1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1989.

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7999 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Feasibility study on new steel production plant. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7999

Mr. Gabelmann

Tab' ling Documents –– 8000

Oral Questions

Water pollution by pulp mills. Mr. Cashore –– 8000

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 8001

Dawson Creek contractors' dispute with Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Mr. Miller –– 8001

Treaty 8 tree-farm licence application. Mr. Miller –– 8001

Vancouver property taxes. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8002

Hiring of women by B.C. Transit. Hon. Mrs. Johnston replies to question –– 8003

School Act (Bill 67). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8003

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8006

Royal assent to bills –– 8010

School Act (Bill 67). Second reading

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8011

Mr. Harcourt –– 8012

On the amendment

Mr. Jones –– 8016

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8019

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8021

Mr. Rabbitt –– 8023

Mr. G. Janssen –– 8024

Hon. Mr. Vant –– 8025

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8025

Mr. Rose –– 8027

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 8028

Mr. Bruce –– 8028

Ms. Smallwood –– 8028

Mr. Jacobsen –– 8029

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Nechako and Northeast,

Responsible for Native Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

On vote 58: minister's office –– 8030

Mr. Guno

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Financial Institutions Act (Bill 51). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) I –– 8046

Mr. Clark

Third reading

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

The House will, of course, note with regret the passing of the Hon.

Howard Green, a native British Columbian who also had a distinguished

military record and for some 28 years represented British Columbia in

the House of Commons. He was Minister of External Affairs in the

Diefenbaker government. He was widely respected. He was a great

gentleman, and he was a great human being.

He did a lot for

the province. He was always concerned about issues great and small. I

know that each of us who has had some experience with Howard or known

of his record with respect to the province and national politics will

regret his passing. I know, Mr. Speaker, that all members will want his

family to receive our condolences.

MR. D'ARCY : I

would like to add to what the minister has just said by saying that

Howard Green was not only a great parliamentarian and a great Canadian,

but he also was a very fine gentleman. I had cause to know him because

while his political career was not associated directly with the West

Kootenays, he in fact was a native of Kaslo on Kootenay Lake. He's a

loss for all of Canada.

MR. ROSE : I'll just add

briefly to the condolences on behalf of my party and me. I didn't know

Howard Green personally, although we had a twenty-fifth anniversary for

Tommy Douglas in public service — or was it 30? — in 1965, a

big banquet in the Show Mart building in Vancouver attended by some

1,900 people. Invitations went out across Canada to all political

parties, colleagues, the Premier of this province and all the rest.

The

only prominent politician to show up for this reunion was Howard Green,

and he was welcomed, in spite of the fact that he was a very prominent

Conservative. As a matter of fact, he was welcomed because he was a

very prominent Conservative. I didn't know Howard Green personally, but

I did talk with his brother Rowland in Kelowna. The member from central

Okanagan will recall him. He also made a great contribution, although

perhaps he was not as prominent as his brother Howard.

Mr.

Speaker, it is always sad to witness the passing of a great Canadian.

We also send our condolences and share our sympathy with his family.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, I never knew Howard Green either, but I was

greatly influenced by him, because he represented my riding until his defeat

in the 1963 federal election. The way he influenced me and my family was by

his courage in speaking out against the acceptance of nuclear weapons in Canada,

on which he joined the former prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, and he displayed

tremendous courage in standing up to another country on that. It is something

that always impressed me about him. I greatly regret that I never met him, and

I would like to add my own condolences to his family.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery, in the

precincts and in their meetings with many MLAs today members of the

BCTF executive and representatives from the many districts throughout

the province. I understand there are some 70 representatives here

today, so it would be rather difficult to name them all on the record.

We welcome their continuing and keen interest in the educational

policies and directions in this province, and I would like the House to

join me in making them very welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : I

also want to join in welcoming the representatives from the BCTF here

today. They have had a well-organized day, which has given them an

opportunity to meet with many members of this House as part of their

ongoing consultation and dialogue on the development of school policy

and legislation. That initiative has been the hallmark of the last

year, and I think their presence here today is testimony to the need

for it to continue as we begin to debate the School Act today.

HON. S. HAGEN :

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome some friends from

the United States here today. I'd like to acknowledge them at this

time: Pastor John and Margaret Hopp from Cornelius, Oregon, celebrating

their fiftieth wedding anniversary; Marybelle Faux from Garden Grove,

California; Adaline Fackler from Fresno, California; Pete Hopp from

Edmonds, Washington; James Hopp from Portland, Oregon; Don and Florence

Siefert from Gigg Harbor, Washington. They are here with two friends

that I went to university with a few years ago: Roberta and Serena

Moore from Washington, D.C. Would the House please join me in bidding

them welcome.

MS. MARZARI : In keeping with the theme

of education and concerns about the education bill, there are

representatives here today from the VSTA — Vancouver Secondary

Teachers' Association. They have been meeting with us to discuss the

bill. They are Don Briard, Don Reader, Frances Worledge, Sheila Pither

and John Church, who also works in our constituency office in Point

Grey. Would the House make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON NEW

STEEL PRODUCTION PLANT

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I rise to make a ministerial statement. On April 12 I told this House

that the China Steel Corp. of Taiwan had approached me with a proposal

to build an integrated steel mill in British Columbia — a capital

investment of $4 billion that could lead to the creation of thousands

of direct jobs

[ Page 8000 ]

and a new market for British Columbia coal and set the stage for a new era of economic diversification in this province.

[2:15]

I also spoke of the caution with which this government would

approach the China Steel proposal because of environmental concerns

historically associated with the steel industry. This government is

firmly committed to the concept of sustainable development, and we will

not allow any project of this kind to proceed, no matter how attractive

it may appear economically, if it does not also meet our environmental

objectives.

As a first step in evaluating this proposal, I

said we will assembly a team of the finest minds in engineering and

environmental science and go in person to visit the world's most modern

steel mills, talk with the environmental experts of those companies and

talk with the environmental officials and governments that regulate

those industries.

In taking this step I was joined by the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). His ministry and mine have

been full partners in this investigation, and although I am making this

statement to the House, I am speaking for both the Minister of

Environment and myself.

The environmental survey team was

led by D. Keith Brimacombe, director of the Centre for Metallurgical

Process Engineering at the University of British Columbia, and also

included Dr. George Pling, professor of mining and mineral process

engineering at the University of British Columbia and coordinator of

applied research for the Mining Association of B.C., Mr. Saul Rothman,

a retired mining executive with experience in building and operating

mill operations, and Dr. Paul West, director of the environmental

studies program at the University of Victoria.

The team was

also assisted by senior federal and provincial environmental experts.

Those officials also support the recommendations of the report. The

team visited steel mills in Canada, Korea and Japan as well as China

Steel mills in Taiwan. My colleague the Minister of Environment and I

accompanied the team in the study of one Japanese and two Korean steel

mills.

The team presented the report to cabinet this

morning. Cabinet has instructed me to table this report to the House,

which I will now do. I will also be releasing copies of the report to

the press and to the public.

Briefly, the report concludes:

"...available air- and water-emission control technology and modern

solid waste management practices justify proceeding with prefeasibility

studies of the establishment of an integrated iron and steel production

facility in British Columbia."

Cabinet has accepted the

recommendation of the survey team that it would be appropriate to

proceed to prefeasibility studies. These studies will include

environmental and engineering studies at potential sites. Cabinet has

further instructed me to negotiate an agreement with China Steel to

conduct these prefeasibility studies.

I am pleased and

excited to be able to report that substantial progress has been made

with this project. I will continue to keep the House informed as this

very important opportunity develops.

MR. GABELMANN :

First of all, let me say thank you to the minister for providing a copy

of his statement in advance. It's a courtesy that's very much

appreciated by members on this side of the House.

When the

minister made his announcement on April 12, I welcomed the

pre-prefeasibility study. And today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

opposition caucus, I welcome the prefeasibility study.

There

is some rhetoric in the statement about the need to be environmentally

cautious or careful. I just want to say to the minister that we not

only echo those concerns and those cautions but want to say that those

issues should be treated with the utmost of care — with care often

not taken heretofore in industrial development in North America. This

is a particularly difficult kind of venture environmentally, so that

caution is to be taken and to be taken very carefully indeed.

mention is made in the statement, Mr. Speaker, about the need to

consult with people who would be affected by such a development. I

trust that at this stage of the discussions and studies some discussion

will take place with people whose lives could very much be affected by

such a development, should it ever happen in British Columbia.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled the financial statements and auditor's report for

the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the

year ended March 31, 1989.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services for the year ended March 31, 1988.

Oral Questions

WATER POLLUTION BY PULP MILLS

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. Data provided

by the minister's department in June 1988 showed that 17 out of 21 pulp

mills in the province were out of compliance with the standards set out

in their water pollution permits. Similar data provided by your

department in May 1989 showed that 17 out of 21 mills were still out of

compliance. Does the minister not agree that this data shows that

nearly every pulp mill in the province has failed to comply with

existing water pollution standards for several years?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Again, the member really has a problem. He says "17 out of 21 pulp

mills, " and there aren't 21 pulp mills in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker, so I suspect the member has the wrong information again.

[ Page 8001 ]

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing with numbers.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE :

He is playing with numbers, and he's not recognizing the fact of the

situation with the paper mills. When I asked the minister yesterday to

confirm that nearly every pulp mill in the province is out of

compliance — let him try to deal with that: nearly every pulp mill in the province is out of compliance —

he called my allegation incorrect. To allay the perception that his

answer yesterday was misleading, is he now willing to admit that he was

incorrect in what he said yesterday?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of all, I didn't answer those questions yesterday; it was the day before. We have some serious problems over there.

Secondly,

given that the member really has the numbers and mostly everything else

wrong, I'll just have to take that question on notice, attempt to

understand what he's trying to get at and respond later. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam with a new question.

MR. CASHORE :

A new question, Mr. Speaker. A minister who can't even figure out what

day it is can hardly criticize me for my factual information.

correct a problem you've helped to cause, you must come clean and

recognize your failures. How can the public have any faith in the

minister's new standards if he lacks the political will to enforce

existing standards?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Existing and new standards will be enforced, Mr. Speaker.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour. On May 24, 1988, being questioned

on the Knight Street Pub and being asked how Mr. Giordano got on the

list, the minister said at the time and I quote: "I don't know how he

got on the list."

In light of the statement which the

minister provided to the House, is he now prepared to concede that at

the time he knew exactly how Mr. Giordano got on the list?

HON. L. HANSON :

The question certainly is repetitious, and I fail to understand the

emergency nature of it. But if the member opposite is truly interested

in the information and not the media coverage, I would refer him to Hansard and the various reports that have come out.

MR. SIHOTA : There's a conflict between the report that he gave to the House, statements in Hansard ,

and the statements that he gave on May 24, 1988 to the press. Can the

minister explain why it is that what he said on May 24, 1988 differs

from what he said in the House?

DAWSON CREEK CONTRACTORS' DISPUTE

WITH LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP.

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Minister of Forests. I'm advised that 70 independent

contractors in the Dawson Creek area have been told by

Louisiana-Pacific that because they formed an association to try to

improve prices, Louisiana-Pacific will no longer accept wood from these

Independent contractors. Would the minister advise what his office has

done with respect to this situation?

HON. MR. PARKER : We don't get involved in agreements between business partners.

MR. MILLER :

This provincial government got involved to the extent that they

provided Louisiana-Pacific with a $25 million interest-free loan, plus

other major concessions. We now have a situation where a major North

American forest company is blackmailing the independent contractors in

this region. Does the minister not feel, given the previous support of

this government for this corporation, that he could use his influence

to persuade this corporation not to blackmail the independent

contractors in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER : There

was a distinct possibility of that oriented strand board plant going to

another jurisdiction, and there was a little bidding war on the day.

MR. MILLER : He didn't agree with that.

HON. MR. PARKER : He wasn't the Premier at the time. That was a different jurisdiction, wasn't it?

The

loan provided to the organization was a low-interest loan, and it's

been repaid. The opportunities in the northeast are substantial because

of the aspen utilization that the plant brought forward. We now find

that the aspen in the area is no longer a weed species, that we no

longer have to provide assistance to farmers for land-clearing. They

have the opportunity to crop the aspen timber and sell it to

Louisiana-Pacific.

As far as their dealings with their

contractors are concerned, that's a business relationship between

Louisiana-Pacific and their contractors. I'm sure if there is anything

illegal about what they're doing, there is proper redress in the courts

of the land.

TREATY 8 TREE-FARM LICENCE

APPLICATION

MR. MILLER : Perhaps your colleague from South Peace River might view it differently, Mr. Minister of Forests.

new question to the minister. The federal Minister of Indian Affairs

had written to the minister advising him of the legal position of the

Treaty 8

[ Page 8002 ]

bands

in the Mackenzie region as it relates to the application for a

tree-farm licence. The minister has rejected the letter and

characterized it as playing silly games. Can the minister advise why he

refuses to recognize the legitimate rights of the Treaty 8 bands in

regard to this matter?

HON. MR. PARKER : If Mr.

Cadieux would like to discuss native land claims in British Columbia,

we'd be most happy to have those discussions with him. By the terms of

Confederation, natives and native issues are the responsibility of the

federal government, and successive British Columbia governments have

adopted that stand. It is quite clear in the terms of Confederation.

Nobody has had an argument with it since 1871, apart from the native

groups.

As long as the federal government is prepared to

take the leadership in settling native issues, we'd be happy to discuss

it. Until we see that leadership and until we have those kinds of

discussions, we will proceed with the mandate of this ministry and

other ministries under the terms of Confederation and the laws of the

land.

[2:30]

MR. MILLER :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has said, I suppose as a

criticism of his own government, that Indians are forgotten people

They've been forgotten by this government. They have a recognized

treaty right to the land, unlike areas where natives have not

negotiated title. The courts have clearly established that right and

the responsibility of government to satisfy the court rulings. Does the

minister not think that it should be considered prior to the Crown

granting the proprietary right of a private corporation to acquire the

proprietary interest in that land? Don't you think, Mr. Minister, that

should be satisfied first?

HON. MR. PARKER : There is

no proprietary right established that I am aware of, and I would like

to defer the matter of native affairs to my colleague, the Minister

Responsible for Native Affairs.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

First of all, the question of Treaty 8 as it applies to the McLeod Lake

band is a proposition put forward by the McLeod Lake band that they are

entitled to treaty rights under Treaty 8 As a matter of fact, the band

did not decide until 1982, Madam Member for Prince George North (Mrs.

Boone), that they wanted to apply for treaty rights under Treaty 8.

until 1982, they considered making a comprehensive land claim, and in

1982 the decision of the band was to apply for rights under Treaty 8.

They have been discussing that question with the federal Department of

Indian Affairs, which, at the end of the day, will decide whether or

not the McLeod Lake band and the area that they occupy is part of the

traditional Treaty 8 territory. There is a question of watersheds. It

is a question that the federal government will have to resolve, whether

or not they want to recognize the McLeod Lake area being laid out as

part of the Treaty 8 area in 1899.

That aside, there have

been 20 or 30 agreements with native bands with forestry tenures, and

we continue to have a keen interest in establishing forestry tenures

for native groups. I am not certain of the issue with regard to Mr.

Cadieux, but certainly he has any number of issues on his plate, and I

am a bit surprised that he would want to be involved in forest tenure

in British Columbia.

VANCOUVER PROPERTY TAXES

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Property taxpayers in the

city of Vancouver are facing a crisis situation in commercial

properties. There is a possibility, according to letters that I will

deliver to you today, that many small businesses will have to close

their doors due to outrageous, unconscionable increases of 100, 200 and

even 300 percent this year over last year. My question to the minister

is: will he, if approached by the city of Vancouver, examine the

possibility of a rollback to not more than 25 percent — or, I

would hope, lower; I feel 25 percent is very extravagant — or

lower increases for this year for those commercial property owners and

tenants whose tax notices exceed that figure?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It's certainly encouraging to note that at least members of this House

understand one of the rules of the House, which is that question period

should be used for timely and urgent matters. It's refreshing to note

that this matter is timely and is urgent and indeed has attracted a

wide degree of interest in the member's riding in Vancouver.

a consequence of that, we have been looking at the issue that is being

discussed. The fact of the matter is that there was a large meeting in

the last few days on this subject, and I understand there's another one

to be planned this evening on the same subject: that is to say, the

rise of commercial property taxes in certain neighbourhoods in the city

of Vancouver.

This situation, in our judgment, is not much

different than the situation that the city reacted to relevant to

residential property tax increases, and therefore our government does

believe the city should have the ability to deal with these anomalies

as they arise. The city, as the House will remember, did ask us to

provide them with enabling legislation that would enable them to cap

increases where property tax increases for residential properties were

over a certain figure. As a consequence of that request, the House

obliged and we did pass that enabling legislation.

It does

seem that the hon. member's question is pertinent and relevant and

certainly has much merit in terms of the suggestion that a similar

approach might be taken for commercial properties. I have seen some

documentation which supports the fact that some commercial properties

have had increases of

[ Page 8003 ]

well

over 1,000 percent in this one year. So the issue is timely and urgent,

and as a consequence of the member raising the point, I will assure her

that I will meet with the leaders of the group. I will also discuss it

with the mayor and with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to see what this government might do to indicate

its sensitivity to the urgency of the issue and its financial impact on

many small businesses in selected neighbourhoods of Vancouver. It's

worthy of examination, and I thank the member for the question.

HIRING OF WOMEN BY B.C. TRANSIT

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I rise to respond to a question put to the ministry yesterday, June 27,

by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) with regard

to an affirmative action program at B.C. Transit.

B.C.

Transit does not have a formal affirmative action program, but I am

advised that it is their practice to give women and minorities equal

consideration. With regard to the trainability tests, they are

conducted as part of the process to select the best possible transit

operator trainees. All train abilities are conducted on a small 3500 or

36-foot-long diesel bus.

Since

transit operators sometimes have to manoeuvre the retrievers, which are

the 70-pound springs — this is what the member referred to as the

heavy trolley wires —

slightly built men as well as most women will be asked to pull the

retriever ropes to ensure that they have the strength to handle this

part of the job. They are never given gloves or towels to protect their

hands, and are told: "If you can't hold them, let go."

Trainabilities

are done on a set route for everyone. If the instructor is unsure after

the set route, they go on an extended route to give them a chance to

improve. I would like to tell the hon. first member for Point Grey that

we have been invited — and possibly the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey would like to join me —

to a trainability test so that we can both see firsthand exactly how

the process is carried out. I would be pleased to make those

arrangements.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Before we proceed to House business, in response to numerous requests

and intense pressure from both sides of the House and pursuant to

standing orders, I am advising the House that tomorrow we will sit from

10 a.m. to 1 p.m. It will be a normal Thursday with no private members'

statements and no question period.

I call second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL ACT

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It is with great pride that open second reading debate on the School

Act — with great pride and little attention, obviously, but I'm

working on it.

This

bill will provide the foundation for our education system to take us

into the twenty-first century. I know that every member of the House

shares my conviction that education holds the key to our future.

Education is a necessary investment in our twin goals of a healthy

society and a prosperous, sustainable economy.

I am indeed a very fortunate individual. By historic circumstances it is my privilege to present this bill to the House.

Many

of the members here today are aware of my background and may understand

my pleasure in introducing this bill, but let me say that whatever

personal pleasure I feel is certainly overshadowed by the opportunity

which we all have to ensure quality education for our present and

future students. This bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure

that British Columbia has a high-quality and relevant school system. In

fact, it offers us the chance to become leaders in the world of

education.

Over the past ten years it has become

increasingly obvious to all of us that our school system, which worked

well for us in the past, needs to change for the future. It became

obvious that we needed a major review of our education system. In

response to this need, in 1987 my government initiated the Sullivan

Royal Commission on Education. The commission's mandate was to clearly

identify what social and economic changes had occurred and to suggest

means for ensuring that our schools would be able to respond

appropriately. The Sullivan royal commission conducted 16 months of

intensive study.

All of us in British Columbia owe a

tremendous debt to Barry Sullivan for the comprehensive and insightful

report produced by the commission. My one regret is that Barry Sullivan

cannot be with us to share the results of his endeavours, but his

family does maintain a continuing interest.

The study found

that our system was basically sound but there were areas where

improvement and change was necessary. In its report, entitled "A Legacy

for Learners," the commission recommended in clear and incisive terms

that we must refocus our attention on the learner and that we need to

develop more flexibility in responding to individual, needs and

changing demands.

My tour last fall confirmed the report's

findings. There are many innovative programs in our schools now. Our

schools are staffed with committed teachers and administrators, and

they're doing a great job. Teachers and administrators told me that we

need to try new techniques. They want greater flexibility to do what

they do best: teach children. Parents and community leaders told me

that schools are vital to the future, but that schools also have to

find new methods of responding to students' needs.

January 27 this year I announced the government's response to the

Sullivan report. That response was developed through months of

intensive discussion and debate by the Provincial Education Policy

Advisory Committee. That announcement launched us on a program to

prepare our education system to meet the needs of the twenty-first

century. Virtually

[ Page 8004 ]

every

major recommendation made in the Sullivan report has been acted upon.

The new policy directions announced in January flow directly from the

Sullivan commission report, and we have backed our decision with a

significant commitment of funding: in total, some $2.9 billion over ten

years.

The highlights of the January announcement include:

a clear direction for the system; the development of a new curriculum

from the first year of primary through grade 12; recognition of the key

role played by teachers in the education system; a program to improve

the participation and graduation rate of native Indian students— and

it will be developed; and the establishment of greater coordination

between social service ministries in the delivery of services to

children.

Accompanying those announcements was a firm

commitment to consultation. Barry Sullivan said it was vital, and it is

a process in which I believe and to which I am committed. We

established the consultation process immediately. The Provincial

Education Policy Advisory Committee was instrumental in helping me

establish the package I took to cabinet.

At the same time,

it was also announced that a new School Act would be enacted to enable

these new directions. The changes recommended by Barry Sullivan and

confirmed by the Education Policy Advisory Committee simply cannot be

accomplished under the existing legislation.

Before I

outline the details of this bill, I would like to share with the House

some thoughts on the sort of education system we will need in the

future — perhaps call it a vision for education. This is a vision

that has been developed during my 26 years as a teacher, principal and

district staff member, focused over the past two and a half years as a

Minister of Education, and tempered during the past ten months of

activity.

I believe we have an education system second to

none. Our teachers are competent and dedicated. There is abundant proof

that the majority of our children receive a good education. But I

believe that our schools can be better. I believe that our children

deserve the best schools we can provide and the best possible

preparation for the future.

The

conditions in which most of us grew up — the conditions which

shaped our current education system —

are now vastly changed. Anyone who attempts to keep abreast of current

affairs is aware of the ever-increasing base of information and

knowledge. The world is shrinking in both time and distance. Anyone

over 30 years of age who goes into a classroom today— particularly In

the lower mainland — cannot avoid the fact that our community has

a more diverse mix of cultures and languages than 20 years ago.

[2:45]

I'm sure that all of us are well aware, in either our own families

or close circle of friends, of the increased numbers of children who

don't enjoy the benefits of two full-time parents, let alone the

extended families that were prevalent not too many years ago. Anyone

who has sought work, recruited employees or watched their sons or

daughters seek employment in the last few years knows firsthand the

changes in the economy and the labour market. We can't avoid those

changes, nor can we roll them back. They present us with a significant

challenge that we must address, and they present us with wonderful

opportunities.

There's no question in my mind that the

increased cultural diversity and structural changes in our economy have

significant implications for our education system. Our elementary and

secondary school systems have to assume the responsibility of laying

the foundation for us, as a society, to respond to these changes. We

have to ensure that our children have the skills necessary to achieve

their potential.

Our children need to be creative and

capable of ongoing learning to cope with change. They must have an

international perspective and an understanding of other languages and

cultures. We must ensure that all young people have better

problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. We have to find ways of

reaching our present dropouts. The system is simply failing to meet the

needs of that one-third of our students who leave the system before

they attain high-school graduation. There are few opportunities now for

those young adults, and there will be fewer in the future.

What

do we need to meet this challenge? What will a successful education

system look like? First, I believe we must have a clear statement of

what our education system is expected to achieve. That is why we

created a mandate statement for the system. This mandate statement

consists of four parts and begins with a mission for the system: "The

purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to

develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills

and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a

prosperous and sustainable economy."

We have developed a

description of an educated citizen: One who is thoughtful, able to

learn and to think critically, and who can communicate information from

a broad knowledge base. One who is creative, flexible, self-motivated,

and who has a positive self-image. One who is capable of making

independent decisions. One who is skilled and can contribute to society

generally, including the world of work. One who is productive, who can

gain satisfaction through achievement, and who can strive for physical

well-being. One who is cooperative, principled and respectful of others

regardless of differences. One who is aware of the rights and prepared

to exercise the responsibilities of an individual within the family,

the community, Canada and the world.

A set of goals and

attributes has been identified. The primary goal of the school system

is intellectual development in a tradition that schools share with the

family and the community, the goal of human and social development and

the goal of career development. The attributes which we wish our school

accountability.

[ Page 8005 ]

The

fourth component of the mandate statement is a description of the

roles, rights and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders. These

stakeholders, of course, do include students, parents, teachers,

district staff, the ministry and the community.

This mandate was developed through the Education Policy Advisory Committee and has been endorsed by this government.

Secondly,

we see a curriculum that is focused on the learner rather than on our

present subject focus, grade-stamped curriculum. We need to identify

the specific learning outcomes we expect for our students, but we also

need to move away from always specifying the textbook they have to read

or the country they have to study. We will concentrate more on taking

our students from where they are when they enter our class to where

their potential will take them, rather than prescribing a preordained

set of hoops through which they must jump. We will instill in our

students the love of learning and the ability to learn lifelong.

Thirdly,

we see a teaching force that reflects the ideal of facilitating

learning rather than the delivery of pre-packaged teaching modules

which our students are expected to ingest. From what teachers are doing

and telling me, I believe they want this. Our teaching force will

enhance its already highly professional standards. Our teachers will

truly be models of the lifelong learners we hope our children will

become. In essence, we will provide the teachers with greater

flexibility in the classroom to do what they do best: to help the

children learn.

Fourthly, we will have a comprehensive but

easily understood process for evaluating the system's progress. We will

be able to accurately identify our strengths and weaknesses in order

that we may continue to improve our performance. This evaluation

process will ensure that parents or the community will receive a clear,

jargon-free answer when they ask questions regarding performance or how

their tax dollars are spent.

Who will benefit most from

this education system? I would say all of us. Our children will receive

the type of education they both need and deserve. This includes not

only the average student but also those students whom the present

system serves less well than it should: our challenged learner and our

best and brightest. Teachers will have the type of classroom autonomy

that all professionals desire. They will have responsibilities, but

they will also have more control over the day-to-day learning

experience of our students, and so will our students.

Parents

and the public will have a greater sense of confidence in our schools.

They will have a sense of ownership and commitment to our overall

direction and a willingness to provide the necessary resources As a

community, we will be ensuring that our children will possess the

necessary skills and attitudes to maintain a healthy society, in all

that implies, and a prosperous economy. Can we achieve this vision? I

believe very strongly that we can, because I saw it emerging as I

traveled across the province and visited many schools. Mr. Speaker, I

am confident that this vision enjoys support on both sides of this

House.

I was able to hear some of the comments made by the

Leader of the Opposition to trustees at the recent annual general

meeting, and I was pleased to hear his positive approach to education.

I recognize that it's not typical for a minister to look to the

opposition for support, but what is at stake here is too important to

be caught up in partisan politics. Our children's education has to be

ensured, and all of us here have a responsibility to participate in

that process.

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about a new

School Act for 20 years. It has long been recognized on both sides of

the House that the existing act is outdated. I believe that previous

attempts to update the current act failed because there was a lack of

vision and a lack of consensus among the major stakeholders. We now

have that clear vision, and it is embodied in the mandate statement. We

now have a consensus and a positive working relationship among the

stakeholders. This is evident from the work of the Education Policy

Advisory Committee. If we are to embrace the legacy for learners which

Barry Sullivan created for us, and if we are to achieve our vision for

education, it is imperative that we have a new School Act. We can delay

no longer.

The bill which I presented to the House was not

hastily thrown together, nor was it created behind closed doors. My

ministry staff and legislative counsel have spent countless hours

preparing it for the House. The bill has been thoroughly reviewed,

vetted and commented on by the Education Policy Advisory Committee and

directly by others— and certainly indirectly through the representation

on that committee. In terms of the intensive time and energy invested

and the participation of all stakeholders, this bill rivals the

preparation of any legislation which has been brought before this House.

Mr.

Speaker, the bill is broad and enabling in nature to maximize its

flexibility. A new School Act will have to be flexible In order to

respond to the rapid and significant changes we all expect in both our

society and our economy. We know that we cannot predict those changes,

nor can we predict specific futures for which we ought to prepare our

children. But we can ensure that the new School Act has the inherent

flexibility to ensure its ongoing relevance as we move into the

twenty-first century.

Let me review some of the features of

this bill, which I believe make it so very important. First, the bill

focuses on learners and their parents. It provides a definition of an

educational program that is learner centred. Secondly, it establishes

the rights of pupils and parents to consultation regarding individual

education programs. It clarifies the educational entitlement of all

children— and I say "all children" — of school age. It guarantees

the learner and the parents access to individual student records. It

establishes the right of pupils and parents to appeal actions of a

school or district to the local school board. Also the bill, for the

first time, deals with the issue of home schooling. The right of every

child to

[ Page 8006 ]

have access to and receive a quality education will be ensured.

Consultation

among the various stakeholders will be formalized at all levels within

the system. A parent advisory council will be established at the school

level, and the education advisory council will be established at the

provincial level. The bill will enhance local autonomy and thus ensure

that the unique needs of the local community are met, but it will also

ensure that appropriate levels of accountability are provided.

The

conflict of interest issue is dealt with. The key responsibility of the

government and the minister in providing overall leadership and setting

overall direction for the school system is identified. The bill is also

written in non-gender-specific language, which is in keeping with the

new policy directions announced last January.

Mr. Speaker,

I believe this bill is as sound as it is important. I believe that this

bill provides us an opportunity to enact the most forward-looking

School Act in Canada. We have a significant challenge ahead of us. The

bill can provide the solid legislative foundation needed to meet this

challenge.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have

to retain our focus on our overall objective: the best possible

education for our children. We have to work together towards this

objective. The stakeholders, through their participation on the

Education Policy Advisory Committee, have demonstrated their

willingness to work together. The people of British Columbia owe a debt

of gratitude to all who have dedicated so much time and effort to bring

us to this point. Again, I do want to extend a special commendation to

the people in my ministry.

Mr. Speaker, we have the vision,

the direction, the consensus among the stakeholders and the commitment

from my government. Credit must also be given to the Premier and my

colleagues in cabinet and in caucus for establishing the royal

commission, for supporting the open-consultation process, for

committing to the policy directions and for backing it all with

long-term funding commitments. Certainly to all those on the

legislative committees who have really accomplished the impossible in

drafting this legislation, I want to thank them and recognize their

many hours.

Now we need a new School Act. I invite all

members of this House to join the process of ensuring that our

education system is prepared for the twentyfirst century by supporting

this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include a short quotation which

goes as follows: "By respecting the initiative of concerned parents and

democratically elected trustees and by working together with our eye

fixed firmly on the future, we can give our children the tools to adapt

and flourish in our changing world." This quotation from the Leader of

the Opposition would indicate their support for what we have set out to

achieve. However, I have just learned that I may have been wrong in

that assumption. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has given

formal notice to ask this House not to proceed with this bill. It came

as somewhat of a surprise at the last moment.

Every

member of this House knows that a new School Act is necessary, and they

know why it is necessary, and they know of my commitment to our school

system. It's my sincere hope that the overall opportunity will not be

overshadowed by partisan or particular interests.

Interpretations and

applications can be dealt with through the continuing consultative

process. Hopefully, the energy and joint efforts of all the

stakeholders can focus on getting on with the job before us, which

includes assuring public and taxpayer support.

Mr. Speaker,

I look forward to the job, the challenge and the exciting opportunity

to serve the best interests of our students and our society.

MS. A. HAGEN :

It's with a considerable amount of pride and excitement that I enter

into this debate today, because, as the minister noted, it is an

historic day in this House. It's the first time we have had a

completely new School Act, or an almost completely new School Act, in

over 30 years, and it is the fulfilment of a promise that I know is

decades old.

It's interesting, too, as I look around the

House, that the New Democrats are in the majority in the House this

afternoon, and I think that that is a testament to the importance that

our MLAs place on the debate that is about to take place this afternoon.

[3:00]

I want to speak first of all just very briefly about the process to

which the minister referred in his introductory comments, and to

commend that process. I think that this particular act, in the way in

which it has been developed, is probably unique in recent memory, at

any rate. It comes from a royal commission; it comes from an extensive

policy development; it comes from consultation; it comes from the

involvement of many people.

It's in that context that I

want to place my initial comments this afternoon, because except for a

very short brief, which I made on behalf of our caucus to the minister

about some of our concerns about this bill, it is the first time that

we on this side of the House have had any opportunity to discuss the

statute. That may be a different situation for members on the

government benches, but we certainly welcome this opportunity, and

consider that what happens over the next few days of debate in

connection with the School Act is a an ongoing consultation. In the

spirit in which the minister spoke about the development of points of

view and consensus and the resolving of conflict that may occur around

certain perspectives on that bill, we are today a part of that process

as well. Any suggestions and amendments that we make are made in the

spirit of making this act a better act.

I want to note to

the minister that I say that with humility, because I recognize that a

tremendous amount of work has gone into the development of this act, on

his own part, on behalf of his staff, and

[ Page 8007 ]

with

the others who have worked on the various drafts. So I want to

acknowledge, in speaking of that ongoing improvement, that it is in the

context of that excellent work that has taken place.

The

minister spoke extensively this afternoon about his vision. I think all

of us, when we come to talk about education in this kind of important

time, do have a vision. But as much as possible today I want to frame

my comments in the context of the act, which is the structure or the

vehicle by which this vision can be achieved. Therefore we need to look

very carefully at what it says, what it appears to say and what the

minister intends it to say, so that we can understand it. That's our

role here as we debate this piece of legislation.

The

minister notes that it is an enabling bill. As a new MLA, one of the

things I learned is that there are enabling bills, there are

prescriptive bills and then there are some other kinds as well. But

this provides flexibility. It provides rights and responsibilities to

various people who have responsibility for education in our schools, in

our school districts and at the ministry level, and who are concerned

about the schools because this is where their children get one of their

most important rights of citizenship — their education.

However,

an enabling bill also has limits. There are ways in which powers may in

fact be constrained or directed in a hierarchical way, and one of the

things I want to look at today is how this act has been developed

around that enabling principle and where we may have concerns about the

principles that are there about the empowerment of people to do the

things that the minister has stated he believes in.

We need

a good act. We need it as one of the most important memorials we can

give to Mr. Barry Sullivan and to the many people who worked with him

to produce the foundation for a review of education. There were two or

three points that Mr. Sullivan made that I want to make again as a part

of my vision as we begin the discussion of this legislation. He said

that we want to focus attention on the importance of schooling as a

vital provincial resource, the importance of youngsters who attend

British Columbia schools, the importance of the teachers who work with

them daily and the importance of the parents in many organizations in

helping to shape the character of schooling.

at all possible today, I want to try to represent those views as we

begin to debate the act — again, with humility —

because every one of those groups has a stake in what we are talking

about today. Mr. Sullivan said the stake is that we want a better

educational future for our children and we want to develop the

structures, processes and avenues of communication which enable us to

work together cooperatively through consensus and through conflict

resolution.

This act is our tool at this time. Does it

contribute, then, to a better education, and does it provide the

framework for all those people to work with confidence in the

stability, fidelity and integrity of the system? Those are some of the

benchmarks that we will look at as we follow through on Mr. Sullivan's

last recommendation — a new school act.

Let

me begin to speak to the substance of the act — and

I should note, Mr. Speaker, that I am the designated speaker in this

debate. In the time that I have, I want to deal with a number of

issues — not all, because it is a big act. It has something in the

order of 230 clauses, a lot of which are very comprehensive.

Let

me begin with the

preamble. I don't want to pre-empt the comments that

are going to be made by the Leader of the Opposition in a few moments,

but I think that in framing our debate today it is important to begin

with that very important statement, which is really a statement of the

goals of education.

The minister made reference to his

mandate for the school system, which is the basis for the act, and he

noted the development of the potential of each child and the

development of the skills and attributes for a good, sustainable

economy. What he didn't mention, which is a very important part of the

mandate statement, is the comment in the second paragraph about the

educated citizen, that as we progress toward the goal of educating a

citizen, we have two specific ideals that we want to try to inculcate

and to have available through the experiences of children in the school

system. We want educated citizens who accept the tolerant and

multifaceted nature of Canadian society and who are motivated to

participate actively in our democratic institutions.

Regrettably,

in the

preamble, the statement of purpose, there is no mention of

educating our students to participate in a democratic society, and I

think it's a lack, a serious flaw, a serious weakness. The Leader of

the Opposition will be addressing that issue in an amendment which is

put forward in the spirit of which I spoke at the beginning of my

remarks: in the spirit of improving and enhancing the faithfulness of

this document to the Sullivan commission and to the minister's own

mandate statement.

Let me take just a moment to look at

another area of the act, which I am not going to discuss very much this

afternoon. I want to just, if you like, get it to one side. The one

area of the act for which there has been no revision or very modest

revisions within the

section deals with finance. I want to put on the

record this afternoon the disappointment that that particular change

has not yet been accomplished.

Certainly Mr. Sullivan and

the royal commission spoke about the needs for transforming our taxing

and funding formula, to improve it. They spoke of the deficiencies in

funding for education and some of their suggestions for those

improvements.

During the estimates I had the opportunity to

debate back and forth with the minister his commitment to the goal of

those changes being in place by 1990-91, for the next school year and

the next school tax year. I think that is vitally important, because

one of the things I'm going to be noting in my comments this afternoon

is that there is within this act, I believe, some potential for the

expansion of the mandate of schools. That's something we need to

[ Page 8008 ]

canvass

to understand more carefully. But if there is indeed to be an expanded

mandate, then funding and finance become even more critical.

Now

to get to some of the specifics of the bill that I want to deal with.

This bill, as I've said, deals with every child in the system, and

although it is the public school act, it provides the framework for the

entitlement of every child aged five to 19 within a district to an

education. That's a very important point for us to note and keep in

mind, because we are talking about children of varying potentials:

children who have abilities and potential depending on their

intellectual and physical capacities, any handicaps they may bring with

them to the school system and the social capital they have, coming from

the economy and the community in which they live. This child who comes

into the system, then, this child who comes to school, is in every

sense unique and the product of both the things with which he or she

was born and the community in which he or she has grown up.

want to make a very important commitment on behalf of all of my

colleagues today to that public school system and to the necessity of

that system for the fulfilment of our democratic and economic ideals

and for the empowerment of our citizens. We believe that commitment is

best manifested through the public schools, through a system that has

the capacity and the potential to provide a challenging and stimulating

education for our students.

In speaking to the needs of all

learners, then, as we examine this act, one of the things we need to do

is to ensure that the educational programs defined for students are

indeed ones that deal with their potential — not just with the

abilities they bring to school, but to the potential that is there and

that may not have been tapped. That's part of a vision that we believe

to be consistent with the creative and decision-making child who is

given the opportunity to develop to his or her fullest potential.

want to note also that we believe that schools should be places for

adult learners. There is a very brief reference in the act to that; it

empowers school districts to provide programs for adult learners. But

as we look at what the minister said about the changing society in

which people grow up — the fact that many of our young people are

going out to get jobs often to keep bread on the table of their family,

because of circumstances that may or may not relate to their

educational aspirations — we need to make that school a resource

that is available to anyone who lives in that community and wants to

have an education, which we normally think of as for K to 12

I want to pay tribute — and I will a couple of times today —

to my own school district in New Westminster, School District 40, which

has had that particular approach to our secondary school and has done a

great deal to draw back into the system school-leavers, people who have

dropped out, to provide them with opportunities for vocational, career

and academic education.

This act also, for the first time, requires every child to be registered somewhere

in a school, and it recognizes for the first time something that we call home

schooling, where parents choose to be responsible for the education of their

children. Choice is an important value for parents; the public school being

a means for parents to have a variety of choices available is also an important

value. I would hope that our school system will develop the kind of variety

and flexibility that will encourage all parents to have their children participate

in schools where they have the advantage of the full range of programs: social,

intellectual, academic and physical.

[3:15]

But some parents are educating their children at home, and we

believe that it is a good move to have those children registered. We

will, when we come to debate this particular issue, be making strong

representation that those registrations should be in the public schools

and that we really need very clear guidelines around home schooling,

one of which is the right for children to have some choice about

whether they will be schooled at home or in schools.

I have

a real concern that as children grow in their knowledge of their

educational needs they will have a choice in that matter. That choice,

in my mind, could very well be a choice to be at school, even though

parents might have a choice that the children are educated at home.

Let

me take a few moments to look at

Part 2 of the act, "Students and

Parents," and agree with the minister that these new sections are, I

believe, a significant asset to the act. Within these clauses there are

opportunities for improvement that would make for a more democratic

structure rather than a supplicant structure.

It is well

and good for parents to have access to certain rights, but I believe

that parents are very important partners in the education of their

children. After all, we do educate our children for the first five

years, and I think a lot of us do a pretty good job of that. I think a

lot of the children who come into the school system come in with the

results of dedicated work on the part of parents.

think

parents need to be partners, and the School Act should have the kinds

of clauses that don't have them as supplicants but as partners. The act

goes some way toward that — not all the way, not as strongly as I

would like it — and I want to give the minister and the drafters

credit for what has happened in that regard.

want to say a little bit more about students, however, because students

also are seen as underlings to some extent still in this act. They have

been given in the act the right to participate in planning their

education program, and that I think is an excellent clause. But it is

interesting that as far as rules of conduct are concerned, those still

come down from on high. Those still are the kinds of strictures that

are made by what youngsters would call "authority figures."

younger son used to wear a button quite frequently that simply said

"Challenge Authority, " and it seems to me that one of the things that

[ Page 8009 ]

should be looking at in a democratic education system...

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN : A lot of us probably did wear that button.

...

is the right of students to have, if you like, some say in the

statutory role, in the kinds of rules of conduct by which they are

governed in the school, which is the first opportunity,

institutionally, they have to find out how a democracy functions.

The

more that school can reflect on the democracy, the more it can enhance

decision-making, the kind of choices, ways in which people deal with

conflict and the way in which responsibility is encouraged. The more

students have the opportunity to participate in an active way, the

better our education system is going to be, and the better our students

are going to respond to the system that they work in.

There

is also within this act a procedure for appeals. It goes some way, but

I believe it doesn't go far enough. The minister has emphasized over

and over again that he has followed the recommendations of the royal

commission in almost every area. The royal commission recommended very

specifically that there be some third party means of resolving any

disputes over appeals, and that is not in the present act.

could be provided through proclaiming, I believe, the ombuds

section

that deals with questions relating to school districts or, more simply,

in addition to proclaiming that clause of the Ombudsman Act it could be

an addition to this act. I think in putting into place an appeal, it's

important that there be conflict resolution if the parties are unable

to come to an agreement. This gives the final power to the board which

has, of course, an interest— as has the parent — in the subject for the appeal.

What

I am doing in the early part of the act is talking about those

structures that relate to parents and students and their relationships

with the school I want to move now into another area of similar

processes of consultation and involvement — to the Education

Policy Advisory Committee, which I'm pleased to note the minister has

mandated. The first draft of the act, I recall, did make it something

where the minister "may appoint"; the clause now says the minister

"shall appoint" an Education Advisory Council. In my view, this is one

of the most fundamental tools to achieving the goal that Mr. Sullivan

spoke of: the goal of a cooperative, consultative, problem-solving

vehicle that involves the major players, if you like, within the system.

I'm

pleased too that that clause states that it will be representative. If

I understand the clause correctly, it means that established groups in

the educational community who are to be involved in the Education

Advisory Council will be able to choose their own representatives and

to deal with the issues in a truly representative way. That is again an

improvement on an earlier draft and a very important aspect of the

council's functioning.

I am disappointed that the clause

does not name the people or the organizations and constituencies that

will be involved. However, I can understand that perhaps that is

something that has not yet been attended to in its entirety. I do

believe it will be important for the makeup of that group to be

enshrined in the act at some time. I believe it needs to be there in

statute.

Now I want to talk about a missing link, an aspect of the bill that I can't find anywhere —

any kind of presentiments at all. It is an adjunct of the Education

Advisory Council, and it was the next recommendation that the Sullivan

commission made after it recommended that there should be an advisory

council. They called for a provincial curriculum committee as a

standing committee that would, through the Education Advisory Council,

deal with matters that affect curriculum development, implementation

and evaluation and that would have subcommittees in specialty areas.

believe that that particular structure should be mandated in the act as

well. It's a vital part of actually having in place a provincially

based advisory body that deals with what goes on in schools with the

curriculum available to children. In this act, these consultative

structures are extremely important. I see them as a means of providing

a check and balance against the possibility of this act having a very

major centralist thrust within its enabling capacity. I spoke earlier

about the fact that the act may be enabling but it also can be very

hierarchical, depending on how the minister decides to exercise the

very extensive powers that he has in the act.

I will return

on one or two occasions to the missing link, as I call it, the

curriculum advisory council as a tool, both the solid support arm of

the Education Advisory Council and the means by which the players can

deal with those issues that relate to the fundamental things that

happen in a classroom.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

this bill, over and over again, we run into a phrase, "subject to the

orders of the minister," or we find reference to the fact that a clause

will be interpreted "subject to the regulations." I said at the

beginning, when I looked at this act, that it is

an act that in fact

gives us a story that has very deep foundations and very broad kinds of

powers. In order to understand this structure that is going to help us

transform and enable our school system to work well, we need to

understand those powers. They are so extensive that one could call them

Orwellian. I say that in the sense that they cover so many areas that

the minister could prescribe many aspects of the education system.

don't want to suggest that that is the minister's intent, but we are

dealing with

an act that we must understand as we look at its

principles and debate its various clauses. We need to understand

whether those powers are necessary in a system that is a co-managed

system, with 75 school districts and 75 district staffs in the — the minister will know the

[ Page 8010 ]

number; what is it? —

1,500 schools of the province who daily make important decisions around

how that school system is going to function and how children are going

to in fact be able to access an education.

Clearly some of

the powers are constitutional, traditional and reasonable, but there

are powers that are being questioned and have been questioned from a

pedagogical sense, from a locus-of-control sense, and I think it's

important for us to really look at these very carefully as we go

through the act.

For

example, during the estimates we had

an extensive discussion around the issue of evaluation assessment. The

minister referred to it again in his comments today. There's a lot of

concern about the nature of the assessment, because this minister is

going to prescribe the fundamental nature of assessment. This minister

is going to tell a school board when he wants those school districts to

be involved in comparative evaluations— not evaluations of the

individual child, but comparative evaluations. This minister has the

power then to use that information. We can use those powers in a

constructive way or we can use them in a way that destabilizes the

system, erodes trust and has the wrong things driving the system, not

the goals of the minister, which are to work with the individual

learner and to have assessment and evaluation— the tools by which we

diagnose where that learner is, what he or she needs next in the way of

learning — and then to get on with the next step.

[3:30]

Even in the home-schooling issue, where the superintendent has the

power to deal with any child who isn't registered and is home schooled,

the minister in fact is the person who has the power, according to the

act, to tell the superintendent how he or she will deal with that.

second area of concern that I want to speak to comes, I believe, out of

the intention to have a broader scope of activities and educational

opportunity available to students in grade 11 and grade 12. It is a

clause that gives to school districts, subject again to the minister's

orders, the power to contract out managerial services and to purchase

educational services. In the act there's absolutely nothing to frame

that power, and the only connection back to the school district is that

those services will be under the direction of somebody who is

registered by the College of Teachers. It could be the superintendent,

the assistant-superintendent, an administrative officer or a teacher.

I'm

very concerned about that kind of clause, and I want to go back again

to the curriculum advisory council issue, because if we had a publicly

based, broadly mandated committee with power to ask for the necessary

planning, then we would be able to know something about what was

planned. But this particular clause, as it stands, is one that I

believe has the potential to privatize the school system. I would note

that at one point there was some suggestion that the Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) would be actually

involved in licensing some of these services. Heavens, Mr. Minister.

Spare us. The Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training has one

person licensing 400-odd private schools, none of which then has any

accountability back to any public body.

I note that there

is a request that I break in my presentation for the attendance of His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and I will now take my place and resume

after that event.

MR. SPEAKER : I advise hon. members that the Administrator is in the precincts and will be here very shortly.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Supreme Court Act

Court Rules Act

Small Claims Act justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1989

Personal Property Security Act

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Agriculture Protection Act

Employee Investment Act

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1989

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989

Seniors Advisory Council Act

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act

Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act

Assessment Amendment Act, 1989

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989

Credit Union Incorporation Act

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE : In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

Supply Act (No. 2), 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE :

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her

Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this

bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for New Westminster continues on Bill 67.

[ Page 8011 ]

SCHOOL ACT

(continued)

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, I note there are a number of interesting bills that have

just received royal assent. I know some people in my community will be

pleased to hear about one of them.

When

the Administrator was announced, I was speaking about the issue of

boards — subject to the orders of the minister —

having the power to contract out managerial and education services. If

my memory serves me correctly, since I did stop in mid-section, I was

referring to the very great discretionary power that leaves with the

minister, and the need for the check and balance through the curriculum

advisory council, with very clear roles that involve all of the

stakeholders in any efforts to broaden the education system.

want to be on the record that I'm supportive of the kinds of

initiatives that will enable students to receive, past their junior

secondary grades, a diversity of education. I say that not specifically

but generally. I think we haven't yet had the debate on what that

education should be in the curriculum. The minister has some documents

out for discussion, and I know there is work going on.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The

whole business of accountability to the public system, with a

well-trained, professional workforce of teachers and support staff that

work with them, is fundamental to our system. We can't have

an act that

is not clear and concise about any powers that would change that

system. It's inconsistent entirely with what the royal commission was

suggesting. I again want to emphasize that the royal commission, as I

understand it, saw the curriculum advisory council as the real

workhorse of expanding and enriching the opportunities for children to

have a wide range of educational opportunities. So we want very much to

have that breadth available, with a clear mandate that speaks, as the

recommendation notes, to the issues of development, implementation and

evaluation in the hands of, not the minister or the board, but all of

the stakeholders.

The act also includes a clause that was

drawn to our attention by the teachers, and I want to take time to

mention it today. It's clause 18 on teachers' assistants. Subsection

(1) says: "A board may employ persons other than teachers to assist

teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties under this

Act and the regulations." Subsection (2) then notes: "Persons employed

under subsection (1) shall work under the general supervision of a

teacher or administrative officer." That particular clause is a rather

strange one, because in clause 15 of the act the board has total

power to employ and to be responsible for "the management of those

persons that the board considers necessary for the conduct of its

operations." So the board has the powers it needs to employ a wide

range of people. Indeed, all of us know that every school board does

that with teacher aides, interveners, people who are involved with

clerical support. The range is wide and broad.

There

is a real concern here — and I want to identify that concern

because it's one that we on this side of the House would share — that

there is some intent with this clause to deal with the potential of not

having enough teachers in the future and that we may have assistants

who deal with the roles and responsibilities of our highly dedicated

and important professional staff within the school system. If that's

the case, then the inclusion of that particular clause in this act is,

I think, ill advised. If there is to be a change in the way in which

education services are conceived by the ministry to be delivered, if

such a change is being planned by the ministry.... I think it's

inconsistent with everything that we've seen around discussion,

consultation and dealing with the issue to have such a clause come into

the act and not have some clear idea of how such persons are going to

participate in the education process. It may tie In, too, with the

contracting-out issue; I don't know. But those matters are ones that we

want to address.

[3:45]

We want a school system that is well supported. We want a school

system with professionals who have the resources to do the jobs they

need to do. We know this means there will be, in classrooms and in

schools, people who provide support to teachers. But we believe that

any changes in the present system, which is working very well —

and which is the subject of collective agreements, something that Mr.

Sullivan acknowledged was the appropriate way to deal with such

issues — should be changes that are clearly discussed; and they

should, I think, stay with the board and with the collective bargaining

system.

Those are some of the issues — not all of the issues — that

we will want to examine much more extensively when we come to

clause-by-clause debate and about which we may want to present some

amendments.

To go back to my earlier comment, this act does

give to the minister a very large number of discretionary powers. For

instance, just to name one clause, which is the jurisdiction of the

minister, it notes that the minister may make orders for the purpose of

carrying out his powers and duties, and lists something in the order of

a dozen or more such powers. In dealing with the power and the capacity

of the board, there is extensive reference to "subject to the orders of

the minister." Boards are subject to the orders of the minister about

who uses board facilities and how they evaluate and recognize

educational activities; subject to the orders of the minister, they may

cause an educational assessment to be made of students or groups of

students. The suggestion there is that the minister has the power to

determine those activities. The contention I am making today is that

those seem to be very broad discretionary powers, and ones that cause

us concern.

We now have the act in its final form after

three drafts. It is

an act that I believe must be based on trust, and

it must have a commitment to bring stability into the system. It is an

act whose mandate

[ Page 8012 ]

should be broadened to represent our commitment to a democratic education.

The

act should be the vehicle through which the roles and responsibilities

of students and parents are as strong as possible. The advisory

committee is supported by a curriculum advisory committee. What happens

to our children happens at the local school and district level, and any

of the initiatives that are part of this act are, and are seen to be,

in that locus. That is where the energy and the resources for the

education of our children come from, that's where the creativity comes

from and that's where the new initiatives come from. When you talk to

people who work in the field and who speak passionately about what they

are doing in their districts, they know what their children need in

those districts, and they are prepared to put their very considerable

time, energy and professional expertise into that, and to work within

that community.

If this act empowers and enables that

process to be strengthened, then as we say when we finish third

reading, it is "an act." If, however, there are within the act concerns

about hierarchical discretionary powers, a failure to consult or an

overriding of the rightful responsibilities that can and should exist

at the local level, then we would be concerned.

The intent

of my comments this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to flag some of those

issues. Other colleagues will be joining me in the second reading

debate, and we look forward to both that debate and the

clause-by-clause debate. Also, we look forward to some amendments in

the spirit of improving this bill so that it is indeed

an act that

brings the greatest possible degree of stability, trust and cooperation

to the system, and is therefore faithful to the aspirations not only of

the royal commission but of the minister, the ministry staff and the

many people who have worked so hard in bringing it forward.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I have a number of kudos

that I would like to offer the Legislature, and one addition.

The

kudos are, first of all, that we do have a new school act after 30

years. To bring forward this new act is indeed a major effort and

accomplishment. To all those involved — the minister, his staff, the

educational community, parents and the many hundreds of citizens who

have come forward because of the importance they place on the future of

our province and the education of our young people — I offer congratulations from our caucus and our party.

Secondly, congratulations to....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT :

Which I have said, Mr. Speaker, through you to the House Leader. I

don't know if he caught it the first time. He usually listens very

intently to what's happening in the Legislature. I did get to that in

my first remark, and I will get to it further, in case the House Leader

misses it a second time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

would also like to congratulate those who participated in the Sullivan

commission, and in particular the late Barry Sullivan, who I knew as a

very fine, able member of the legal profession and a fine human being.

I congratulate the other members of that commission. We would have

liked to see a broader commission. We would have liked to see the

matter of school finances considered, but the minister has said that it

will come forward over the next year.

The third

congratulation is for the consultation process that occurred. It was

very wide; a substantial number of people came forward. I think the

minister and his officials found the members of the Education Policy

Advisory Committee, in particular, to be very hard-working, capable and

skilled in the advice that they offered to him and to the people of

British Columbia.

Fourth, the minister introduced two

drafts. There were comments on those two new draft school act bills,

and we were able to make some comments, as were other people in British

Columbia.

Fifth, I would like to specifically pay a

compliment to the Minister of Education, whose commitment, sincerity

and dedication for almost, as he said, 30 years, comes through very

clearly, and I think he deserves our congratulations.

well, we have a number of members of our caucus who have been

educational leaders, chairpersons of their school boards and

vice-chairpersons of their school boards: our previous critic for

education, the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones); our present critic

for education, the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen); and our

member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who was the vice-chair of

her school board. So we come with a great deal of interest and

experience in education in our caucus. I think that it shows in the

amount of interest we take and in our commitment to the importance of

education for our young people. Of course, I was speaking of the last

decade, but a few decades ago, the hon. member from Port Moody was, as

I recall, In the early days of our school system, a member of a school

board; so he was probably there under the old act when it first came

in, or prior to the act 30 years ago.

Those are the kudos

that I would like to offer. You'll hear further discussions about some

of the aspects of the act that our very able critic on education has

offered, about centralization, contracting-out and other concerns that

we would like to ask the minister about.

As I said, I have

an addition, because the final act is incomplete. The addition is the

need to explicitly recognize the education of young people to be active

citizens. If you read the

preamble of Bill 67, it basically states

three of the four purposes of our educational system, but it misses the

fourth. I'll read it, because I think it's a very important point of

debate between our party and the Social Credit Party. The

preamble

reads: "Whereas the purpose of the British Columbia school system is to

enable learners

[ Page 8013 ]

to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills

and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and

sustainable economy...." It then goes on in the

interpretation

section to reiterate

under "educational program" those three purposes.

I think that this shows a difference between the philosophy of Social Credit

and not just New Democrats but many British Columbia citizens and the Sullivan

commission, which makes explicit reference to what I've just talked about.

I'd like to make the position of the New Democratic Party quite clear on

which educational principles should be in a school act. I'll read out a

statement from our 1985 convention, which gives the policy of the New Democratic

Party on educational principles.

"Therefore

be it resolved that the New Democratic Party of British Columbia adopt

the following principles as the basis of its policy for public

education.

"l. The purpose of the public

education system is to promote the practice of freedom. The system must

accomplish this through: (

a) empowering all people to deal critically

and creatively with their lives and the social and economic order, and

(

b) assisting them to discover how to participate in the transformation

of their society and world. The purpose of public education is not just

to integrate the younger generation into the logic of the existing

social system and into conformity with it.

"2.

Public education is an essential means by which a society expresses its

commitment to equality, to fairness and to justice for all: (

a) public

education is both a necessary element in the political life of a

democratic society and an investment in its economic development; (

b) every resident should have, as a matter of right, equal and full access

to free and secular public education; (

c) positive action must be taken

to guarantee such access to students with special needs, to women, to

ethnic minorities and to members of the first nations. People of all

ages should have lifelong access to educational programs for the sake

of the continued good health of our democracy, for the reasons of

economic survival and in order to encourage personal growth and

development.

[4:00]

"3.

More specifically this implies: (

a) that public schools, colleges and

universities should prepare all students for unrestricted political and

economic participation in society, regardless of age, gender, ethnic

origin or economic circumstances; (

b) that the structure of educational

programs reflects an appropriate balance of general or liberal

education and vocational and/or professional training; and (

c) that the

public schools should provide diversity and choice of programs to

reflect our pluralistic society.

"4. The

major objectives of the curriculum of a public education at every stage

of a pupil's life should include: (

a) a strong sense of the interests

and rights of all other human beings, recognizing them as equals in our

democratic society; (

b) a commitment to human rights and social

justice; (

c) a strong sense of the interdependence of human

communities; (

d) a commitment to planning for environmental

responsibility; (

e) a commitment to the use of resources for peaceful

purposes.

"To these ends we should:

(1) practise democracy in school and classroom; (2) teach the ability to

reason well, to make reliable inferences, to be critical of evidence,

to tell good arguments from bad" — particularly if you are going to be members of this Legislature —

"and to speak and to write such arguments in clear and persuasive

language; (3) ensure the full development of aesthetic and cultural

potential; (4) provide clear understanding of the socioeconomic

structure and of political arrangements in our society; (5) strive to

assess the social and cultural changes likely to be caused by

technological developments, and to suggest how to cope with those

changes; and (6) learning conditions in public education institutions

should be adequate to provide diverse experiences of education that

encourage and sustain the intellectual, creative, social and physical

development of all students."

Those are the educational

principles that we bring to bear when we look at the School Act. But as

I said, it's not just New Democrats that believe in the addition that I

am suggesting to the School Act, so that our young people are able to

be fully participating democratic citizens.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Are people other than New Democratic included?

MR. HARCOURT :

Fully participating democratic citizens — and hopefully New

Democrat citizens, because we wouldn't want to subject them to you.

have the Sullivan commission, which is the government's own royal

commission, supporting the proposal that I've just put out, and that is

the moral and civic development of our young people as well as the

cultivation of the mind, preparation for vocational life and individual

development. This is after many hundreds of thousands of dollars of

public money were invested in the Sullivan commission. Many citizens

were heard from. The citizens of British Columbia's wisdom was

synthesized into the Sullivan report. To summarize

section 4.C.3 on

page 70 of that royal commission report, which reads "Moral and Civic

Development, " the third educational purpose of schools has to do with

moral and civic development."

The Sullivan commission

recognizes that this is a task that is shared with a number of social

institutions, including the family, religious organizations and various

civic agencies, and that schools have to be involved. I will quote the

commission. It says:

"From the commission's

perspective, moral development and preparation for civic life

constitute particularly important educational ends. Young people at

school today are forced to consider many difficult moral issues, and

their consideration of such issues is made even more problematic by the

diversity in social values that marks the society in which they live.

They must learn to answer for themselves; for the future generation

they represent, an array of ethical questions must be faced in the

realms of social relations, school, technology and medicine. Through

education, they begin to learn how individuals can reason clearly about

vexing moral issues and choices, and what it means to act in morally

responsible ways consistent with such reasons and choices."

"Furthermore,

it is through social studies, history and other courses at school that

youngsters learn something about the nature of the democratic system

[ Page 8014 ]

of government we enjoy. Here they learn that governments such

as our own do not work well unless citizens recognize and act on their civic

obligations to their communities. The preservation of democratic principles

and institutions requires participation by citizens in community, regional and

provincial affairs. If participation in provincial life is based entirely on

self-interest, we put at risk some of the most cherished qualities of democratic

government."

is not just New Democrats and the Sullivan commission; it's the many

citizens throughout British Columbia who made representations to the

Sullivan commission and, I'm sure, to the minister along the way.

well, the minister has received a brief dated May 8 from our education

critic, the MLA for New Westminster, which reviews the first two drafts

of the new School Act and says: "We would propose the addition of the

following phrase: 'to participate fully in a democratic society.'" So

the mandate statement would read: "...the purpose of the British

Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their

individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes

needed to participate fully in a democratic society and to contribute

to a prosperous and sustainable economy." This is an addition that we

have put forward consistently. We do it because we think it's important

for our democratic society and for the young people who are coming

forward in our democratic society to be the leaders of tomorrow and to

be in this Legislature; to be on our school boards, our city councils

and our regional districts; and to be in our Parliament and in the many

democratic institutions in our province.

We believe it's

even more important today than ever. If you go back to the long

struggle human society has had to build a democratic society.... For

example, I was just reading through the very fine book on democracy by

Patrick Watson. If you look at the Greek state, which flowered for a

brief period, in which everybody participated in the decisions to go to

war or not, participated directly in trials, perfected the jury trial

system and a whole series of initiatives and democratic rights that we

have now in our society.... If you look at the work, effort,

responsibilities and obligations the Greeks first twigged to for a

small number of people in that Greek society — not the slaves, not

those who weren't considered full citizens, not women.... If you look

at the struggle by the Greeks just to create that democratic society

and at how that was integrated into their educational activities, you

can see that indeed it's been a long one.

The

evolution through the American and French Revolutions — it is the

200th anniversary of the French Revolution this year —

the evolution of Canadian democracy, and how we've painfully increased

our democratic rights, first of all, for the right to vote.... It has

been a major struggle, and it's important for our young people to

understand that democracy requires a tremendous amount of personal

commitment, sacrifice and knowledge, and that they live as democratic

citizens every day.

Whether it is our young people

understanding the struggle of non-moneyed and -titled men to be able to

vote, to be able to be members of legislatures and parliaments; the

struggle of women to be able to vote and to be members of legislatures,

parliaments and elected bodies; the struggle of our native people and

our minority communities to get the right to vote, to belong to

professional associations and to be fully participating citizens; the

right of workers in a democratic society to make decisions about how

they re represented in major economic decisions and bout whether or not

to form trade unions — that's a very important part of the

educational system in a democratic society. It's very important for our

young people to know that tradition and that struggle of humanity to

become free and democratic citizens, living in a society with all the

imperfections of a democracy.

As I said at the beginning,

it's becoming increasingly more important, because we are indeed on

Spaceship Earth, facing nuclear destruction. Three-quarters of the

world is suffering poverty every day, and millions of children and

other people are dying because of the injustices in the world.

Environmental destruction could threaten the whole planet. I think for

our young people to understand how they can participate in the

solutions to those huge. challenges and problems in a democratic,

participatory way as critical, free-thinking citizens of our democracy

is absolutely essential.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT : I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. HARCOURT : I was taking the minister at his word that we were bringing

this forward in an attempt to bring about a better educational system for our

young people. I think the school system should have a fourth purpose. I believe

that very deeply, not just as an individual citizen in this democracy but as

a leader of one of the great political movements in this democracy of ours:

the New Democratic Party. I am very proud of the fact that we democratically

put together these positions.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Everybody needs a great movement.

MR. HARCOURT : I hope that's recorded in Hansard ,

because the member from Kamloops has that ability to instantly lower

the level of debate down to his level — and we will be lowering

the boom on him in the next provincial election, I can tell you.

Interjections.

[ Page 8015 ]

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, we listened to the minister without interruption, and we

will listen to the minister of post-secondary education without

interruption.

We believe that this is an important

initiative and we believe that it would be an even better initiative if

you would accept our addition, because we believe it goes to the very

heart of why we are here in the Legislature and why we believe in

democracy. If the government doesn't think it's important, or doesn't

believe that it's an important part of our educational system, so be

it. That will make it very clear.

There aren't just the

planetary challenges that our young people face and that I have

outlined. I didn't go into detail, and I didn't indulge in rhetoric

about it; I just said these are the challenges that our young people

have nightmares about. These are the challenges that our young people

struggle with in their own lives, and they are going to inherit these

very difficult challenges of nuclear destruction, the poverty of

people, and annihilating our environment. I think it's important they

be able to struggle with those at as early an age as possible in a

healthy, critical, democratic way.

[4:15]

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have some special challenges in British

Columbia to reach a just settlement with our aboriginal people, and we

should talk about that in our educational system. We should deal with

some of the tensions that exist in British Columbia around new people

coming into our province, a province of immigrants, how all of us are

immigrants who have adjusted to this society, how we can lessen those

tensions and how we can increase our society's ability to accommodate

new people coming and adjusting to it. I think that should be part of

our school system, to decrease racism and to increase the tolerance of

our multicultural community. I think we need to have our young people

understand and live equality for men and women, and that should be part

of what they have a chance to talk about.

think young

people being sensitized to the main-streaming that has occurred for

people with disabilities is a very great challenge for everybody —

and the lack of resources in the schools for those main-streamed people.

HON. MR. REID : We're leading the way.

MR. HARCOURT : You are leading the way with the lowest funding for those disabled students.

think that young people being sensitized to other citizens who have a

disability and learning to deal with that in the school and in the

classroom is a very important part of becoming a democratic citizen.

What I am saying is that we do need more active citizens. We do need a fourth

purpose added to this bill. In the bill the minister has implied the need for

more active citizens, because there is reference to parent advisory councils,

district advisory councils and educational advisory councils. What we would

like to see in there is an explicit purpose related to the moral and civic development

of our young people, as the Sullivan commission and many citizens throughout

British Columbia requested.

Mr.

Speaker, as our critic on education has said, we put forward this

amendment in the hope that the minister and the government will accept

it as part of the purposes of education in British Columbia, and that

the government will agree to amend the School Act.

I will read out that amendment. It's in Orders of the Day , No. 95, and it reads as follows:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 67) intituled

School Act be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'That'

and substituting the following: this House declines to proceed with this Bill

for the reason that it fails to accomplish a principal goal of the British Columbia

school system, namely: To enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and

attitudes needed to participate fully in a democratic society.'"

bring this forward, Mr. Speaker, because it is one of only two ways

that we can bring forward an amendment to the bill. The other way is a

hoist; we didn't want to do that. We wanted to facilitate the debate on

this bill, and we put it forward in that spirit.

I hope the minister will accept this amendment so that it can be the complete school act that we would all like to see.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've read the Leader of the

Opposition's motion several times, and I feel that it's ambiguous. It

is, I think, trying to be an amendment; but I also think, because of

the wording — "that this House declines to proceed with this bill" —

that it is a thinly disguised hoist motion. I submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the motion cannot be two things; the Leader of the

Opposition cannot have it both ways. With all due respect, it is either

an amendment and he leaves out the words "declines to proceed, " or he

reveals his true intent, which I believe is to move a hoist motion

because he is fundamentally opposed to this bill.

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order, we consulted not only authorities but also the

Clerks' office extensively about this matter. In the original

suggestion we were going to add to the motion, but we were informed

that on a reasoned amendment one cannot add to a motion. That would

clearly be out of order, and the only way we could proceed was through

these means and at this stage. Clearly, if the minister approves of

this motion he could bring it forward himself as an amendment or during

committee stage, but at this time it was the only means, other than a

hoist, by which we could achieve our ends; that is, really an addition

to the goals of education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : On the

same point of order, I don't know whether my ability to read the

before me is "that this House declines to proceed with this bill," and

then there's some rationale for it. Then I'm asked by the opposition

[ Page 8016 ]

House

Leader if the minister approves of this motion. If I approve of this

motion that the House decline to proceed with this bill....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Does anybody else see this? Can't anybody else read? The active part of

this clause says: "that this House declines to proceed with this

bill...." After all of the nice things, that member now wants to kill

the bill.

MR. ROSE : On the point of order, perhaps I

can offer the refined Minister of Education a little clarification and,

I hope, unemotional, Intelligent comment. This has to do with the

principle of the bill. We don't like the principle of the bill, of a

bill that does not....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Please don't be in such a rush to quote me out of context. just wait

for it. You'll get to it sooner or later. I'll do it very slowly so

that it can sink in, and you'll have lots of spaces to put in your

little ripostes that are supposed to be funny but aren't.

What

we want to do, in terms of the principle of the bill.... The principle

of any bill that leaves out this very important democratic goal of

education is an unacceptable principle to us. If the minister is

sensitive to these concerns — and we have a limited way of expressing these concerns procedurally —

he will make certain that this oversight on his part and that of his

great ministry will be included in the bill at a later stage. We can

move it in here, but we can't move it any other way as far as the

principle of the bill is concerned.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I don't want to belabour it, but since the opposition House Leader got

up twice on the same point, I just want to reiterate my point. I have

no objection to the Leader of the Opposition moving a reasoned

amendment — it's parliamentary practice — or to the Leader of the

Opposition moving a hoist motion. But to me, Mr. Speaker, this purports

to be both: that the House decline to proceed with the bill and then

proceed to an amendment. So I would suggest, with the greatest of

respect, that the Leader of the Opposition decide which one he

wants — an amendment or a hoist motion.

MR. SPEAKER : I thank hon. members for their input. If both the House Leaders would like to refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , eighteenth edition, page 488, 1 will just read a very short

section — not the whole thing —

on a reasoned amendment: "It must be borne in mind, however, that the

amendment, if agreed to, does not necessarily arrest the progress of

the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another

occasion." In effect, this is a reasoned amendment, and although there

may be some debate as to the language in the amendment, I see the

amendment as being in order, and the debate will continue on the

amendment.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make a very brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK :

Following on my leader's remarks concerning the responsibilities of

people in a democratic society, it seems very appropriate to introduce

to this House a member who, I think, exemplifies some of the qualities

we expect and admire within a democratic society. I'm referring to the

former Attorney-General of this province, who one year ago today did

the honourable thing and decided to move his seat in the Legislature. I

would ask the House to acknowledge him, please.

MR. JONES :

I rise to second this amendment which I hope the minister, on

reflection, considers a friendly one, because that is the spirit in

which the amendment is put forward.

The Minister of

Education and I have spent many hours across this chamber. I am a

partisan and he is a partisan, but there are times in this chamber when

I think we can step back from those narrow partisan perspectives and

look at legislation in terms of perfecting it or attempting to perfect

it and put it in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

is not unusual in this chamber for the opposition to support a bill

that the government brings forward. That happened a couple of times on

division last night, when actually nobody divided — everybody was

on the same side. It is in this spirit that we bring forward this

amendment, and I think I would be remiss if on this important occasion— the second reading of this important bill —

I did not take time to add to the compliments and commendations to the

minister, the government and all those who participated in the process

that led to us debating this bill today.

Clearly the whole

process, going back to the establishment of the Sullivan royal

commission, to that commission getting off to a slow start but picking

up momentum and finally receiving wide support throughout this

province, with many people participating in an exercise in itself of

participatory democracy.... All those processes leading up to the

commission report and the very hard work of the minister and his

ministry staff and all the consultations that followed that led to the

drafts and eventually to the bill that we see before us today are an

important exercise in democracy. Why we're bringing forward this

amendment is because it is so complementary to the whole process that

has gone on before, and so I would.... The minister has accused me on

many occasions of being parsimonious with my praise, so for all

those — including the minister and the government — who

participated in this process, the process was exemplary in terms of

participatory democracy and deserves the commendation of all British

Columbians.

[ Page 8017 ]

Again,

it is in that spirit that the minister is challenged to look seriously

at this amendment, which is not a hoist motion. I hope he listened

carefully to the ruling of the Speaker. This was the only way that we

could bring an amendment before the House that would add to the

preamble and make it more reflective of the kind of

preamble that

we —on both sides of the House, I think — want for the School Act in British Columbia.

is a friendly amendment, and I hope it is viewed as a positive

suggestion, a positive amendment that can be incorporated. We would not

be setting any historical precedents here today by having this

amendment approved by both sides of the House. We could go on to debate

the bill, which has many fine sections in it, particularly those that

followed closely the recommendations of the Sullivan commission. We

would like to see at the beginning of the bill a slightly broader

statement of goals for the education system in the province.

[4:30]

I think that the bill itself is also truly in the spirit of our

amendment, which is suggesting that one of the purposes of the British

Columbia school system is to enable learners to acquire the knowledge,

skills and attitudes needed to participate in a fully democratic

society. Surely there can be no disagreement with the substance of the

amendment. Members of the Legislature understand probably better than

most the importance of our democratic system in this province, and how

important it is as a major goal of the school system.

The

bill itself talks about many aspects of our democratic system. It talks

about access, participation; it talks about freedom of information; it

talks about elected officers of parent advisory committees In fact,

some 10 percent of the 230 sections of the bill deal with elections of

school trustees. Clearly, in education in this province we have a very

democratic process by which school trustees are elected at the local

level to represent the constituents in their school districts, to try

and bring the educational needs of that area to the children in the

school system.

[Mr. Rabbitt In the chair.]

The

Ministry of Education in October 1987 made a presentation to the

Sullivan royal commission, and that presentation itself talked about

four broad goals for our educational system. It says:

"There

are four broad goals which, over time, have been identified for

education: (1) intellectual development — to acquire basic

learning skills and bodies of knowledge; (2) social development —

to develop a sense of social responsibility and respect for others;

(3) human development — to develop a sense of self-worth and personal

initiative; and (4) vocational development — to attain career and

occupational objectives."

the

preamble that we have before us, very clearly (1) and (4) are

stressed, but I see numbers (2 and (3) of those four goals as having

been left out. And I think it's sad. When we focus on intellectual

development and vocational development and leave out the important

areas of social development and human development, I think it's a

serious omission.

I hope that we are stepping back from a

partisan approach that we lapsed into a few minutes ago, when the

Leader of the Opposition was speaking, and that members opposite can

have a serious look at this amendment. It would be an improvement. It's

an improvement that I think all in this House can agree with.

The

Leader of the Opposition mentioned that after those four goals were

presented on behalf of the Ministry of Education to the Sullivan royal

commission, the commission itself, in its report, came up with four

broad purposes for the schools of our province: cultivation of the

mind, preparation for vocational life, individual development and,

finally, moral and civic development. Again, in the

preamble being

presented in this bill, I see very clearly (2) and (3), the preparation

for vocational life and individual development, and cultivation of the

mind is there as well. But clearly the fourth recommendation of

Sullivan in terms of school purposes, moral and civic development, has

just been left out. It's not a serious omission, but I think we would

make this a much better bill if we recognized that omission and added

to it as part of this debate; and the bill will not be hoisted....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Which is the fourth one?

MR. JONES :

The fourth one, according to Sullivan, is moral and civic development,

one of the major goals of education. And that is essentially what we

have before us. What we have before us is recognizing that the school

system has as one of its purposes the need to enable learners to

acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate in a

fully democratic society. I don't know how you read something partisan

into that — it's not. It was there in Sullivan. It was there in

the ministry's own submission to the royal commission. This isn't

exactly the words, but it's not a partisan amendment. It's not intended

to be anything of that nature.

If we read what is there in

the

preamble, when we read it narrowly.... I preface that, because a

narrow

interpretation of what we have there as a

preamble would be that

we merely have as the purpose of our education system in this province

a commitment to individual development in relation to the needs of a

healthy and prosperous economy. The school system, surely, is far more

than that.

I don't know whether members opposite consider

the

preamble important, but I think it is important. It's an important

bill. It's going to be an important act that governs the schools of

this province. I think we can just do a better job on the

preamble.

I'm

pleased that the minister and his colleagues are looking closely at

this amendment now and reading it. I hope they don't see any great

dilemma, any great partisan nature, in this amendment. Often when the

opposition brings amendments to this House they are partisan in nature,

and they have a

[ Page 8018 ]

partisan purpose. This is not one of those occasions.

This is not....

Interjections.

MR. JONES :

Have a look at the orders of the day. I doubt the second member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen) has read the orders of the day. Have a look at

the wording of the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

I thought we had a ruling from the Chair that indicated that was the

only way by which the opposition could bring forward an amendment to

the

preamble of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

Forget about that part. If this amendment is accepted, we proceed with

second reading of the bill. My colleagues are anxious to get on with

second reading.

One of the things I think we all enjoy in

this Legislature is having classes of students visit. Of all the

introductions made in this Legislature, I think the ones the members

enjoy most are when we have classes of schoolchildren come to see the

Legislature in action. When this happens, the Premier smiles broadly,

the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) gets a happy twinkle in his

eye, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) smiles and the Solicitor

General (Hon. Mr. Ree) wakes up. No, I withdraw that. That was unkind

and unfair, and I withdraw that.

It's important that

members of this legislative chamber recognize that when those children

come, they are welcome and we're happy to see them in the seat of our

democratic system in this province. We're happy to have them see the

debate, although sometimes it's embarrassing to have them see it. But

at the same time, it's important that they appreciate the democratic

process in action.

We also are pleased to see them because

we know that on their tours here they get some appreciation of the

history of democratic life in this province, a history of the building

and a history of British Columbia. When they come and we all welcome

them warmly, it's because we recognize what's embodied in this

amendment: that it is important for them to appreciate the knowledge

and skills required to participate fully in a democratic society. It's

clear that they need knowledge. They need the kind of knowledge that I

think members in this chamber have. They need to understand the

concepts of self-government and representative democracy.

enjoy hearing the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I kid him about being

neither fish nor fowl, but he is the only member in this chamber

without a party. Although he's often political, and rightly so, he's

non-partisan, and I think he views the idea in the sense that he does

not represent a particular party.

He views his role here as

we all do, but I think it comes out stronger in his statements as

representing his constituents. I think representative democracy is

reflected well when that member speaks in this chamber. It's one of

those aspects of knowledge that our young people need. It's an

important part of our school system, and it will be there whether or

not we approve this amendment. It is an important part of the knowledge

they need.

They need to know about majority rule, and they

need to know what we in the opposition feel sometimes: the tyranny of

the majority, in terms of de Tocqueville's theory. They need to know de

Tocqueville.

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

Yes, it was de Tocqueville. They need to know about equality before the

law, Mr. Former Attorney-General. They need to know about equality of

political rights, and I think we're all learning something, in terms of

electoral boundaries, the Fisher commission and the McLachlin decision,

about that equality of political rights.

They need to know

about equality of economic and social opportunity and equality of

economic condition. We had a group of women here yesterday that I think

brought that to bear to the opposition and, I expect, to the

government. They were concerned about the minimum wage and about pay

equity for women in this province. That is the kind of knowledge that

our young people need.

They need to understand elections,

our democratic traditions and the free expression of ideas. I know Mr.

Speaker is very concerned about the free expression of ideas in this

chamber, and our young people need to know about that as well.

They

need to know about the importance of the opposition. Often in this

chamber the members opposite don't appreciate that they govern, they

have power, they tax and they determine people's lives in this province

only under the scrutiny of the opposition and the much-maligned fourth

estate. Often we don't like the message, but we all recognize the

important contribution that both the opposition and the fourth estate

make to our democratic system. So that is some of the knowledge that

individuals in our school system need to have. They need to understand

and appreciate the importance of diversity, and something that we need

in this House: to disagree without being disagreeable.

But

that is merely some of the knowledge. More important than that

knowledge of democracy is the part of our amendment that talks about

skills and attitudes. The idea that we have with this amendment, that

suggests that young people acquire the skills and attitudes to

participate fully in a democratic society, is completely consistent

with, I think, the thrust that the minister wants in education and that

Sullivan wanted in education: that our young people need, very clearly,

a capacity for evaluating and utilizing knowledge, in order to consider

public issues from a broad perspective; to develop — and the minister uses this word often, and I think it's a

[ Page 8019 ]

very important one —

critical thinking and problem solving skills that come to bear from

members of the Legislature and particularly from members of the

government side; to be able to weigh alternative solutions, to

distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, to determine the

excellent from the second-rate, to determine the authentic from the

phony and to be able to understand the implications of the solutions

that they suggest to problems.

[4:45]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Greek society, and these

concerns go back as far as Greek society. Plato and Aristotle were

deeply concerned about the relationship between education, democracy

and government and very concerned with the notion that individuals

become better citizens through our democratic process.

know that in China the students in Tiananmen Square were deeply

concerned. I think it would be naive of us to think that their

understanding of democracy was identical to ours; their views of

democracy were clearly important to them — so important, in fact, that

many demonstrated and even died for their unique Chinese version of

democratic principles. Clearly students in