter of permission to teach for a specified

period of time until a fully qualified teacher can come in. I think

that was the member's question. Was it on

section 3 rather than 3.1?

MR. RABBITT: Partially, Mr. Minister. In the small rural

schools, where non-qualified personnel are used by school boards from

time to time, would they fall under this

section of the act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

MR. RABBITT: Then my question would be, if this is

discretionary.... Should there not be direction in there as to reasons

why they should he approved, rather than leaving it discretionary? The

reason I am asking this is to ensure that there is always a body of

teachers available on short notice in the small rural areas.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the alternative would be to

say that the college or the council or the minister shall issue a

letter of permission. That has never been the case and it is certainly

not intended now. They may issue a letter of permission. It is usually

done where a board could make the case and show that they have not been

able to fill the position with a qualified person. At that point the

application may come to the minister to say: "We tried." The minister

can say: "Show me how you tried. Show me what effort you made to get a

qualified person in there." If they say, "We've done that, and we

can't fill that position with a properly qualified person, but we have

somebody who we think could do the job for a specified period of time"

— which could be a month, a year, a week or whatever; it's usually over

a month, because they can use substitutes under a month.... All this is

now turning that over to the council, which will be making those

decisions and may issue that certificate. If we said "shall," that

would open the door to any school board filling positions with

unqualified people, and that was never the intent of this legislation.

MR. MILLER: Maybe I'll just ask a few questions leading up to

another one. Am I correct in assuming that under this

section the

college is the only body that can issue a certificate of qualification?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the future, when this legislation comes into force, yes.

MR. MILLER: Subsequent to that.... It is not required that

one have a certificate or membership in the college in some instances.

For example, the question of private schools was mentioned. Is it

mandatory to have a certificate and be a member of the college — either

or both?

[ Page 1094 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we have to remember that what we

are talking about is a B.C. certificate of qualification for teaching.

Anybody who wants one of those will have to apply to the college.

MR. MILLER: You didn't answer the second question, and that

is: is this certificate of qualification a requirement for all teaching

in the province? Are there exemptions, for example, in private schools?

Maybe you could just indicate if there are. What I'm trying to get to

is the whole question of abuse. If people are not required in certain

circumstances to have this certification, and yet it is deemed to be a

desirable thing to have as a commodity that makes them a little more

valuable in the marketplace if they want to move, surely it is set up

there for abuse of the college. They can go through the whole process

of being certified by the college, joining and then saying: "Well, I've

got what I want now. I'm just going to stop paying my dues." Could that

happen under this section? It seems to me it could.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am trying to think of how that can

suddenly become an abuse under the college system when that right

exists now. A person could meet the requirements for a teaching

certificate in British Columbia, apply to the minister for the

certificate, get the certificate and never intend to teach. He can do

the same thing with certification by the college. Maybe the member is a

little confused. If a person wants to teach in the public schools, he

must then become a member of the college.

MR. MILLER: Well, maybe it's a question of order here. But

the college "shall establish standards...and qualifications" for

admission and "shall not admit a person...unless he meets those

standards." Then in

section 24(2): "The council shall issue a

certificate of qualification to each person who is admitted...." So

subsection (2) requires that you do both.

I still think the question I just asked is appropriate. People right

now don't have to pay dues to the Minister of Education, but they will

be required to pay dues to the college once this act goes through. So

you'll get the situation that I talked about, in which people, for

their own self-interest, can in fact abuse the college. They can say:

"Sure, I'll join the college for a month, whatever it takes, and then

I'll just stop paying my dues. But I got what I wanted; I got my

teaching certificate."

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers wouldn't do that.

MR. MILLER: You never know.

Amendment approved.

section 24 as amended.

MR. JONES: There are a number of questions on

section 24 that

I would like to ask. I guess it's a concern that goes back to

displacement and fear of change as a result of legislation. I'm sure

the minister appreciates that whenever there are dramatic changes to

our structures in education, there's fear that there will be

displacement and changes that people will have difficulty accepting.

Particularly in the interim, when it isn't clear exactly what's meant,

there is a certain amount of anxiety. I think members opposite have

suggested that that anxiety has been whipped up, but I think any time

there is dramatic change, there is anxiety and fear of the unknown.

Until this act is implemented and we see its operation, it will not be

clear as to what these dislocations are and how justified these fears

were.

I would like some clarification and reassurance from the minister

about some of these things, such as the teacher qualification service.

Now operated jointly by the BCTF and the BCSTA, it has permanent staff

and ongoing commitments. It has lease arrangements with office space

and all those kinds of things that organizations have. I would like the

minister to provide some kind of clarification and assurance, as a

result of this

section as amended, that this service will continue

after passage of the bill.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member, I think, is concerned.... I

answered the question — I don't know how many times I have to answer it

— that the teacher qualification service has nothing to do with teacher

certification; it's for placement on the salary scale. The joint board

that exists has some functions. This morning I did not, despite what

was transmitted to me, comment either way about the continuance or

discontinuance of either of those organizations, because they are

irrelevant to this debate.

MR. JONES: The minister has indicated, although he hasn't

given us reassurance about the TQS and the joint board.... As the

minister says, they will not be impacted by this bill. I guess we'll

have to wait and see whether or not that happens.

With respect to the costs of these programs, I believe the minister

has given assurance that some costs will be picked up by the ministry

in terms of holding the first election. I believe the minister has

given some assurance, in discussions with the BCTF and the BCSTA, that

some of the costs associated with the College of Teachers with respect

to teacher certification will be picked up by the ministry. Could he

clarify what the ministry intends to do as far as picking up those

costs?

[3:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think it's covered in

section 40 when we get to it, where the minister can pay for interim

expenses. I indicated this morning that we know there's going to be an

initial expense in registering all of the people under the college, as

compared to another registration system, and we're quite willing to

participate in that. I also said that we would like to move when it

gets to just new membership and those considerations, that we would

like to see the college become autonomous and pay for its operation out

of its membership fees as soon as possible.

MR. JONES: I understand from the minister, then, that it is

the interim costs, very much like the first election costs; that it's

sort of seed money, transfer money, that kind of thing, that the

ministry will be picking up rather than the $483,000 annually that the

teacher services branch currently now expends under the Ministry of

Education.

The College of Teachers comes into being on January 1, 1988 and I

wonder if the minister could clarify for us the kind of transition

arrangements and dates the minister has in mind for the transfer of

responsibilities from the teacher services branch to the college.

[ Page

1095 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly wouldn't want to put on a time

limit, that the only expenses we'll assist with are to January 1,

because the registration process and some of these interim costs that

will be incurred by the college may extend well beyond that by the time

the whole structure is in place.

MR. MILLER: With regard to, really, the whole question of

appeal, has the minister considered or is it deemed necessary that

there be an avenue? People, for example, seeking employment have the

protection under the Human Rights Act in terms of discrimination by

employers. The government, in dealing with the amendments to the labour

bill, talked about the need to Protect people from the insidious

practices in the hiring halls. Obviously that's a consideration in

other jurisdictions, and yet there does not seem to be any avenue of

appeal for an individual against a decision by the college with respect

to admission or the granting of a certificate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's difficult to have everything that's

going to happen covered by the time we get to

section 24, but could I

suggest the member read

section 37 and the amendment to it. It covers

it right on the nose.

Section 24 as amended approved.

section 25.

MS. EDWARDS: I might apologize to the minister for having

misread the last time I asked a question. I'll try to read more

carefully this time. I am just wondering if the minister foresees any

problem connected with this committee, which is the qualifications

committee, which has to deal with giving qualifications to people who

are members and deal, I presume, with what may in time become a

position where someone is a member or not a member, and those kinds of

things, and deal with

section 22(1)(

h) where there is this clause

about members "in good standing" — which is not defined.

Has the minister examined that sort of interaction of those sections

and the difficulties that could come in with the moving in and out of

membership for the qualifications committee?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can assure the member that we examined

interactions between clauses and existing acts and possible acts and

everything else until we were satisfied that we had covered everything

that it is possible to humanly cover. So interactions between these —

yes, definitely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 25, the hon. member for Kimberley continues.

MS. EDWARDS: I would also like to ask the minister a little

bit more about how the committee will actually operate. Now all members

of council are entitled to sit on this committee. The chair and the

vice-chair of the committee are named, but then all members of council

are entitled to sit. How will continuity be maintained? I know that one

of the things that happens is that if someone is sitting on a

committee, they are allowed, I understand, to continue to sit on that

committee if in fact they no longer become a member of council and that

committee is still dealing with something.

That's not what I am talking about, Mr. Minister, because I think I know

how that is going to work. But I would like to know whether people are going

to go in and out of that committee. Will the number be consistent or can there

be more than three members sitting on some occasions, or how will that work?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the first subsection of that

states that the council shall elect a chairman and a vice-chairman of

the qualifications committee and that every other member of the council

may sit on the committee. However, for working committees, which often

happens.... That's why the quorum of three is stated there. But you'll

find further that if there's any question about this, it has to go back

to the full council, and that is the reason why full council "may sit."

Every member is entitled to sit, so they can't say you're not on the

committee because you're not one of the four or five. Every member has

the right to sit on that committee and be a member of the

qualifications committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes to the member. She is from Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kimberley is in that other riding that exists somewhere else.

Mr. Minister, it seems to me that again we've got a situation where

it is possible that perhaps three of the appointed members of council

could form the quorum on this committee.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again we're talking about what may be

possible. With 15 of the members elected by the teachers, they appoint

the committee. I don't; the minister has no power to appoint the

committee. They pick their own committee, and where any inquiry comes

up, they have to submit the written report to the council and it's the

council that makes the decision. So I don't see how there's any

possible way that any of the appointed members can in effect control

qualifications.

MS. EDWARDS: There is just one other thing. I find, again,

there seems to be a double sort of protection, perhaps, or it might

be.... I don't know how it's going to work. The committee itself has

the powers, protections and privileges of a commissioner. When they

submit their report to the council itself, the council has the powers

and can conduct further inquiry and so on. Is that a necessary

situation? Does it not create a situation that's unnecessarily

permissive, to allow someone to be investigated or inquired into?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The powers and privileges of a commissioner

are to allow them to require evidence to be submitted. They can ask for

it and expect to get it. They can subpoena someone as a witness and

that sort of thing. It gives them that power. It gives the council a

second look, should they wish to use it.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

MR. LOVICK:

Section 26 — I see somebody from the other side

of the House asking — is the one dealing with the professional

development committee. That's what we're now on.

[ Page 1096 ]

I'd like to begin my questioning about.... Not the minister. I'm

sorry. I hasten to point out it wasn't the minister. It was another

member on the other side.

I'd like to begin my comments and my questions by looking briefly at

the intent of that section. As we see it, the intent of this clause is

to substantially narrow the definition of professional development.

What is proposed here is a top down system of professional development.

As we see it, teachers will not have control of their professional

growth under this definition of professional development. As well,

there does not seem to be any mechanism for teachers to define their

professional development needs. That's our primary concern.

We say that because, again as we read it, all aspects of

professional development are to be controlled by a professional

development committee consisting of from three to 20 members of the

20-member council. We are also concerned that the professional

development committee is apparently given an enormous power; that is,

there is no clearly defined process to make the committee accountable

for its actions. or responsive to teacher needs.

Let me begin my questioning by simply asking the minister if he

would care to respond to any of those concerns as I have stated them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wouldn't care to respond, but in the spirit of cooperation, I will.

The whole point the member has to recognize is that when we're

talking about the professional development committee of the college, we

are really talking about professional development with respect to the

members. We are not encompassing the total, broad definition of what

professional development in the whole teaching or education system.

There is nothing in this to preclude other agencies, local

associations, school boards, the ministry or anyone else from carrying

on with what has been under the broad umbrella of professional

development. These are an attempt to specifically gear it to the

professional development of the certification and qualifications of

members, and that is a reference, yes, to improving educational,

services, which I suppose is the whole purpose.

Subsection (e), I might add, was put in there that there might be a

specialist association. that fits in here. It does not require the

college to take over all other provincial specialists' associations —

as they are now known under the BCTF Those can carry on under the

auspices of the local association or the BCTF, which I still fully

expect will be their central coordinating body. So it doesn't take that

away from them.

MR. LOVICK: Of course, I'm pleased to hear that from the

minister, and it perhaps will go some, e distance towards allaying the

kinds of fears that people have expressed to us. I think, though, that

there is still some concern about just what the intent of that other

body's professional development activity is. What kinds of signals does

it give to the various schools and other institutions throughout the

province, in terms of what the ministry regards as acceptable and

desirable professional development? Perhaps when I deal with. my

specific questions we can zero in somewhat more on just those kinds of

concerns.,

Let me refer then to

section 26(2). The question is as follows: we

note that a quorum consists of three committee members and that five

members of a 20-member committee are appointed by government. Is it the

government's intention — and I think I know the answer; this is partly

rhetorical — to dictate what type of professional growth shall occur

for teachers? Let me pursue that a little further. What procedures

exist to ensure that professional development indeed reflects the needs

of teachers, as identified by teachers? I think that's the question.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is true; the government will appoint

four members plus the one that will be designated by the deans of

education. Those five will make up one-quarter of the council. The

council, which is three-quarters made up of elected representatives of

the teachers — a three-quarters majority — will elect the chairman and

the vice-chairman for that committee and will appoint or elect the

committee, so I feel that there is full control by the membership. If

the council and the elected representatives of the teachers in their

wisdom felt that the best people on that council were the two I

selected and the one the deans selected, then I would have to

congratulate them on their wisdom and my good choice.

MR. MILLER: It's a big if.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, it's a big if. As a matter of fact

it's.... Well, I'll let that one pass. I was about to make a not

terribly parliamentary observation.

On 26(3): we also note that the professional development activities

"may" be offered, not "must" be offered. This is an echo of a question

we've heard before, but obviously we don't feel the answers given have

entirely satisfied us. The question is: does this mean that

theoretically absolutely nothing could happen in terms of professional

development, that indeed there could be no professional development

activities? Is that what the legislation makes possible? I think it

does.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Theoretically, hypothetically, yes.

Pragmatically and realistically, I don't expect that a group of

professional people elected to run the professional affairs of their

own members is going to say: "We are going to do nothing to help a

teacher who needs professional help." So theoretically, hypothetically.... I guess we're doing a lot of discussion on

theoretics and hypothetics, but in actual fact I don't see.... Perhaps

the permissiveness, if I say that they may do those sorts of things —

I'm going to be a bit facetious in saying that I don't want to tell the

college they got to learn 'em whether they need it or not.

MR. LOVICK: I notice that in that flurry of adverbs presented

by the minister he didn't "state categorically." I think we were sort

of hoping that that would be slipped in as well.

Mr. Chairman, I'm standing now simply to announce that I must run to

attend a committee meeting. My colleague the member for Prince Rupert

has graciously consented to pursue the line of questioning I was

beginning to develop. I shall return, as MacArthur said.

MR. MILLER: How do I know for sure that you're going to a meeting?

I don't have a lot of questions. Clause 26(3)(

c) talks about the necessity to develop teacher competence. I think the work

[ Page

1097 ]

that the BCTF has done, in terms of their professional development,

has been to foster teacher development. That doesn't rule out

competence, but it implies that they're talking about the growth of an

individual teacher's knowledge, or body of knowledge and ability to

teach, and the rest of it. Competence is kind of a bottom line. That

would be my only concern about that section.

MR. JONES: I would like to spend a few more minutes on this

section, because I think it really is a key section. It's also key

based on the kinds of comments we've heard from the minister, some this

morning and some this afternoon, which were reassuring comments to me

with respect to professional development. This morning he suggested

that at the local level we would see associations and unions still

carrying on professional development activities. I'm pleased to hear

that. Perhaps, as the minister suggested, I should have perceived from

the legislation that it wasn't precluded and therefore was possible.

It seemed to me that the major intent of this particular

section was

the idea of separation; that we are setting up another institution that

provides, or at least allows the opportunity to provide, the same kind

of service that we've seen carried on in this province for many years

by the other organization. I know the minister supports this

legislation and believes in it, and thinks the teachers of the province

should. But very clearly this is a

section that I think has bothered

the teachers of the province. They see this

section as an attack on

their organization. Although some members opposite have been critical

of the professional development function of the B CTF, I don't think

the minister has been, and I don't think that's the majority view of

the members opposite. This is a very delicate section. What it does is

alter history. This

section sets up another organization with virtually

identical responsibilities to those that we've seen develop over

history. I'm sure the minister would say that professional development

activities were carried on before the B.C. Teachers' Federation and

that they will carry on after. And they did carry on before. They

carried on with the BCTF from 1919.

I think the minister was very pleased with a lot of those

professional development activities. Perhaps he remembers from the

early years that there was a lot of criticism of the teaching

profession, much different from the kind we hear today; but that

criticism was there. It argued in particular that too many teachers

were underqualified; that teachers lacked a sound theoretical

foundation for their practice, unlike doctors and lawyers. In response,

teachers tried to overcome those objections. They mounted professional

development activities: in-service education; summer school programs;

raising the qualifications for entry into the profession; involvement

in a variety of things, such as the kind of thing we see today with

teachers involved in curriculum development. I think part of those

goals — and I think the minister would have supported those things —

was the tie between professional development and economic welfare. Not

only did they improve their standing as a profession and their status

in the community, but they proved to the community that they were well

qualified through these kinds of programs, and that their professional

status and their income were inextricably bound. From some of the

answers that the minister has given, although I think it is perceived

that the major rationale is to separate those things, he suggested this

morning that he expects the BCTF to still carry those things on.

So what we are doing is setting up a competitive organization with

this section. The minister, if he sees both carrying on, sees them in

competition. The realization that all the impediments to professional

status cannot entirely be removed through improvements in those things

that I mentioned — the pre-service education, the in-service education

and curriculum development — is probably a more recent view of

professional development, and maybe this is the area that government is

concerned about.

In more recent developments, we see a much broader view of

professional development. The broader concept of professional

development of teachers in this province involves four interrelated

areas. Probably the more typical kind of professional development is

teacher growth and service activities directed to the improvement of

teaching practice. Another professional development activity could be

viewed as occupational reconstruction, which is concerned with the

rights and the responsibilities and the authority of teachers

individually and collectively.

Part of that again ties in with what I said earlier about economic

welfare, in that part of those rights and responsibilities is

participation in the bargaining process. I am pleased that the minister

has indicated that he expects those rights to be carried on by local

associations and unions. It seems to me that it is very clear that the

conditions under which practitioners operate, no matter what their

profession, are part of their concerns. I have suggested that doctors

certainly have the right and responsibility to ensure that the

conditions under which they operate on the sick are of the highest

possible standard. I think we should see the same kind of thing

happening in terms of the tie between professional development and

bargaining for teachers.

A third area of professional development is, of course, concern for the rights and needs of children in this province.

The fourth area that I see as inextricably bound to the other three

is that professional development is part of teachers critically

reflecting on the purposes of education, the curriculum and the

governance. I think....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, this is the second

long speech that the member has made that is not really relevant to the

section that we are discussing. So as patient as I am, I think at some

point he should get to the section. We are not talking about the whole

gamut of teacher training, education, the whole system, or anything. We

are talking about this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister makes a good point. The Chair was

aware of what was being said, but since the member was referring to

professional development, the Chair was being somewhat lenient. Perhaps

there was some digression on the part of the member for Burnaby North,

and maybe he could proceed on the basis that we are just speaking to

what is contained in

section 26.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been very patient.

However, there are a couple of sections, and I am talking about one of

them that is critically important. I think what we are doing here is

making history. The history that I am talking about is the replacement

of a major practice of teachers in this province...being challenged

by this legislation.

I think it is important for the record to see what we are actually replacing, and to talk about the kinds of things that

[ Page 1098 ]

exist, that are going to be altered by this legislation, and that

this legislation impacts directly upon. I did want, for the record, to

comment on some of the areas that I see operating now that are being

challenged by this legislation.

[3:45]

I would like to carry on, but I will make it brief. What already

exists in this province is structures that the B.C. Teachers'

Federation operates at the provincial level and at the local level, and

they are considerable. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with your approval,

to mention a couple of them: the professional development advisory

committee, which oversees provincial professional development for

teachers; the teacher education committee which looks at the

preparation of teachers; the children's rights committee; the status of

women committee; and the committee against racism.

There are 27 provincial specialist associations that this

legislation is setting up, perhaps another 27 to compete with those,

and a council to coordinate and oversee their operations, as well as a

wide range of other activities.

In addition to this, these provincial services and structures all

support activities at the local level, and I think a few of them are

worth mentioning because I think they are being placed in jeopardy by

this

section of the act. For example, Project TEACH, which is teacher

effectiveness and classroom handling; PRIDE — it seems that these

acronyms are popular — which is professional refinement in developing

effectiveness; and TTLC, which is teaching through learning channels.

They are all mechanisms by which professional development activities

enhance the operations and the effectiveness of teachers in the schools.

I think we see that there is an organization that does this that

also provides 20 professional journals. The lesson aids service alone

is one that is of long-standing importance to this province for

teachers and is going to be impacted on by this

section of the

legislation. Although the minister has given some reassurance under

this

section that these things can carry on, they've been there for a

long time, and they are being challenged by this legislation.

I am sure the minister can't predict all the implications and

impacts that this legislation will have on these longstanding services

around the province, but I think he must recognize that injecting this

section into the legislation does produce the kind of unknown areas

that cause a lot of concern for the practitioners in education around

this province, and I would hope that there would have been something in

this section. I think the minister perhaps does, too, because it is my

understanding that in the talks with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and

the B.C. School Trustees' Association there was a clear indication that

there would be a reduction in the professional development powers of

the college contained in

section 26; that there had been ministerial

approval to that reduction of powers; and that it was possible that

there would be amendments to this

section to provide this reduction in

the professional development activities that I think is probably

central to the reaction of the profession to the legislation.

Unfortunately we did not see such amendments forthcoming.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that I did go on for a long time, but I

thought it was a very critical area that needed to be commented. on,

and perhaps the minister would like at those t comments.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That this is replacing all of the

professional activities is not correct. It's not even implicit in this

legislation. That this legislation is forcing a separation of

professional development activities from many other roles that teachers

play is not correct. It's not even implicit in this legislation. That

the present activities that teachers have set up, like the lesson aids

and all of these other things that presumably perform a service that

teachers have been willing to pay for — to buy the lesson aid, and that

sort of thing — are being challenged.... I don't see how these are

being challenged by this legislation.

What I guess we've separated out in the other direction is the

collective bargaining rights of teachers to function separately from

the professional qualifications and certification. The member mentioned

setting up 27 more PSAs and that sort of thing. He seemed, in the

eagerness to suggest things, to infer things that this legislation

doesn't do. That message has been put out there. I don't quite know

why. I suppose people have interpreted for their purposes, or whatever,

and forgotten, or apparently forgotten, in the whole debate, in the

whole anxiety that has been created, that the college will be run by

their own professional colleagues. And so I for one just don't

anticipate that their own professional colleagues, being elected to

represent them, are suddenly going to turn and undermine everything

else that they have done.

Perhaps we can narrow it down again, that the professional

development activities of the college are designed to deal with the

professional development, as a person or as a professional, of the

teacher. If we take the broader sense of professional development

activities, and almost anything in the system that improves it can be

included under that, the college may cooperate with that, may assist in

it, but does not interfere with any of those functions going on by a

local association, by a board, by the ministry, by anybody else. So it

does not challenge those. It does not take away the many good things

that have been built up over the past. It doesn't take them away; it

simply says that when it comes to professional training and

development.... And I have to reiterate again that if the college is

going to be involved in qualification and certification and

requirements for teaching certificates in this province, then it must

have a role in the upgrading of those teachers, in programs that can be

set up or directing teachers to existing programs, those sorts of

things.

I think members forget that this will be run by elected

representatives of the teachers; they think of all the horrible things

that the college may do. They're going to be the same teachers who

belong to local associations, who belong to the teachers in this

province in whatever form. These are the teachers of this province who

are going to run this one aspect of their organization. The

qualification service, the autonomy in that respect.... There are all

kinds of other things that are going to go on just as they are now.

This is one facet — the governance of the professional role of teachers

— that's been taken out and put in this legislation. And the other

facet is to allow for the full bargaining right and the choice to go

whichever route the people want to take. It doesn't encompass all of

the other things — that I've heard some very good speeches on but are

nothing to do with this legislation.

MR. JONES: I don't think the minister can ignore what is a

fact here, and the fact is that we have a profound change in he

structures. We have a new structure being set up that we're debating

right now, and what we're doing with that structure is we're giving

compulsory membership to that organization for everybody who teaches in

the public school and has a certificate, and we're taking away

compulsory membership for the other body and allowing that other body

[ Page

1099 ]

to lose some of its members by legislation and lose some of its

members by choice. In terms of professional development, even though

that body has that long history, I wonder which body the minister would

go to for advice on professional development. Would he go to the body

that has captured all these professionals through the compulsory

membership route, or would he go to the long-standing body which, even

though it has a long history of providing these kinds of services to

teachers in the province, now does not represent all the teachers in

the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we would certainly go to any

body, as I've tried to indicate — any organized body, any group, any

school board, any group that wants to have input in education. We have

those discussions. I've spent a lot of time going around talking to

anybody and everybody who was interested in education. We even have a

royal commissioner going out trying to get all of the people who are

interested in education, so there's input from all over.

I'm a little surprised that the member says that all of these

wonderful services have been provided by the BCTF Are you saying

implicitly that they have been completely dependent on compulsory

membership? I thought that many of those services developed because it

was a service that teachers liked, and if it's a service that suits

their purposes, then how would they abandon those services? Surely the

whole thing isn't dependent on compulsory membership.

MR. JONES: To answer the minister's questions, very clearly

we're setting up in law a body that has those same responsibilities as

the existing ones, and certainly the minister is correct that they have

been supported out of need, out of desire from the grass roots that

these kinds of services be provided. But we're setting up an

organization. I think the minister is arguing as strongly for not

having this

section in the act as I am. If he says that these things

will continue because they are servicing the needs of teachers, then

why are we debating this section? Why is this

section in here? We are

duplicating the service, and that's been my main argument on this

section, Mr. Chairman.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: I wonder if I could ask the minister just to

clarify the amendment and its purpose for me, please. I don't know if

that can be done succinctly or not; it seems like a very lengthy

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the minister rises to respond to

the hon. member's question, as there's maybe a little break in the

proceedings here, there are a couple of things I would like to mention

to hon. members present.

This House is governed in our debates by many different rules. When we get

into the section-by-section debate in committee stage of a bill, two of the

very most important things that we must bear in mind constantly are the relevancy

of the things that we say and trying to avoid being repetitious, because being

repetitious does become boring. The Chair is not suggesting that this has happened

up to this point in time, but maybe at this juncture there might be nothing

lost by mentioning these two minor things for the benefit of members.

Now I'll turn the floor over to the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Some of the removal and the replacing it

with that is simply to clarify the intent that the first action against

any member with respect to incompetence will be taken by the school

board. In the initial

section it allowed for five colleagues to lay a

complaint of misconduct or incompetence. That seemed to create a

considerable concern — and perhaps it was legitimate; it wasn't

intended, but certainly we accepted that — that the five members....

Remember, those are members of the college, so they have to be fellow

teachers who can lay that complaint. We have restricted that now to

misconduct and have left it for the board, through their usual channels

of inspectors' reports, superintendents' reports, principals' reports

or whatever method they determine is adequate, to sustain their case in

any inquiry that they may have to deal with incompetence. So that's

really what the technical wording here is to achieve.

[4:00]

MR. JONES: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. I

do think that although there are still a lot of concerns about this

section, that is an improvement.

Subsection (3)(

b) of the amendment suggests that fellow members of

the college may only complain about a member's conduct, with this

amendment, rather than their competence. This is a difficult question,

but if the minister could respond, I would appreciate an answer. Can he

define the difference between the two, and where the line can be drawn,

and perhaps how the college, the minister or the school boards are

going to be able to make that distinction? Clearly the two are bound

together, and perhaps the minister could clarify the difference between

"conduct" and "competence."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry now that we didn't

invite the member to the negotiations, because we could have saved

having amended this act. We thought that "misconduct" and

"incompetence" were tied together, but we were convinced during the

discussions with the BCTF that the concern was great about competence;

that members should not be able to say anything about competence. You

know, fellow colleagues should not be able to lay a complaint about

competence; that should properly be the jurisdiction of the school

board, the authorities and the vehicles they have.

So we accepted that, and unless I heard incorrectly, the member is

now saying: "Well, the two are related. How do you make a distinction

between the two?" Well, what we are allowing, if you go through the

rest of this section.... One of the reasons that, even though very

little has changed, it's been reworded here is that there are

references to other sections — you know, it had to be changed because

other subsections had changed and that sort of thing.

So the amendment looks far more complicated than it really is. It's

really acknowledging the concern, which, as I said on many occasions,

we didn't think was there, but which was certainly promulgated as being

of great concern to teachers, that somehow or other, capriciously or

whatever, five colleagues, if they didn't like somebody, could just

simply

[ Page 1100 ]

throw in incompetence and wouldn't have to have an inquiry and all

of this.... Now it goes back to the board having to deal with

determining competence or incompetence. If they want to lay the

complaint, they do it; they look after it in every respect. Then the

board may send in a report, of course, to the college saying: "This

teacher is incompetent, and you should take a look at it." Or five

colleagues can say: "This person is guilty of personal misconduct which

is detrimental to the profession, and you should take a look at it."

Then the college council can look at misconduct or incompetence

complaints. They can look at both of them, but the one comes, if you

like, through the due process that has been in effect from the boards;

the other may come from colleagues.

I would have to defend the right of any five members.... That's not

taken lightly in the profession, but if some five members feel that,

for instance, a person is guilty of misconduct in the performance of

his or her duties with the children, they should have a right to say:

"We want that looked into." I expect that it will not be used often,

but I certainly hope it will be used, if ever it is warranted.

MR. JONES: It is a little hard to tell whether the minister

is speaking in favour of the amendment or in opposition to it. I guess

what has happened in the process is that the minister is responding to

concerns raised, and although he does not see them as legitimate, he is

still agreeing to make these changes to the legislation. I have some

difficulty why he doesn't see them as legitimate. Certainly if he is

proposing these changes, they are legitimate changes. When we see a

person's livelihood at stake and such a vague thing as competence.... I

am sure nobody in the House would suggest that the minister wasn't

competent, but there may be five people somewhere that would suggest

that. I don't think we would want the minister's livelihood dependent

upon that.

It seems to me that the kind of situation we should be looking at in

this

section is perhaps one where there is judgment of competence by

colleagues, but done, rather than in a complaining way, in a procedural

way so that there is peer evaluation and a formal opportunity for

collegial evaluation of the competence of teachers, rather than five

complaints. People can get annoyed at each other from time to time, and

capricious acts can be carried out. We are all human. I think this

section that is being amended, which the minister is arguing in favour

of, does leave wide open that opportunity for capriciousness. So I am

disappointed that the procedural process that allowed for supervision

and evaluation and reports has been replaced by a

section where

competence is a question that is going to be dealt with by the college.

I would like to suggest to the minister that the procedure of

collegial evaluation is a more significant process, one that should be

included in this act, but not via a vehicle of five complaints. It

appears that only complaints of fellow members of the college or a

school board will be considered in the process that we are looking at

in terms of this amendment. In other professional associations, for

example the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia, all

people who come in contact with a member are allowed to challenge that

member's conduct or competence.

It is unfortunate that we have had the kind of publicity in recent

years given to cases of child abuse by teachers. But I wonder if....

AN HON. MEMBER: What is unfortunate about that?

MR. JONES: I think it is unfortunate for the profession, not

that things have come out, but it reflects badly on the profession, and

the member for Vancouver South would certainly agree with that. I think

we all lose when these kinds of things happen.

In any event, I would like to inquire of the minister: if he is keen

on the complaint method, in his defence of what is being amended, why

is it limited to colleagues and not wide open? It seems strange that if

we are concerned about complaints of conduct....

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, I agree, and I would suggest that if we are

limiting to that, I'm sure the minister has that as his reason, that we

are looking at complaint in terms of conduct, and that it be done by

colleagues. But I think the

preamble to the

section in

part 4 that

deals with the public interest is something the minister may want to

respond to in terms of complaints by members of the public to the

college, as is true in other professions.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have great interest in this

section; in fact, I have some disappointment that the minister accepted

the recommendations of the BCTF for a change to this investigation of

teacher competence. It strikes me that the people most knowledgeable

about the profession are the members of the profession, and the people

most in contact with members of the profession are indeed other

teachers. And as the member opposite mentioned a minute ago, one person

can complain about a nurse and an investigation may be held. I believe

the same applies to doctors and lawyers, and I know the same applies to

professional engineers. I don't really think it's valuable or that it

has been an addition to the bill that we are going to rely only on the

submissions by employers when it comes to dealing with competence of

members.

I know of no other professional group where competency is judged

only after an employer complains or a report is written by an employer,

and that is what this

section does. With professional legislation there

are two critical areas: one is the admission of people to the group by

a peer evaluation, and the other is disciplining or dismissal from the

group by a peer evaluation. Those are the two key things which make the

difference. Part of the promise of the bill, in my view, is reduced by

this amendment, because it takes away from the members of the

profession their right to judge competence unless another report is

presented from an employer.

I have difficulty with that, although I suspect that the teacher

council members themselves may indeed present to the Legislative

Assembly a request for a change to this act, and I would encourage them

and I would hope that they would do so. I actually reflect with some

disappointment, as I said, on the actions of the BCTF, for in fact it

has been the perception of the public — to the detriment of the

thousands of teachers who are doing a good job and who are competent

and who have no misconduct against them — that the disciplining of

teachers has not been done by the BCTF This has been a disadvantage,

and certainly the court cases we hear about in the newspaper are not a

reflection on all of the teachers, but they certainly are a reflection

on the procedures involved, because it has been evident that there have

been more actions leveled at saving a teacher's job than protecting

[ Page

1101 ]

the children or the public, and that of course is the reversal of the process of every other professional group.

You must, as a member of a professional organization, take the

members who are incompetent or who are guilty of misconduct, and

discipline them or reprimand them or dismiss them from the group and

get them out. That's the critical thing, the other half of the

equation, the more serious and critical half of the equation that we

have deleted here — as I say, I hope, Mr. Minister, only temporarily.

I have a feeling that when the council gets organized and gets

moving and when the members develop a greater sense of pride than they

have — and they will — that they will see this as an opportunity to

prove to themselves and to the public and to the students the capacity

they have for becoming more competent, for dealing with competency, for

protecting the children and for doing all those things that they do so

well. The teachers have been, as I say, subjected to an awful lot of

abuse, because we have not done some of these things, and because they

have not done it, and because it's been perceived to be a we-them

thing. So I am disappointed with this amendment. I look forward to a

change. I have no fear whatsoever of a teacher being unfairly treated

by five members who may submit a written report, or even by one

complaint from a member of the public. I would presume that the college

will accept complaints — or the laying of information, if you want to

put it in a neutral way, which we should: "I believe the following to

be true; would you investigate it?" Just as neat and clean and as fair

as that, and they would look at it without fear and deal with

everything in fairness and without fear. I would look for a change like

that, and that is why I want to speak so strongly.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, I'm not in favour of the amendment. I

would favour the original version, if you wish. I will certainly accept

the amendment as it is because I think the minister, in a gesture to

the Teachers' Federation, has accepted that, and I'm satisfied that he

did it in good faith; but I'm not satisfied that it will be in the

interests of the profession.

[4:15]

MRS. BOONE: I rise in response to the first member for

Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). I think there's a misunderstanding as

to how competency is determined in a teacher, and I don't know how he

can expect a peer, a fellow teacher, to determine the competency of

another teacher without going into the classroom and actually seeing

this person in action. That is what the school board does and the

reporting procedures are there. A superintendent, a district

superintendent, an area superintendent goes into the classroom and

makes a report, sees how this teacher handles himself or herself, sees

how they develop their plan of action, sees how they treat their

students — all of these things. A teacher that is in that school even

would not be able to determine the competency of that teacher unless

they were in that classroom with that person. Therefore I am glad that

they have taken that out. I don't think that a teacher, unless another

teacher is able to go into the classroom, sit for any length of time in

the classroom and see that other teacher in action, is able to deal

with their competency whatsoever. I do think that this is a good part

of this amendment here.

MR. JONES: After the comments from the member for Vancouver

South, I was worried for a minute whether the amendment was going to

pass; but I would like before he leaves to make the point about

competence with respect to engineers as compared to teachers. The

member for Vancouver South would be interested to know that I was

present when the Second Narrows Bridge collapsed, and I was going to

ask the member if he knew whether the members under that act were

disciplined for their competence or lack thereof. I think it's very

clear when a bridge collapses that there's been incompetence in terms

of the engineering, but I think it's a little more complex and a little

more difficult to determine when it comes to the human process of

teaching and learning.

I would appreciate the opportunity to ask the minister one more

question with respect to the amendment, and it has to do with the

preliminary investigation procedure outlined in

section 27(3). I'm

just wondering about that

section and if it could be made clear, for

example, if a legal opinion would be canvassed or if the accused could

be present at that time. The Medical Practitioners Act has a similar

provision in it, but in that act that is there to determine if a case

that's brought forward is a frivolous case. Under this act, the council

would only receive news of a complaint after a teacher has been

suspended or dismissed, so it seems to rule out in this case the

possibility of frivolity, that frivolous cases could be brought

forward. Perhaps the minister could clarify the intent of this

amendment in terms of frivolous cases.

HON. B. R. SMITH: Well, the amendment rules that out. This is a procedure.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we have to sort of look at it in

total. For conduct, the members can go directly to the college if five

members feel that there is a complaint about conduct. For competence,

they can go to their principal, they can go to their board, as any

member of the public can. So there are all kinds of vehicles. The board

might say to the superintendent: "Go check this out. We've heard that

that teacher isn't performing in that situation; go check it out."

That's probably a preliminary inquiry, as it is known. The

superintendent may discuss with the principal, and the two of them may

agree that the complaint isn't warranted; no more action needed. That's

what, in effect, this provides for: "...the council or the discipline

committee may, after considering the report or complaint, make or cause

to be made a preliminary investigation into the conduct or

competence...." In other words, they may determine that the complaint

is not valid and say so. They may decide that it requires further

investigation and go from there.

I think that was the question, wasn't it — what's the nature of the

preliminary investigation? That's to determine whether there is cause

for a full investigation, if you like.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I might remind you that not all things that are repetitious are necessarily boring.

Getting back to 27(3), it seems to me that we're still going to

have some difficulty. We're dealing — and this has been one of the

arguments — with a professional organization, and there's been a

perceived difficulty of that professional organization to deal with the

conflict that arises when one of their own members does something that

is wrong, I suppose, in terms of that organization being both the

defender of that

[ Page 1102 ]

individual — in the union sense — as well as a self-disciplining

body in terms of the standard of its members. But I don't necessarily

see that disappearing.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I have some difficulty with

interpretation of (3), when you get into

subsection (a), where the council receives a report from a board under

section 126 of the School Act, and then it goes on under (a)(i). It

seems to me to list a few scenarios — maybe the minister can confirm or

deny that this is the case — where a teacher has the opportunity under

122(4) of the School Act to apply to the minister for an investigation

and no application has been made, or if it has been held it has been

concluded. Three separate scenarios are listed there, in terms of when

the college or the disciplinary committee gets into conducting their

inquiry.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I'll just do all I have at once.

The second thing is.... I've noticed this with respect to unions.

It's not common, but it does happen where a union will take up a

grievance on behalf of one of its members and the member is not

satisfied that the union did all they could to forward the defence of

this particular member. They're able to apply under the existing labour

legislation — I believe

section 7 — and have the Labour ministry come

in and investigate whether or not they've conducted a thorough defence.

I think that problem may be intensified with a possible conflict if,

for example, the bill goes through and the B.C. Teachers' Federation

forms a union — whether that's in one district or every district in

British Columbia. The teachers will still have the responsibility to

defend their members under that labour act, and yet on the other hand

the college, which is also their organization, will have the

responsibility to conduct disciplinary inquiries and make rulings. So

it's conceivable — and I've seen some rulings come down from the Labour

ministry on

section 7 — that under the existing labour legislation the

teachers' union could be cited for not conducting an adequate defence

at the same time the college is in the act in terms of their duties.

I wonder if that was canvassed in discussions, or if you feel that

there's adequate protections from that kind of complexity — which is

not the same kind of word as specificity. Perhaps the minister would

care to respond.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, whenever you get into this,

that's where the technical language may get somewhat confusing. But

what

section 27(3) really says is that there are two possible routes,

if you like, under the association route, where the teacher can appeal

to the board, can appeal to the minister, can appeal to the board of

reference on a complaint. Even the association can write out all the

They have that route to go.

Under the second section, if they're under the Industrial Relations

Act in a union agreement or that sort of thing, the grievance

procedures are expected to be spelled out and done. As you'll note, it

says: "and the grievance procedure has been concluded" — so before this

comes to the college, whether it's incompetence, misconduct, or any of

these things that have already been dealt with and gone through all the

appeal and grievance procedures.... That having been concluded and

misconduct or incompetence having been established — after all that

appeal process — then either way it can come to the college, their own

professional colleagues, to find out if this warrants further action by

the college. They have an inquiry.

I always hesitate to give examples, but suppose the teacher had been

certified and qualified to teach, or whatever, and then there was a

complaint of incompetence because the teacher was not doing the job —

not marking the kids' papers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know, you'd like that if you were a

student, but it's still a necessary ingredient in education, setting

exams and marking them. But just to use this quickly, suppose the

teacher wasn't doing the job, so the board dismissed the teacher for

not doing the job and that stood up through the grievance procedure —

and remember there are remedial measures that can be taken — and they

said, "Dismissed for incompetence." That report could go to the college,

and the college could look at it and not necessarily suspend the

member's membership or anything of that nature, because they might say:

"If you'll take another job, you'd better do it, because if this

happens six times for not doing the job, we might have to lift your

certificate." I'm painting, after my statements this morning, a

hypothetical scenario. I'm trying to establish the point that none of

this comes to the college for consideration until it has gone through

all the due process that's available, and that's why the reference to

succeeding sections in the act.

Then the college only has to do a preliminary investigation to see

whether it warrants a full inquiry, or anything. Then of course the

member has all sorts of rights of appeal with the college, right to the

supreme courts. So there's protection built in there and yet the

possibility of dealing with either one of those. But the main point to

make is that none of this, incompetence or misconduct, except if five

colleagues.... They can go directly to the college on a misconduct

claim. If they talk about incompetence, then they'd better to go

through the route of the principal, the superintendent, or complaining

to the board — if they choose to do that, or if members of the public

do it. So it doesn't come to the college until it's gone through all of

the due process. Then the college has to decide if it warrants them

canceling this person's membership and taking away from him the right

to teach in this province in the public school system.

MR. MILLER: To restate what you're saying then, the college

can't really get into the act at all — I mean they can't take any

action — while there's a grievance procedure underway, while there's a

board dealing with a problem that they perceive, or while a teacher has

made an application to the minister under that relevant section. If any

of those three situations are in place, then the college can't get into

the act, in terms of their disciplinary or inquiry function.

[4:30]

Given that, is there not a substantive difference between the way

other profession organizations deal with their own membership in terms

of violations, whether it's of competence or conduct or whatever it

might be? There is a perception — I think it's quite a common

perception; maybe not among everybody, but it seems to me to be common

— that it's very difficult to get these organizations, for example the

[ Page 1103 ]

B.C. Medical Association, to look at a question of competence. It

requires an extraordinary amount of effort on the part of the lone

individual to actually carry a complaint forward and to have this body

deal with it.

This is a really important

section because it does deal with that

whole question of professionals self-regulating, and yet it seems to me

that this

section leaves the question of discipline to the traditional

means that exist right now. It's only much later, after those

traditional means have been exhausted, that this college council gets

into the act in terms of monitoring a professional function, and if

that's the case, does that not completely negate, in some sense, what

the government or you have been talking about in terms of making

professionals professionals?

Amendment approved.

section 27 as amended.

MR. CASHORE: I notice that the Minister of Education and the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam occupy their small comers in this

august chamber, and sometimes it takes quite a craning of the neck and

good peripheral vision, as we've stated before....

My first question has to do with.... If I understand it correctly,

it would be possible for 20 members to sit on the discipline committee.

Isn't it kind of unwieldy if in fact the entire council can be members

of the discipline committee? I realize there's provision for it to be

as few as three people. But I think that the experience of many

different ministries with quasi-judicial procedures would be that

tribunals and boards and review panels probably work most effectively

when there's a limitation on their size, because of efficiency and that

sort of thing. One wonders what the situation might be if, for

instance, a fairly notorious case was being dealt with, and whether

that might have the effect of all the members of the council feeling

that it behooves them to be present through that entire process. I

think that could be very, very time-consuming, and it could have the

effect of justice postponed. I'd be interested in your comment on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, 20 members of the council are eligible

to sit on the committee. We've provided for both in this legislation. A

small working committee, which has a quorum of three, can, through the

bylaws, say that it can deal with a complaint. However, protection is

built in, in that the full council has to make the final decision.

We're talking about lifting a teacher's certificate or dismissing him

from the college. That's a serious matter, and I think it warrants full

consideration. The person has that right. The three members can sort of

say: "Well, we'll suspend or cancel your certificate, if you

agree...." If it doesn't need to go any further.... But if it's

serious, this allows the 20 members.... When you say "time-consuming,"

I would think that if my certificate were on the line, and I felt I had

the right to defend it, then I would want to have the hearing of the

full council, not just a small committee.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that, although I would assume from

reading this

section that it could be that a committee as small as

three people would be doing the actual work of the hearing, and then

making their report to the council. But if we got into a situation —

and I don't think it's made clear in the act — in which the entire

investigation was being conducted by 20 people, I think that we would

find that approaching an unworkable situation, especially if it was to

be an extensive kind of investigation.

Further on that point, considering that the whole council could be

allowed to sit on the discipline committee, would this include...?

I'm just pausing because I notice that the minister is consulting, and

I'm prepared to pause for a bit longer while you do that, if that's all

right with the Chair.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Okay. I know I find it very difficult....

The second part of my question is: could the discipline committee include appointed as well as elected members?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to the last question is yes.

It's the 20-member council that can appoint the committees. I don't

believe the member was here when we were discussing

section 25, which

said that if the committee makes an inquiry, they have to report to the

full council, which can confirm what they've agreed to; or it may

conduct a further inquiry and actually do it again. That's the

protection — the whole council can actually order or conduct a further

inquiry.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to reiterate a point that I think

has been made, that this leaves a person open to being judged by a

group that is not a group of peers. I think that that really is a

serious matter that needs to be looked at very, very carefully.

I'd like to move on to another question. How would the continuity of

the discipline committee be ensured if some or all of the members of

the council could sit on the committee some or all of the time? If the

committee is in a situation where its proceedings must be conducted

over a period of time and must have adjournments — it perhaps takes

more than two or three months — and if the committee meets several

times during that period of time to discuss the same case, there

appears to be no provision for ensuring that the same members are

there. Is it possible for a hearing to start with one scenario or one

group of people, and then to proceed with a somewhat altered or

possibly even completely different group of people?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the member's question, the

continuity is that the council appoints a chairman and a vice-chairman,

and then any other member can sit. That continuity is assured. On the

other thing — if in the middle of an inquiry a member steps off —

you'll find a

section further on that the person can remain on the

committee to the conclusion of that inquiry, and then still has to

report back to the full council. So it's not going to be members coming

and going during one inquiry. I don't think any court would ever uphold

that. Remember that they have the appeal to the court that members step

in and out of this inquiry at will and then come up with a decision,

and that decision is appealable to the Supreme Court. You've got to tie

it all together. We could knock holes in any

section of this if you

don't relate it to anything else.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairperson, that's precisely my point. I

think it behooves the minister to draft legislation that reduces the

likelihood of these situations having to go to appeal. We're hoping

that the process works the first time.

[ Page 1104 ]

That would be in the public interest; it would be in the interest of

all parties concerned. Therefore it would appear that.... If as you

say, in the way you describe your assumption about how it would work,

three people.... You would ensure, as you've said, that the chairperson

and the vice-chairperson are appointed, and therefore would provide the

continuity. That may be. But if all 20 members of the council decide to

be that discipline committee, you're going to have a very difficult

time ensuring that that continuity is maintained when you're dealing

with that many people throughout that process. I think that's a point

that really needs to be looked at very carefully.

Further to that, an additional question. What happens to the

proceedings if the chairperson or the vice-chairperson, especially in

situations where hearings might be conducted over a lengthy period of

time, is not able to participate in concluding the process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I don't think we can write

every prerequirement of common law into every piece of legislation.

Neither can we write every appeal and everything else into the one

clause so that it's clear right at that particular time; we don't do

that sort of thing. What if the chairman wasn't available that day for

the hearing? I would suppose that when the discipline committee sits,

the discipline committee that's conducting the inquiry would need to be

there or the hearing might be postponed to the next day or the next

week. I don't know whether I can say in legislation that if one member

of the committee is sick, then it shall be required by legislation that

the hearing be postponed until the member is available.

I really don't think I need to write that sort of thing into

legislation. That's what I mean about picking hypothetical things that

could happen and saying they should have been covered in the

legislation. I'm having some difficulty with that. There is an element

of common sense and common law, and some professional competency and

good sense among the elected members. I can't legislate against

ignorance if people insist on it. I can only legislate protection.

MR. CASHORE: I think that point is well taken, that you can't

legislate against ignorance. Nevertheless, the purpose of what we are

doing at this time is to participate in a process of trying to make

sure that when legislation goes forward, it is useful, effective

legislation. I don't know if the Minister of Education has had the

opportunity to sit on appointed boards or tribunals under any variety

of ministries, but I do know that you often hear such persons saying

that the legislation under which they are functioning is badly written.

Therefore, I think there is a very reasonable purpose for me to be

asking you these questions. I take exception to the suggestion that

this is nitpicking. This is based on some experience that I have had in

being a member of a review panel appointed by an OIC of a previous

government, and having functioned under subsequent governments.

[4:45]

I would like to suggest to the minister that if this point about

continuity is not dealt with in the legislation, then at the very least

I would like him to assure me that he is going to seriously consider

covering it in the regulations governing the legislation. Contrary to a

statement that I believe I heard the minister make this morning in

response to some of my questions, I believe that the minister does have

a very direct route into the development of the OIC process, whereby

regulations are brought into effect governing

an act such as this.

I have another question, Madam Chairperson.

Section 27(3)(ii)

notes that an inquiry may be held when an investigation or grievance

has been concluded, not when it has been lost. I think it is important

that I make clear that what I am saying here is that it talks about

when the investigation is concluded, not when it is lost. I would think

that this leaves the teacher whose situation is being reviewed open to

double jeopardy.

How would the act as it is presently written, and with the

amendment, deal with this situation? I think this is a concern that

goes beyond what the minister has referred to as common sense.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I apologize for suggesting that the member

was in any way nitpicking at some of this. I realize that he is very

serious about all of this. I also get a little bit tired of answering

the same question over and over again, as members take their turns

asking the same question over and over again. Perhaps the member will

forgive me, then, for a touch of irritation now and again.

You talk about the double jeopardy, because somebody has said there

is double jeopardy involved. So people wonder why we are providing

double jeopardy. In this amended

section particularly, it does not come

to the council of the college at all. If the member has been exonerated

in the appeal process through the grievance procedures and everything

that is in place, or if a board dismisses a teacher and the teacher

appeals it and loses the appeal, then there is no complaint from the

board for dismissal because the college doesn't need to take it up,

It's already been settled, so there is no double jeopardy here,

I know that the wording, the references and these sorts of things do

make it difficult, both to explain and perhaps to understand, but that

is why so much time has gone into it, and that's why the legislation is

so wordy. If I had strictly had my way, I would have probably got

together with my opposition critic, and we would have put in there that

there is a council that is going to run the college to the best

interests of everybody. Tell me what that doesn't cover.

Until you get everybody saying: "But it doesn't explain this and it

doesn't explain that...." I know I am getting off the topic here, Madam

Chairman, but the point really is that there is no double jeopardy, in

that if the dismissal isn't verified through the appeal process, it

doesn't come to the college.

MR. CASHORE: We will agree to disagree on that point. But on

the point of your getting together with our member for Burnaby North

(Mr. Jones), I would be glad to see proceedings suspended while the two

of you do that. Perhaps together you can come up with something that is

more palatable.

Anyway, in this section, prior to the discipline committee being set up and

proceedings beginning, information is received by the council. My question is:

does the individual about whom a complaint is being put forward have the opportunity

to see all the written information that is brought forward upon which the council

would base its decision with regard to its further work on that issue?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

[ Page 1105 ]

MRS. BOONE: My question is regarding the timeframe. I don't

see anything in here regarding the time-frame when a council has

received a complaint in writing signed by five members about the

con