[ Page 769 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings Presenting Petitions –– 769

Members' Statements

Dual elected office. Mr. R. Fraser –– 769

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Blencoe

Planting of seedlings. Mr. Williams –– 770

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Bruce

Tourism industry. Mr. Crandall –– 772

Ms. Edwards

Future of Colony Farm. Mr. Rose –– 774

Hon. Mr. Savage

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 775

Mr. Jones –– 778

Resolution 52 – Reduction of nuclear arms. –– 781

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Harold Mahy from the constituency of Delta. They are strong supporters of ours, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the precinct today are a large number of jazz orchestras and bands from around the world in attendance in Victoria: Banu Gibson from New Orleans; Dixieland Express from Victoria; Noel Crow from Australia; Paco Gatsby from Guatemala; and the Scottish Syncopators from Scotland. The grand master of the jazz festival is our Hon. Claude Richmond. Would the House make them extremely welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned members of the Coquitlam District Teachers' Association opposes the separation of teachers' professional responsibilities and bargaining rights as reflected in the proposed College of Teachers, the changes in the membership, role and duties of principals and vice-principals, and the retention of wage controls over teacher bargaining for another year.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House withdraw Bills 19 and 20.

The petition is dated April 16, 1987, and is signed by Mike Lombardi, president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association; Gordon Wickerson, local association representative, Coquitlam Teachers' Association; and Debbie Gregg, elementary vice-president, Coquitlam Teachers' Association. It represents the same sentiments as 800 accompanying letters. 

Members' Statements

DUAL ELECTED OFFICE

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that everyone in the House understands what the subject is, perhaps I should go a little further than to just say "Dual Office." I meant dual elected office, not dual constituencies, although I would be happy to defend dual constituencies anytime I was given the opportunity to do so, because in fact there are a number of good reasons why we should have them. Nonetheless, we will go on to the holding of dual offices, and I will tell you later what I would like to do.

We'll start by saying: should we permit elected members of this assembly to hold two elected offices at one time, and what are the pros and cons of the arguments that one might put forward to defend or to attack the holding of two elected offices at the same time? Certainly if we're going to argue against that kind of legislation, we might say that it would put an elected person who holds two offices in a position of conflict, or at least of potential conflict, because the school board or the council on which he or she serves might in fact be taking a position contrary to the position of the provincial government.

Before proceeding any further, by the way, I do not wish to cast aspersions on either side of the House, or on any member of the House or any previous member of the House who held dual elected offices, because a number of people have done that. Certainly there are people who have held MLA jobs and MP jobs at the same time, which of course you all know is now not possible; you cannot be an MP and an MLA. If you, as a Member of Parliament, accept an MLA position, your seat in Parliament is voided instantly, presumably because someone felt you couldn't do both jobs well.

So we now have arguments that you should be allowed to hold two offices: if you're on a council and you have access to the Legislative Assembly — either side of the House — you could present your petition on behalf of your council more effectively because you know everybody. You might want to defend it on that basis. Or indeed you might want to defend it because…. You could say: "If I resign one of my elected offices, then indeed it will cost the taxpayers of my region some more money for a by-election." So for the purposes of saving some cash, depending on what amount you or the candidates might happen to spend, you might want to say: "Keep the office; just don't vote on issues that would put you in an apparent conflict-of-interest circumstance."

I think there are a number of arguments that would point to the fact that something should be done with respect to the possibility in B.C. that these conditions remain: that is, that we can hold two elected offices. One is that I think it's important that elected officials devote their full time to one elective office rather than part-time to two. In fact, in certain regions of the province it would be virtually impossible to be able to commute quickly enough or easily enough to be able to go to enough council meetings or Legislative Assembly meetings. So from a physical access point of view, you might not be able to do both jobs well because you could simply not get there.

It's my opportunity today, in a very few words and a short period of time, to suggest to you that while other provinces permit it and while some provinces do not — Ontario does not permit you to be a member of the provincial parliament and a member of a municipal government — it's important for British Columbia to move along and to put forward legislation that does not permit any one person to hold two elected offices. It is my intention to put forward a private member's bill to support that submission, and I would expect to hear a lot of support for this position. The reason I did it in the form of a member's statement was to get some opinions from all of you so that we can put it together so it would serve the best interests of all the people.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In response to the member's statement, although the subject matter was not restricted to holding dual offices as they apply to the municipal level of government only, I would like to comment briefly.

I am very pleased to hear that the member will be putting forward a private member's bill, because I think it's worthy of discussion. It's something that has been vaguely discussed but never really — to the best of my knowledge — thought through thoroughly in order that we arrive at all of the pros and cons of the situation. I can speak from personal experience, as I did hold municipal office and the position of MLA for a very short period of time after my first election to this

[ Page 770 ]

Legislature. I can understand the concern that has been expressed by the member. There were occasions, I believe, and there could be occasions, where you could find yourself in a very confused position as to where your first priority and interest should lie.

I'm very pleased that this subject has been brought up today. As far as my ministry is concerned, it's not something that we have given any great time or thought to, and I look forward to hearing further debate on the subject because I think it is worthy of discussion. It would be interesting to hear opinions from both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker.

[10:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we're extremely pleased to hear that there is some support for this idea that there are some deep problems with holding two offices, municipal and provincial. I have certainly stated a number of times in this House over the years that it is time for some new rules and regulations to deal with this particular issue. I should add that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has included this particular aspect in his conflict-of-interest private member's bill that is currently on the floor of this House.

Our opinion — and we currently do have some members of the government, I believe, still holding municipal offices — is that that is inappropriate. It can lead to some real problems of conflict of interest. I think also that it shows a lack of respect for local government when a member continues to hold a municipal office. In our view, those people at the local level are entitled to full representation. They are entitled to know that that person who has joined the provincial Legislature doesn't get into positions that have to support the provincial government of the day and therefore affect their decision-making at the local level. It might be very difficult for, for instance, a mayor or an alderman when, say, they are dealing with forestry issues to be critical of silviculture management. I would particularly refer to Vancouver Island.

People, I think, want clear rules. They want this laid out, and they want to know that when someone gets elected to this office, they will as quickly as possible resign from municipal office. Now I know that there has to be a reasonable time to resign, but when it stretches to months — and I believe for some members of this House on the government side it is now six months — I think that is totally inappropriate.

We will, depending on what the bill says, of course . . . . Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a good suggestion would be to put this bill to the select standing committee for discussion by all sides so we could get something that is supported by both sides of the House and would reflect the wishes of both parties. We wish it had come from the minister, but we are pleased that somebody on the other side has at long last recognized that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The people of British Columbia will be pleased to see that the holding of both municipal and provincial office is no longer acceptable.

MR. R. FRASER: Just to wrap up, I would like to thank members opposite for their contribution. I would say specifically that I made a point of not mentioning that we have people in the House who presently hold dual elected office, because it has happened on the other side as well. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition held two offices at one time.

If you're arguing time-frames — a month, six months, whatever — we can do that. I would prefer to stay with the impetus of the bill, which is that we should avoid the possibility, regardless of how long the period might happen to be. I would also say that we should make sure it's not a Member of Parliament or an MLA — municipality, school board, parks board, whatever. It should be quick and it should be automatic.

I look forward to debating this with all of you when the moment presents itself.

PLANTING OF SEEDLINGS

MR. WILLIAMS: I hoped that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) would be here today to carry on a most useful and productive dialogue, in which we ask oral questions and he gives written answers after question period. I thought that maybe the statements period might at least be a time when we could carry on this dialogue with this sixth Forests minister in as many months almost. Or is it a year? 

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, what's-his-name.

I raised the question of the trashing of seedlings in the Prince George area just a few days ago. I pointed out that a memo from the regional district manager for Prince George indicated that the likely option was the trashing of 10 million seedlings in the Prince George area because of lack of funding. He said that there were basically two options he faced because of increases in costs and inadequate budget. He said that he held over these seedlings and/or trashed them or stole from other jobs that are very important in terms of tending existing plantations in the Prince George area: that is, site preparation, brushing, weeding and surveys. He said that those activities, brushing, weeding and that sort of thing, were absolutely necessary to the survival of the plantations that were already in place: that is, seedlings that had been planted in previous years. It's as any farmer would know: once you've planted the crop, that's barely the beginning. The tending is the important job. We tend not to do the tending in our tree-farming in this province, unlike our agriculture. We wouldn't have much of an agriculture industry if we handled it like we handled trees. It's also necessary to do site preparation for trees to be planted in 1988.

Basically what the chief forester for the Prince George region was saying was: "Those are our options. Either we don't look after what we planted and we don't prepare for what we're going to plant next year, or we trash the seedlings." Clearly, in terms of a year of hard choices, that was the direction he was going to move in: trashing the seedlings. He said that the bottom line under point 1 — that is, trashing seedlings — is really no different, in a sense, because nature will kill those seedlings if we don't look after them once they're out there in the bush.

So it would be no different, if we burned the ones we've got now, than if we don't look after the ones that are in the ground or prepare for the ones we want to plant next year. In addition, you'd have the losses in terms of your investment in the planting of the previous year and the preparation for next year. Clearly, if you don't trash the seedlings, you're writing off your investment — or much of it — in the previous year's planting. So the options are pretty clear in terms of a rational public policy.

[ Page 771 ]

The minister was asked the question. He then made some unfortunate comments out in the hallway about not responding to "that sucker over there." We'll just dismiss that. I mean, if that's the kind of language that is acceptable in Skeena, so be it. But we'll ask the folks in Skeena about that down the road a mile or two.

AN HON. MEMBER: A thousand days from now.

MR. WILLIAMS: A thousand days from now.

But in the end, the chief forester for the Prince George region said there's really only one solution, and that's additional funds. It's really the only option if they're even going to practise bare-bones silviculture in the Prince George region, as he said.

Just in this last month, the northern division of the Council of Forest Industries has come out with a look at the Prince George region. They point out that 62 percent of our problems in terms of not satisfactorily restocked land in British Columbia are in the Prince George region. A big chunk of that is the heritage, under Mr. Williston, of the special sale area around the city of Prince George, where it was agreed that no forestry would be practised in the immediate environs of Prince George, that there wouldn't be reforestation, that they would essentially mine the forest in hundreds of thousands of acres. That's been the history for 20 years.

We are now reaping the whirlwind in terms of that mining of the forest around Prince George. It now has 62 percent of our NSR problems in British Columbia, but it only gets 30 percent of the money. No wonder the official, the chief forester for Prince George, is saying: "The only option for me is more money in the circumstances that I face in this region." Even under the budget and even with the trashing of the seedlings, only 11 percent of the plantations would be properly looked after in the Prince George region. The COFI people say it should be at a level of 50 to 75 percent. What that chief forester up there is going to have to do now is reduce that 11 percent number in order to keep those seedlings. That's the miserable dilemma he's put in.

The new minister in his written statement — because he isn't willing to get into debate in the House here — has said that all of the 200 million seedlings currently available in the province will be planted. He doesn't say when. We may have giant Douglas firs growing in the greenhouses of British Columbia before they ever get planted. That's why we need a bit of debate, so we could discuss these options in a careful and rational way rather than have one-sentence written answers.

We had hoped, and we've had evidence from this new administration — this partly new, partly recycled administration — that there was a different era in this House, and in some ways we've seen it in aspects of the operations of the Legislature per se, which we on this side are most encouraged by. But when we get evidence like this from the Minister of Forests, we think it's the bad old days again. We would like a positive, cooperative dialogue on this important question of reforestation and silviculture. We haven't got it. Mr. Williston, who was a longtime minister in a former administration, said that there really had only been two hands-on ministers in terms of operating the ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS: We hope for greater cooperation. I'm sure the House Leader might provide it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to speak not as a member of cabinet but as the MLA for Prince George South in response to . . . .

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The minister is in Terrace today looking after the business of the ministry. Growing trees and planting seedlings; Johnny Appleseed and all that sort of stuff.

However, with respect to the member's comments, the minister did file an answer yesterday following question period, and for the benefit of those who haven't read the answer — and the benefit of the member who made the previous statement — I'll repeat the minister's answer. The minister rejects the notion that the trees will be trashed, and says that 200 million seedlings being produced for the season for the forests of British Columbia will all be planted: "My staff are presently reviewing budget allocations for the Ministry of Forests and Lands, and I can assure you that no trees will be trashed and they will all be planted." I think that's an adequate answer.

Further to the member's comment about entering into fulfilling and meaningful debate about the management of the forests, there is every opportunity, Mr. Member; they're called the estimates. I'm sure you're familiar with that process.

MR. WILLIAMS: Always at the end.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you like them earlier? We can arrange that. Sure. Okay, I give you that undertaking as House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Monday'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it won't be Monday, but there will be appropriate time. The member states they're always at the end, but of course it should be remembered that the opposition are allowed to debate to the fullest extent that they wish. If they wish to continue debate on the Minister of Forests' estimates, or any other estimates, they have every opportunity to do so.

However, to the broader question of forestry operations and forestry spending, I think the record of the government is clear. It's admirable for this year. Members can simply look at the estimates book, page 118, vote 35, and see that in the Ministry of Forests and Lands we have gone from $258 million for administration and support services, forests and lands management, to $267 million for the fiscal year '87-88. Those numbers are available to all members, and I would commend them to them. It indicates that British Columbia does have a sincere and abiding interest in proper forest management and proper regeneration and silviculture, and that record stands for itself.

Further, there was some criticism earlier when a previous minister indicated that maybe not every seedling should be planted. That position of the minister was in fact endorsed by the UBC faculty of forests, who indicated that the minister is right; we just can't throw seedlings into the ground. That's not the total answer to proper forest management. More

[ Page 772 ]

research must be done. Seedlings in themselves are not the total answer, and I'm sure the member who has been a minister is aware of that. Programs such as cut and squirt, thinning and spacing, proper herbicides and pesticides, are all appropriate. I think all members should realize that just planting a seedling in the ground is not the total answer to proper forest management.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I reject the claim of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). I think our record is admirable. The Prince George statement has been answered adequately — abundantly and appropriately — by the Minister of Forests, and I'll pass this debate on to another member.

[10:30]

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the discussion take place in respect to the planting of seedlings and, of course, the other aspect that was brought up, the brushing and weeding. All too often when we talk about forestry practices in British Columbia and Canada, the general connotation is replanting, reforestation. But the major aspect that we need to do much more on throughout B.C. and throughout the rest of Canada is indeed the brushing and weeding, similar to how one looks after their carrot patch. We have got to spend more time and more attention in respect to the brushing and weeding and other applications that bring our crop up for that free-to-grow situation.

We have found time and time again throughout the province that people do not understand the difference between the reforestation method of simply planting seedlings in the ground and the method of tending the garden afterwards. I think it's important that this House understand that there is a significant difference. As important as it is to plant the seedlings in the ground, it is equally as important – or perhaps even more so – that we make sure that those little seedlings are brought to the stage where they're free to grow. That of course is when the crop really becomes a full-fledged economic unit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Welcome aboard, members of the Socred back bench. But don't you realize what your minister said? He addressed only the seedling question — only the planting question. He understood the emotional question of trashing 10 million seedlings out there with the broad body politic in British Columbia, so he said they won't be trashed. As a result, he's going to move to a worse option: that is, to not tend, not look after the forests that have already been planted, not prepare for next year. What kind of farmer would ever have survived on that kind of basis? He would have been in the poorhouse, hitting the road. It doesn't work in farming and it doesn't work with tree farming either. Here we have a new minister, and everybody was kind of happy that it was at last a professional forester; but lord, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that he was out there in the bush too long and didn't jump when somebody yelled, "Timber," and we've got the result of some deadwood over there at the moment. I look forward to him participating in the future.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time this morning talking about one of British Columbia's most exciting industries, the tourism industry.

I think it is important in this year after Expo that we recognize the tremendous impact and benefit to the British Columbia tourism industry that Expo had. One of the points that I want to dwell on for a moment is the downturn that many people expected after Expo. I have got some numbers which I think the House and the people in British Columbia would be interested in knowing concerning what has happened in this year after Expo when things were supposed to decline. I want to say that things have not declined in 1987. Here are a few things of interest. The border crossings in 1987 to the end of January are up 7 percent over our Expo year of 1986. The traffic . . . .

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: Border crossings into British Columbia. Traffic in Rogers Pass to the end of February — and that of course is through that wonderful Columbia River riding — is up 34 percent. Air arrivals into B. C. to the end of February are up 23 percent. Ferry traffic to the end of February is up 14 percent, and visits to the Provincial Museum right across the street — which is one of the best museums in North America, I might add . . . .

MR. BLENCOE: Whose riding is that in?

MR. CRANDALL: That just happens to be in the riding of Victoria, but I want to mention that for all but three of the last 37 years it was managed by Social Credit governments.

Revenue to the tourism industry in 1986 was $3.2 billion. We are very hopeful that in 1987 that will remain at $3 billion, slightly down but exceedingly more than it would have been without Expo.

I want to talk for a few moments this morning about some of the positive things that are happening within the ministry, and first of all I want to speak on the benefits that this ministry is going to receive from the combination of culture, heritage and sport now being put into the Ministry of Tourism. That was a decision which has enhanced the Ministry of Tourism's ability to bring revenue into this province, and I think that it is important that we recognize the benefit of that to the industry right across this province.

We now have two objectives, and the objectives are clear. We must now not only improve revenues but also ensure the growth and vigour of the cultural heritage and recreation communities, and we will do that. We are fortunate that the two objectives are not only compatible but mutually interdependent. A success in one area will spur growth in the other. The merger of tourism interests with those of culture and recreation makes good sense.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CRANDALL: I am impressed that a discussion on the positive developments in tourism elicits such response from the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to highlight some of the major concerns in the Ministry of Tourism this year. I first of all want to look at the marketing emphasis and mention how the emphasis this year will capitalize on the legacy of Expo 86. Using the information gathered from the travel patterns of visitors to the world's fair, a range of product-specific offerings have been

[ Page 773 ]

developed, including theme routes, such as the Gold Rush Trail, adventure vacations and cultural urban experiences. I might mention that we just saw one of these cultural urban experiences last night here in the riding of Oak Bay, where the Victoria Dixieland Jazz Party for 1987 was kicked off by the former Minister of Tourism. They were welcomed by the present Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in an extremely successful jazz festival, which has been successful in the past and will become a landmark festival in Victoria. The major event happened last night in the riding of Oak Bay. I want the House and the province to recognize that there will be much benefit from pulling these three facets together into the Ministry of Tourism. I think it's also important for the province to know that while we had over 20 million people here at Expo last year, we asked them questions about what they liked best about British Columbia and why they would come back. Because of that we've developed these theme products that I know are going to be of benefit.

Also, the development side of the Ministry of Tourism is going to have another positive improvement this year and in future years. We are going to be very careful to make sure that resources, financial and otherwise, are used to the greatest advantage so that resources throughout British Columbia can help this industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time is up.

MR. CRANDALL: Let me just conclude by saying . . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is up, Mr. Member for Columbia River. The member for Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS: It's a real pleasure to be talking on tourism, which is obviously the ministry of great dignity and delight. Mr. Crandall has talked about the approach, and I must congratulate him on expanding the magnificent promotional approach of that ministry and actually setting out some of the information that comes out in their promotions so that members of the House might hear it. I'll tell you, otherwise it just goes around and around. Good for you.

It's my pleasure to hear about how great this expansion in tourism is going to be, and how greatly it has expanded in various areas. One thing I think we should be a little bit worried about is the fact that all these expansions may be impacted on negatively — to use the jargon — by fees that are coming along. I think the Provincial Museum, having got going all of a sudden, is going to have fees whacked on it, is it? I think that's a major problem and something that should be put out quite a bit before for people to talk about. It looks like it might be.

Expo, of course, brought a lot of people to British Columbia, and everybody knows that they all said they're coming back. For heaven's sake, let's hope that they do, because we want them all here.

Two of the things they asked for when they were asked why they would come back were a clean and safe environment. That fits in partly with the idea of wilderness tourism and wilderness recreation. According to the people who are involved in that area, there's also a great increase in one of the developing parts of the industry, and it's just on the verge of expanding a whole lot. That kind of thing takes place when you go to areas like the Charlottes. People who go up there want to see something that is natural; they don't want water slides in the Charlottes. I mean, only the otters need water slides in the Charlottes.

There are a lot of other areas in the province that need that kind of development. I think we're going to have to be very careful to see that we are working in concert with some of the other ministries. When we expand the development in the Ministry of Tourism and develop the visitor industry so that people can come to British Columbia, where it's clean and it's safe, we have to make sure that we have the park reserves and wilderness areas. Those are the kinds of things that people who come to British Columbia in families — 60 percent of them come in groups of three — want to see happening.

Of course we do want to see heritage developed as well, and the cultural aspect, which has now gone into tourism. There are lots of projects. As a matter of fact, I can think of . . . . I can't stop counting the number of projects that need funding throughout this . . . .

Interjections.

MS. EDWARDS: Oh, I'm serious. I've got them in my riding, and in other ridings. They need funding. They need to be developed. They need to be developed as part of the actual background of British Columbia. They don't need to have some slot machines in the middle of them, I'll tell you. The kinds of cultural development that we've got do not lend themselves to that sort of thing.

[10:45]

The objectives, I understand, are to improve the income and to expand the cultural and heritage part of tourism. Terrific. I think that when we do expand the cultural and heritage and recreational aspects of the resource that we have, and when we actually make some decisions about some land use planning and where we're going to put that, where we're going to balance off and know that we're going to have resource uses that are exploitive, instead of resource uses that are non-exploitive, then in fact we're going to have some directions to go in.

So in response to the member for Columbia River, I hope we're going to hear that part of the plans in the Ministry of Tourism is that we're going to look for some more land use plans throughout the province.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, in response to comments from my neighbouring MLA, I want to address this point of wilderness tourism for a moment, and to mention that the government has just announced that there's 95 percent agreement on the Height of the Rockies wilderness area, which is in both of our ridings. I also want to mention that the economic spinoffs of this tourism industry are tremendously great. Not only is the tourism industry a major employer in this province; in fact, we are the number one employer in terms of jobs created. Secondly, many of those jobs that are created are for our young people — that's very important.

I also want to mention that the education program the Ministry of Tourism is embarking on in creating the Pacific Rim tourism institute is a positive development. The creation of education programs such as SuperHost and the SuperHost Encore program for 1987 is going to help our tourism industry stay at the forefront throughout North America.

I also want to mention that some very significant programs that are happening in the Ministry of Tourism are because of the many excellent creative people that have been

[ Page 774 ]

hired by that ministry. I can point to things like the SuperHost program, the Encore program, and the marketing and merchandising programs, where, through some of their efforts, we are now directing major marketing approaches to the major markets of California and eastern Canada.

I also want to mention, Mr. Speaker, to my neighbouring MLA from Kootenay that the golf course being developed in the Windermere area is going to provide, I'm sure, more jobs than she mentioned the other day. I look forward to some day when she and I can play golf together in that great East Kootenay riding of British Columbia.

FUTURE OF COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE: Before I start my little talk, I'm really pleased to see the minister's here, because it has to do with the use of land and the preservation of farmland. I take it as an honour that he is here to respond. Certainly I'd like him to know that he will have the full five minutes, and if he needs more than that, we'd be willing to give it to him.

My topic really has to do with the future of Colony Farm. I think that anyone who studies the order paper — probably no more than three Druids, at most, bother with it — will see that I feel that the Colony Farm should not be under BCBC but under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture, where it could be leased out for bona fide farmers, as is Minnekhada, another farm which is owned by the government. As long as it's under BCBC, there'll be constant pressure on that piece of property, which is excellent class 1 and 2 land, for upgrading to, according to some — to quote the real estate people — "higher and better use."

We are extremely fearful of that. It's not an ungrounded fear, because from time to time we hear rumours about it going for a golf course, a racetrack or something like that. The creation of recreational facilities is equally important. The Minister of Tourism, I know, will agree with me there. And the preservation of the things we hold dear …. An island, tranquillity amid an urban sea of chaos, is something worth preserving.

It's not that farmland is not under jeopardy. We know that, for instance, Terra Nova is a big issue: whether that farmland is to be preserved in Richmond. We heard about the golf course in Cranbrook just a minute ago, and the exclusion from the agricultural land reserve. We've heard about Lac la Hache: 250 acres right there on the lake. I'm sure the member for Cariboo will know well about it, how it was taken out of the agricultural land reserve and put into some other kind of zoning; opposed by the regional district, opposed by the cattlemen, opposed by just about everybody, except those people who wanted to take it and flip it and develop it. So it's not something that is not a real bogey. It is a bogey. Since 1974 we have lost something like 7,000 acres a year out of agricultural land, in spite of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about net loss. If you want the exact figures, I've got them here, published by the Agricultural Land Commission themselves. We have gained an inclusion of 68,000 hectares and we have lost 113,000 hectares. Where have we lost them? We've lost them in the Fraser Valley, the Cowichan Valley and the Okanagan Valley.

That's where the pressure is — Salmon Arm and other seasonally advantageous areas. Where have we gained them? We've gained them in the Peace River, the Liard River and places such as that. Eighty percent of the inclusions, as opposed to the exclusions, have been rangeland which was once under Forests or some other jurisdiction. So we haven't really had a net gain; we've had a net loss in good farmland.

Let's get back to Colony Farm. We learned recently, through a flashy brochure, designed to convince councils …. By the way, it was described by Mike Tytherleigh in the best way. I don't know if it's parliamentary, but he described the whole development proposal as "horse manure." I think the mushroom treatment might be better. Anyway, this was about encouraging councils, through such lures as job creation, buildings, UBC involvement — why UBC Health of Animals can't go to Exhibition Park if they want to look at horses, or out to Cloverdale, is beyond me, but they certainly seem to think that they'd like to look at horses at Colony Farm . . . . It's bait; it's lure; it's a carrot.

What I think is going to happen to this is no racetrack at all, hotel, casino or anything else. What's going to happen is that this will be promised to a council, council will agree to go for that particular bait, there'll be pressure to remove it for good — for justifiable economic reasons, not environmental reasons — from the agricultural land reserve, and once it's removed, there'll be no racetrack. There'll be nothing there, except the kind of development that some developer down the road wants. That's what we're concerned about.

All around that hillside, government land was sold above Riverview for up to $60,000 a lot. Why was that land so valuable? It was valuable residential land because, first, it was not occupying any farmland, and second, it overlooked a tremendously tranquil, pastoral vista. Colony Farm has been vulnerable ever since it was closed down by the previous government under the guise of restraint. It hasn't been used — we know that — except minimally; but it hadn't really been used before. We are concerned that this is some kind of a scam to get it out of the reserve; and once it's out of the reserve, all bets are off.

The minister said to the agrologist that he has not approved the exclusion of one parcel of land since he's been minister. I hope he keeps it up. I think it's an astonishing record, and I congratulate him for it. But we should have a structure, not just the protection of valuable land by a benign minister. We need stronger sanctions than that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, to the opposition House Leader, I'd like to say that the first issue I'd like to address is the land reserve itself. We all realize that while we recognize the need for jobs, the need for growth and the need to employ our upcoming generations, with all due respect, we also recognize the need to feed our people. We have that always in our minds. There won't be many humans around if we don't have enough land to produce food to feed them.

But let me go beyond that. I can recollect a prime piece of agricultural land in Delta, once my grandfather's farm and one of the better dairy operations in Delta. That came out of the ALR and is now part of the Tilbury industrial park. But it employed an awful lot of people, and generated a lot of jobs and dollars. That was part of the cost of it coming out.

When we go to Colony Farm . . . . I'd like to address the problem of whether that would in fact have to come out of the ALR — if we even get a formal proposal, which we do not have at this stage. We do not have a formal proposal to

[ Page 775 ]

develop Colony Farm. When it came to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, discussion was based on the fact that there were a number of scenarios. If it was a racetrack, could it be classed agricultural? In Delta, the centre oval of the Patterson Park racetrack is agricultural. It's used as such.

The other thing is the research projects that are talked about by the University of B.C. They have 100 acres or thereabouts. We have stressed for years and years having short-term, immediate-turnover research that would be valuable to the agricultural community. It's absolutely necessary to do that. We have all kinds of long-term research projects across this country, but if we could have short-term research done on the agricultural land at Colony Farm, it would be of benefit to the agricultural community of this province.

The second thing was the veterinary situation you talked about. We do not have a veterinary college in B.C. You were discussing whether where the buildings are wouldn't be a good location for a veterinary college. I think there are some positive aspects to the proposal, but that does not necessarily mean that the agricultural land has to change in its use. The zoning does not necessarily have to change. I think it's important to recognize that if we're going to have future employment opportunities, we have to judge carefully and at the same time keep in mind that we have to feed the people the next God knows how many generations we'll be on this earth — hopefully forever — and we have to provide an opportunity for that land base to provide the food they require.

I think that before that ever comes, and if it ever comes as a formal application, all those matters will be weighed duly and fairly by this House.

MR. ROSE: I just received a clarification for Lac la Hache. The member says it was only 40 acres that were taken out along the lake. I guess it was 250 yards. I'm sorry if I made that mistake, but since the member is so intimate with it, perhaps he'd like to make a speech on that subject sometime as well.

I'd just like to thank the minister for his response and say to him that when this land was first put up for sale I tried to get the federal government and UBC to buy it for an experimental farm, so I'm not opposed to that part of it. What we don't need is a PNE-type racetrack there. And as far as young farmers and the employment of young people is concerned, wouldn't it be nice if young people could earn their living on farms? They certainly can't in this province. He knows that. How many young people? You're not even a generation away from the farm. I'm three generations away from the farm. My kids are four generations away from the farm. So the farm proposal to put it under the Ministry of Agriculture is just wonderful, as far as I'm concerned. We wouldn't object to that at all, but we don't need a hotel, we don't need a casino, we don't need a stupid golf course with a water trap over onto Douglas Island. It's a ludicrous proposal. Even Jack Diamond laughed his sides out when he heard about the racetrack. That's federal racing days. He's got a seven-year lease at PNE. It's a scam; that's what it is. It's an attempt to get it out to lure councils. And that's why we've got an agricultural land commission: because councils couldn't resist such blandishments in the past.

So I'm with the Minister of Agriculture all the way on this one. We want Colony Farm to remain as a farm.

[11:00]

Now just a brief, not very serious point of order. I happened to be looking at rule 47A and I happened to notice that it was designed for the purpose of people who were private members. I would like the Clerks' office and the Speaker's office to have a look at this and determine the intention, to see whether or not a parliamentary secretary such as the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) is actually a private member, or has he, because he is a parliamentary secretary, taken the place in debate of some private member who might wish to debate and use that time.

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader brings up a very good point, and I would recommend to all members, if they haven't yet received their copy of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia's second edition, which has been done by one of our Clerks, George MacMinn, that they take an opportunity of reading it this weekend. It's an exciting book to read . . .

MR. ROSE: If you can't sleep.

MR. SPEAKER: . . . especially if you have a hard time sleeping. I would quote on page 35 of that book, under that standing order that the opposition House Leader mentioned: "For the purposes of this standing order, 'private member' in British Columbia has been interpreted as any member of the House who does not hold cabinet rank, i.e., a member of the government. Therefore 'private member' includes government back-benchers and all opposition members, whether or not such opposition members have 'shadow cabinet' status."

So it has been looked at on page 35, and that would cover . . . . It basically says that anybody who is not a cabinet minister is eligible under this standing order; but if you haven't got your copy yet, the Clerk will be delivering them to all of you.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It indeed is an exciting book, a fount of information.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT 

(continued)

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What I would like to do today is reiterate a bit of what I had said yesterday and expand on some of the other concerns, both correct and incorrect, that seem to be surfacing. I did say yesterday that I was determined to make this legislation as fair and clear as possible, and I'm willing to accept specific suggestions. I might point out that that is one of the reasons that Bill 20 has been brought forward: so that it can include discussions in this House, which up to this point, of course, would have been ruled out of order.

I listened to much of the discussion on Bill 19, and some good points were made. There was good discussion which will illicit further discussion on Bill 20. We had a meeting with staff members from the BCSTA and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They are trying to put together an agenda of topics to be discussed where the legislation can be improved, where blemishes can be removed, where unintended items can be corrected or omissions can be corrected. That group is

[ Page 776 ]

now making a recommendation on topics and there will be scheduled meetings to further discuss the legislation while we're discussing second reading of Bill 20.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In some respects, to this point I've received some very good suggestions. I'm expecting many more, and I can assure the House at this point that there will be some amendments to the legislation. They will be brought forward when we put the package together, because, as people familiar with legislation know, so many things interrelate and affect some other areas, and the ramifications all have to be sorted out.

I did say that the government had responded to the requests of both the teachers and the school trustees. After numerous discussions that I had with both organizations, their executives, many school boards, many parents and many teachers — with just about anyone that would talk to me about education — we've responded with some of the fundamental principles that I think are sound and will make for a much better education system in the province.

One of those fundamental principles was full bargaining rights for teachers in line with every other group in our society. In that respect there was also divided opinion among the teachers about whether they wanted full bargaining rights including the right to strike — whether that was by discussions with me or by votes they held in the past — so I felt it was imperative that they be given that choice. This legislation puts the emphasis on giving them that choice as an association.

The other point that was made repeatedly, and is actually what officially is supposed to be happening now, is the primacy of the local association and its board to do the bargaining with each other as employee group and employer, and that has been provided. We also saw that there should be adequate separation between the professional functions of teachers, that they be given the professional choice to deal with professional matters as distinct from the collective bargaining process, and that has been recognized here. The B.C. Teachers' Federation very strongly made the point that they wanted professional control by their own members over their own members — the qualifications, standards and disciplining of their members. This has been provided.

It's rather interesting to hear some of the concerns that are being expressed. Basically I just have the media reports, but it seems to be that they are saying that the government plans to use the College of Teachers act to get rid of teachers that the government doesn't like. I don't know how that interpretation came about, because the College of Teachers will be run by elected representatives from the teachers' organization. The judgment will be made by their own peers who have been elected by their members. The government will not have any role in trying to deal with whether or not a teacher shall go. There is quite a bit of due process in there. For instance, I don't want to get into clause-by-clause, but one of the other criticisms has been that any three members on that college can, in effect, lift the teacher's certification in this province. The point that hasn't been made is that all you have to read is the second part of that sentence in the legislation, which says only with the consent of the member; if the member does not consent, then it has to go to the full council and the full due process kicks in.

Some of these distortions or misunderstandings that have been put out there have given teachers unnecessary concerns.

If anybody should have any trepidation about whether or not teachers' representatives are going to deal appropriately with disciplining their own members, perhaps it should be me. I find it appalling that the teachers' organizations — some of them or some of their leaders — are saying that they are concerned that their members aren't going to treat them fairly. I really have difficulty understanding that.

The case being made for the separation of principals and for the separation of the professional role has probably been made by some of the BCTF activities over the last year better than I could make it. Their own code of ethics says that a privileged relationship exists between students and teachers and must not be exploited to private advantage. I don't know whether increases in salaries for teachers fall under the heading of private advantage, but the work-to-rule of the past year — and you could read that anywhere in the literature — was basically: "Unless the board makes a better salary offer, we are going to withdraw services." So they have made the case, in effect, much better than I can.

Even today, I believe, the BCTF executive is meeting, as I understand, to decide whether or not principals will be authorized to stay in the schools if they have a walkout. The principals are managers of those schools. If the teachers don't show up, say on an illegal work stoppage, the principal has the necessary authority to stay there in the school to make sure that the students are safe and that they will be sent home only when there is somebody there to receive them — to make all those sorts of arrangements. Here we have the BCTF executive, a small group at the BCTF office, about to meet to decide whether or not principals will be authorized to stay in the schools. If anything makes the case for the excluded role of the managers, that makes it better than any words that I could use.

The other thing, of course, is that I have talked to many teachers who did not want to work to rule. They did not want to quit coaching a team; they did not want to quit some of the activities. But they felt that because of their compulsory membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation, if they didn't listen to those instructions they would be punished; they could be kicked out of the BCTF. That was their concern, and that concern has been expressed to me and is being expressed to me now by teachers: "If I choose to go to work next Tuesday, can you protect me by making sure that I retain my right to teach in this province, which at the moment means compulsory membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation?" Those are some of the concerns expressed.

This legislation is not against the B.C. Teachers' Federation. This legislation is for teachers and for students in this province. Any local association, by choice and not by compulsion, can now continue to support the BCTF, a provincial organization, to whatever extent they wish. Surely that should not be that great a concern. That decision has to be made locally. Many decisions have to be made locally.

In the presentation to the Minister of Labour, appendix A was made . . . . I could go through the whole thing, but the basic headings are that what if teachers wanted, when they made that formal presentation, the right to have fair employee bargaining procedures for teachers set in legislation. That's exactly what this legislation does: the right to collectively bargain with school boards teachers' terms and conditions of employment – full bargaining rights. That is exactly what this legislation provides. The general right to negotiate the terms and conditions of teachers' employment. Other things like teachers' rights as employees, seeking full collective

[ Page 777 ]

bargaining rights for B.C. teachers, coverage under the Labour Code and access to its procedures. That's there, by choice. Because some teachers didn't want it, we have given them the choice. They have that choice to make at a local association level.

[11:15]

And this one: "That collective bargaining continue to be conducted between local school boards of school trustees and local associations of the BCTF." That's where we have put the power for the bargaining, and that is presumably where the power lies now. "That the local association of teachers be required to elect whether or not an unresolved bargaining dispute will be resolved by arbitration or by withdrawal of services." That choice has been provided in this legislation. "That the BCTF seek to maintain fair pension protection in the framework of the teachers' pension act." I only mention that because the pension thing isn't included in this. The teachers' pension act is a separate act which has been left. So there's no change in the pension. You can go through all of that: local bargaining, choice mechanism. They specified time-lines in that presentation. The only thing we haven't included is time-lines; we think those can be discussed.

One of the other things is that they have more professional control over their members. That has been provided. I've mentioned that the college does have due process, and that it is by their own elected representatives. I have mentioned that the due process is there. A lot has been made of 30-day notice. Ever since I've been teaching, a board could give you 30 days' notice at the end of June. In the legislation it clearly says that the board must state the cause. If the teacher challenges that, they have to have a hearing by the board under the association route. Under the union route, of course, that can all be worked out in the collective agreement and is subject to all of the rights and privileges that anybody has under the Labour Code.

If people choose to form an association, they have the due process there; if they don't accept this, the reason for dismissal has to be mentioned. If that reason is not acceptable, the teacher can have a meeting with the board to insist that the board show that the cause is legitimate. If he doesn't accept that, the teacher can then appeal to the minister, and the minister shall — not may, but shall — appoint a board of reference. One of those people is nominated by the teacher, one by the school board — since those are the two parties involved — and the chairman is selected by them. The only place where the minister kicks in is if they can't agree on a chairman, or if they can't agree on a board of appeal. There always has to be something. What if these steps don't work? In that respect there has been so much emphasis on the final process, the strike, all of these things. There's an awful lot of mediation and consultation and everything else that's incorporated between that.

The biggest emphasis right now is by the teachers to please delay this bill. I have to wonder what they want delayed. We have granted full bargaining rights. Is it full bargaining rights that they want delayed? We have taken away the increments as part of the salary increases under the compensation stabilization program. This is part of the package — it flows as a package. Do they want the increments back in there? Do they want that delayed? We are removing the CSP. Granted, it's being phased in, so I can see their impatience; it should happen this year. But it's definitely going. Is that what they want put on hold, what goes with this package? Do they want put on hold the local association bargaining vehicle? Is that what they want delayed? Do they want that taken out? Do they want professional control of their members? Do they want that rejected now?

You have to keep in mind too that the B.C. Teachers' Federation said, even before this legislation was introduced at their annual general meeting, that they were going to initiate escalating job action which could result in the right to withdrawal of services before the end of this school year. Why? In order to get full bargaining rights, removal of CSP — all of the things that are incorporated in the legislation. So they were threatening these activities in order to get what we have given them. They asked for full bargaining rights. Now they're saying: "But we want this left in the act, we want this left in the act, we want this left in the act." If I take three or four of their suggestions, and three or four suggestions that might be some reluctance on the part of the government to grant these rights, we could take pretty well all of these principles out of the bill and be back to where we are and delay the process.

The other thing they've said since the legislation was introduced is that they are going to escalate job action until the government withdraws these bills. I have offered full consultation on clarifying or improving the legislation, and consultation is going on and will go on. But what are we to do then? Delay this in order to allow escalating job action, including withdrawal of services, work to rule, all of these things on a prolonged basis, when the public is sick and tired of the kids being punished for what the teachers want? I did say yesterday that we teach by example as well as by what we say and what we put in the hands of the students. When I was a teacher many years ago I said — and I still maintain it — that if you use certain tactics to get your way, if you don't like something and you use illegal procedures to achieve that, then as saddening as it is, we can't expect the students not to pick up by example and try to use some of that. Sadly enough, some of these things are happening.

One of the things that is being threatened is graduation exercises. I can assure you that if a student has been in school for 12 years, he is entitled to graduation exercises. There are enough professional people there, regardless of all of this other stuff, that they'll go ahead with the graduation exercises, and I'll make every effort to make sure that those students who have gone through that will be entitled to those rights.

Consultation goes on. What are we to do? Delay in order to provide greater and continued job action — which was already threatened before the legislation was ever introduced, in order to achieve what the legislation provides? These are the sorts of difficulties I'm having. I've said: "Let's talk about it. Where do you think it doesn't go far enough? Where do you think it goes too far?" This sort of thing. It's wide open; we'll talk about anything. But I don't think that with everything that has happened we can turn around and say that the basic principles of this legislation — the separation of the professional arm . . . . I think the teachers when they govern themselves professionally can do that job.

As we give them more union rights, if you like, we also have to have the excluded personnel, which is true in any employee organization, and this is an employee organization as well as a professional organization. So we're saying you can have that.

These are the things that we have provided. The basic principles of the bill, as I have said, were well considered, for good reasons, and can stand. As I concluded yesterday, I am

[ Page 778 ]

convinced that the concepts in this legislation will serve the best interests of the students, of the parents, of our society in this province, and the education system. I've also said, and I reiterate, that I think with a proper look at this and without any good will — and there is plenty out there — this legislation can work to the betterment of the total education system and the teaching profession in this province. I would hope that all members of this House can eventually support this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North and has been notified that he is designated speaker.

MR. JONES: Before I get into my discussion in principle of Bill 20, I would like to make some introductory comments on the timing of the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's very exciting being in opposition — particularly exciting yesterday. When the government controls the legislative agenda, you never know from one day to the next what kind of thing is going to be happening, and all kinds of surprises can occur. This was to me a quite unexpected introduction of second reading of Bill 20.

While the minister was introducing this bill yesterday for second reading, there was a meeting going on, I think a very important meeting. It was a meeting of officials from the BCTF, from the BCSTA and from the Ministry of Education. At 5:30 yesterday these formal meetings were still going on and, in fact, surprisingly they continued last night. The problem that I have with the introduction of this bill at this time is that the Premier said: "If strikes are threatened, I will push through this legislation more quickly than originally planned." Last week the threat of such an action was postponed by the teachers in light of these kinds of talks. Because talks were underway, because it looked like the door was opening for some meaningful consultation on this matter, that threat was at least postponed until it was evident that these talks were going to be meaningful.

Yesterday officials did meet on a discussion of agenda, and I'm very pleased that the minister reports that there are areas that are agreed upon, and there is an opportunity for movement and discussion. I very much welcome his comments that he is interested in seeking true consultation and opportunity for amendments to this legislation. Certainly nobody wants the threat of the sword of Damocles hanging over anybody's head during negotiations. The sword of Damocles on the government's part was the introduction of this bill, and on the part of the teachers in this province it was the protest and the job action that they had democratically voted on and were planning to institute but postponed.

I was very surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the introduction of this legislation in the midst of those kinds of talks. I think the postponement by the teachers was very much appreciated by everybody in this province. Certainly I appreciated it. I'm sure the minister appreciated it. The parents and the children and the school trustees all appreciated that postponement. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they equally don't appreciate the introduction of this bill when such talks are going on.

I think we have learned that these kinds of discussions are very sensitive. They're very important because, as the minister says, they affect the lives of the children of this province. The success of those talks depends upon the sensitivity of government. They don't need the heavy hand. They don't need these signs. What are the signals being sent? I can't see any other signal by the introduction of this legislation at this time — when the minister talked about bringing it up as a threat — other than a sign of bad-faith bargaining and a return to confrontation.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I want those talks to succeed, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to inflame this situation; and I'm very saddened that the introduction of second reading at this time, I think, does just that. I don't think anybody wants to inflame this situation, and I don't think we want to see the kind of war language that we often see in the media. I'm surprised that there weren't headlines this morning — I guess, because of the lateness of the introduction of the bill — that would talk about preemptive strikes and declarations of war and dropping a bombshell in the midst of negotiations. I don't think we want that kind of language; and yet I'm surprised that that's the kind of procedure that I think the minister has invited. I think we want those talks to be fruitful and we want them to continue.

I must express my disappointment at the insensitivity of government in introducing this bill for second reading at this time. I can't imagine the mentality of government. Surely there must be other important legislation that could have been dealt with. We have many bills, estimates and other important pieces of legislation to discuss in this House. To bring in this bill at this time totally confounds me. It does not make any common sense. If we had picked a time – any day, any month, any session in the remainder of this government's mandate – we could not have picked a worse day than yesterday to introduce this bill. It makes about as much common sense as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. What we have is not only poor legislation — and I'm pleased that the minister is inviting amendments — but it's most poorly timed, and I think it's indicative of a poor government.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, although my role in this House is a role of opposition, I don't see my role as just to oppose. I see that my role is also to praise government; and I've demonstrated that I'm quite prepared to do that. When the minister brought in his proposal on early retirement, I certainly praised the minister not only for the product because it was both fiscally sound and educationally sound but also for the process that brought forward that product. That was one of true consultation with all parties in education involved to bring about a sound early retirement program. So I am prepared to praise the government, but I find it very difficult in this situation.

But I do agree with the minister when he speaks of the importance of the schoolchild in considering this legislation and that that perspective be paramount. I'll even give the minister the benefit of the doubt that he believes in that concept as passionately as I do. My role in this Legislature, I think, is to defend those children. The history of this province has been that those children need defending from attacks by Social Credit governments, in a series of attacks by this government and previous governments to the education system in this province. My 20 years of adult life has been dedicated to this end. Certainly a major portion of my working hours and non-working hours has been committed to this objective. It's precisely for that reason, for the schoolchildren of this province, that I oppose this bill in the strongest possible terms, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have to try to decide on a framework in which to view this legislation. There are three contexts in which I

[ Page 779 ]

would like to discuss this bill: the historical context, a Canadian context, and in the context of children of British Columbia. If we do look at Bill 20 in the context of the child and ask what it holds for the children of this province or what it holds for my child in the future . . . . I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that parenthood is new to me. My wife and I had our first child shortly after the last election, and that experience was a tremendous test for us: our baby was very colicky; he slept very little in the day; he was in pain a good deal of the time. We decided that that child was not going to be alone and in discomfort. And we committed ourselves that he would grow up in a secure and a loving environment, so that he can be everything that he possibly can be, so that he can achieve his potential. I know I'm not unique as a parent; I'm sure all parents share those sentiments. I think we all share those sentiments as well for our school system.

We want a school system in which the organization of human relationships is treated with sensitivity. Very central to those relationships is the relationship between the teacher and the student. But there are other relationships that are important as well: the ones between the teacher and the parent, between the teacher and the principal, between the teacher and the superintendent and the school board, and also between the teacher and the government and the public at large.

I think we want to nurture and strengthen that central relationship and really believe in the Latin phrase in loco parentis — in place of the parent. We want that relationship to be a loving one, to express the central theme of caring and nurturing. I think we in the Legislature, and everybody involved in the education system, have a responsibility to maintain and nurture and foster that central relationship.

That relationship can easily be strained. The demands of that role are particularly challenging. The energy of young people in our province today and in the school system puts tremendous strains on that relationship. That relationship has to carry on for that teacher day in, day out, year in, year out for 25 or 30 years, or whatever the length of career might be. We have a tremendous responsibility to nurture that relationship. I think you could imagine the strains of being a designated speaker day in, day out, year in, year out for an entire career. As legislators you perhaps appreciate that analogy. Certainly I'm feeling the pressures of being the designated speaker today.

We have a tremendous commitment, not only to nurture that relationship but to do so in order that we maximize the potential of those young people that we care so much about in our families and that we should care about equally as much in our school system. To have that relationship of one individual teacher with 20, 25, 35 or, in some cases, as many as 250 young people in their charge . . . . We must be diligent in protecting that relationship.

All of the other relationships that go on in and outside of the school system impact on that central relationship. The relationship of teachers with their colleagues — to have that relationship take place in an environment that, rather than being one of controversy is one of educational thought and focusing on the educational needs of students, rather than on the current strife with the government . . . . We don't need disruptions in that relationship; we don't need an adversarial system in this province. I think as members of this Legislature we learn from each other, and that happens in the school system as well. That's an important relationship, and should be nurtured.

That relationship should be one that is mutually uplifting, and students benefit most when that relationship happens in a positive climate, not one of confrontation. Students benefit most when teachers are growing in that supportive environment.

All of those relationships are important. The relationships with principals are important. Certainly it's a superordinate-subordinate relationship; certainly the principals do have a supervisory function. But just as children grow best when that relationship is a supportive one rather than a bossy one, teachers function and grow best when they have a supportive relationship with their principals; when they share goals, and that goal is the best interests of the students. When teachers function best in a close working relationship, students function best as well.

The relationship between the superintendent and the board . . . . Students are also impacted by this relationship. When the employer, the school board, shows that it values the teachers in its system, that it cares about them, that it respects them, then the students benefit by that kind of relationship as well.

What we see in this province at this moment is at least 20 boards expressing tremendous concern about this bill. They want to see it delayed, and these are school boards that the minister says got everything they wanted. They want to see a broader consultation process take place with this legislation — at least 20 boards. We see the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association performing a very productive role, a conciliatory role, trying to bring the teachers and this government together to work harmoniously to solve these problems that exist in the school system, to try to amend this legislation to make it workable. I think the students can only benefit as well with that kind of role played by school boards in this province.

The relationship between government and the public — and I put those two together because public opinion is very strongly shaped by government . . . . Certainly government has the most powerful opinion-making apparatus in this province, and it has a powerful effect on the relationship between teachers and students. It has a powerful effect on the climate in schools, and on the potential for a positive influence on the teacher-student relationship or damage to that relationship. I'm pleading for a greater sensitivity on the part of government, so that that relationship is nurtured and not damaged. The school system is a complex web of relationships between all the major parties. It's not a factory that produces widgets. It thrives on trust and support. It doesn't thrive on the controversy, confrontation and disruption that I think we're seeing.

What does Bill 20 do for the school system? What does it do for those relationships? What does Bill 20 do for the students of this province? All I've seen it do is inject controversy and confrontation. It pits government against teachers. It pits members of society against teachers. Bill 20 alters the relationship between boards and teachers. It alters the relationship between principals and teachers. It pits teachers against teachers. I've heard conversations in staff rooms in the last few months, and they're not on the needs of the students and their care but on trying to figure out Bills 19 and 20, and I think that's an unproductive use of those teachers' time. Rather than sharing their experiences for the benefit of the children of this province, they're again being injected into a controversial environment.

[ Page 780 ]

This bill is a dangerous experiment. It has long-range implications for the school system and for the students in that school system. I see it offering students nothing but more confrontation, more controversy and more jeopardizing of those very sensitive relationships that have endured tremendous hardships in recent years.

Bill 20 has to be considered in the context of those relationships and how they impact on children. It's a tremendous responsibility and a real challenge for this government — a challenge for any government and a real opportunity to be sensitive, to be caring and to try to develop a climate that's not disruptive and deliberately provocative, and does not damage the school system further. I see this legislation dividing teacher against teacher, making factory-style bosses out of principals and making the powers of school boards to destroy the careers of teachers quite frightening. I don't think anybody wants to harm these relationships deliberately, but that is the impact of this legislation. It's not in the best interests of children in this province. I really think that the government should take the advice of those 20 boards I mentioned and reconsider this legislation, and do what the minister said in his introductory remarks about there being a full public discussion of this legislation.

We not only have to look at this legislation in the context of the schoolchildren of this province, but I think we also have to look at it in terms of the Canadian context. British Columbia does not exist in isolation. It is one of the ten provinces. Ours is one of ten provincial governments, and those ten provincial governments work with 220,000 schoolteachers in this country. Mr. Speaker, if you imagined a flight across this country and envisioned the ten capitals below and the school systems that operate with those provincial governments, I think you'd see almost complete consistency with respect to the structures of teachers' organizations and the collective bargaining rights that those teachers' organizations operate under. In no province in Canada do we see the separation of the professional role of teachers and the economic role of their organizations. There are unitary organizations in every other province in this country. No other province saw the need for such separation. These provinces have had full collective bargaining rights for years, and those bargaining rights included principals, whom we see being removed with this legislation. British Columbia is unique in terms of this division — the lobotomy of the left brain and the right brain of teachers' organizations. It exists nowhere else in Canada, and it does not have to exist in this province, despite the supposed rationale of the minister.

[11:45]

In all but one province, principals and vice-principals belong to the same units as the teachers' organization. They are together. They work collegially. They have common interests in the best education being provided for the students in their provinces. In all but one province we see no need for such separation. Why does it have to be so in British Columbia? Why do we have to have a separation of the professional side and the economic side? Why do we have to have a separation of principals and teachers? It doesn't exist, by and large, in any other province in Canada. Why is B.C. so different? What is so unique about British Columbia?

As well, in no other province do we see a college of teachers as is being proposed here. In that imaginary flight we would not see a single college existing in this country. There were two jurisdictions — Alberta under Premier Lougheed, Ontario under Premier Davis — that thought, following a ministers of education conference in 1981, this might be a positive way to go. They found that it was not the desired route of the teachers, and in both of those provinces the governments had the wisdom to withdraw that legislation. They recognized that that legislation cannot be imposed; it cannot operate successfully without the consent, the support, the agreement of teachers in that province. That's why B. C. is again unique.

I do not understand why British Columbia has to be the only province in Canada that has a college of teachers. It was no accident, when we look at this bill in the Canadian context, that leaders of teachers' organizations from every province and territory in this country were present in this House on that day. They're watching this legislation very closely. They know that this province has the potential to do good for school systems or do evil for school systems. They're very concerned about the introduction of this college. This government has created a national concern about the College of Teachers. The teachers' organizations of every province and territory across Canada are watching very closely what we're doing here. B.C. teachers want to be part of the Canadian context. They're tired of being singled out and treated differently, and I don't understand why it happens in this province.

Wise governments of all political persuasions have found ways of working with their teachers. Let's put British Columbia back on the map in education. Let's make it part of the Canadian context. Let's find ways of working with our teachers and getting all parts of the education system to work together, to cooperate, to achieve consensus. The Canadian context tells us that Bill 20 is inappropriate. It does not fit in the Canadian context. British Columbia is not unique; it's part of Canada. And if we look at this bill in terms of the Canadian context, just as we looked at it in terms of the context of the child, then I think the only conclusion would be that it's necessary to withdraw this legislation to give it the opportunity for full public consultation; to do something with it that allows an opportunity for people to work together in harmony and not create the division and diversity that this bill does.

A third, and a very important, context in which to look at this legislation is the historical context. In this respect British Columbia is unique. The history of education in this province is, I believe, unlike any other in Canada. I think we have to look at Bill 20 in terms of the backdrop, the stage on which this legislation is being set. Look at the last ten years of education in this province, and there are members of this House on both sides who have been school trustees in the last ten years. I think we're part of that history, a history described in some books as school wars. If we look to the late '70s under the ministership of Dr. McGeer, I think we see the beginnings of bad times in education in British Columbia, the sowings of seeds that do not bode well for the future that we face today. Those were the days when we saw the beginnings of teacher-bashing, and I think Dr. McGeer relished that role, and tried to impart that attitude to the public with the introduction of such mistrust mechanisms, such external examination mechanisms, as the core curriculum and PLAP. But even in those days, Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere, the climate or the attitude in education in British Columbia survived those onslaughts fairly well. It was not a totally divisive period. There was progress. In the late seventies a number of programs were introduced that were in the best interest of children — quality programs that benefited students.

[ Page 781 ]

What you have to do if you look at the historical context is try to put yourself in the place of the teacher, the teacher who is looking to adults, as the minister says, for leadership — and we see six Ministers of Education in seven years, starting with Dr. McGeer and ending with the current minister. In that period we see a tremendous number of changes to the school system. We see five major studies or proposals, every one altering relationships, changing course, moving directions and changing curriculum.

One change that the previous government made was the introduction of consumer education as a compulsory course in our school system. It was a tremendous, upsetting kind of thing to give consumer education — which is a valuable part of the curriculum — the status of a compulsory course, the same status as English, mathematics or social studies, injecting it, without the preparation of teachers, into a system that was already crowded with demands. As a teacher in that system you have to imagine yourself continually being buffeted by these kinds of things in the recent history of education in this province.

In the last couple of years we went from a major study, "Let's Talk About Schools," to the Sullivan commission. Confusion has reigned in our school system in the last few years.

You are aware of the changes in the financing and the changes to formulas that have existed for school boards and for the education system in this province in the last five years — another tremendously upsetting process. It was upsetting to the participants in the system and to the relationships. Those people who were on school boards during that period . . . . I think there was one period over a year where as school trustees we produced something like 20 budgets. When we're talking about $60 million budgets, we're talking about a tremendous effort in human energy and time, and a tremendous amount of confusion with the goalposts being changed and the rules being altered to create chaos, havoc, mistrust and problems that ultimately affect the children of the province.

We saw all kinds of bills introduced. We saw the Education (Interim) Finance Act and the Compensation Stabilization Act. In October `82 we saw Bill 89 introduced by the current Premier, which closed schools for six days, and the loss of six non-instructional days for teachers and the lengthening of the school day. We saw the Sager commission in 1983. We saw a whole restraint package following that — a restraint package that turned the education system in this province upside down. We saw Bill 3, firing without cause in the public sector. We saw Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Act. We saw Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Act, which the minister says is on its way out. The main feature of that was the ability to pay being the paramount factor in the consideration of arbitration awards, which still remains. We saw a tremendous chaos in the stage on which this bill is being set, probably ending with the firing of two school boards in this province.

British Columbia is unique in its history. But you know, Mr. Speaker, the recent history has not been like that. We saw a change of Premiers last year which gave hope to this province for its education system. We saw promises that appeared so sincere, about the desire for cooperation — an end to confrontation and development of consensus. We saw this being a major issue in the last provincial election. We saw a hope developing in the public school system. It was quiet.

There was no controversy. There was no change. There was no chaos there such as we've seen previously.

The stage on which this legislation is being set is a long period of chaos and confrontation. We saw the briefs to the Labour minister, unprecedented I would think in British Columbia history, where the employer and the employee groups submitted virtually identical briefs to the Labour minister on the teacher collective bargaining process in this province.

The signs of hope for the future were there. We had a backdrop of five years of confrontation and chaos, and then all of a sudden a period of hope. After all this time, with that hope being there, now we see Bill 20 being introduced right in the middle of negotiations.

I think if we have learned one thing in this province in the last ten years, we have learned that confrontation doesn't work. If we care about our school system and the children in that school system in this province, then I don't think governments have to bludgeon. They don't have to use the heavy hand. They don't have to even impose. And they certainly don't have to ram down the throats of people in the school system. There are constructive alternatives. There is the ability to work together for the good of children in this province. There is the ability to try some positive cooperation, as we did in the early retirement incentive plan. There is the opportunity for everybody to not only respect the right of government to govern, but to have that government respect the rights of the parties, to give them full opportunity for consultation and to try to achieve consensus as a result of that meaningful consultation.

I can't believe that the government sincerely believes that the people with whom we trust the lives of our young people are impossible to work with, and yet that is the message that we get by the introduction of this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some other business in the Legislature at this moment, so I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[12:00]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by agreement I am going to call resolution 52 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and discuss that. It's timely today in view of the march for peace that is happening tomorrow, I understand, in Vancouver and probably throughout other cities and communities in our province.

The resolution is: "Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the horrors of nuclear war and holocaust, and urge all world governments to increase their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally eliminate nuclear weaponry."

We must recall that 42 years ago this August 6, in 1945, the world witnessed the beginnings of a new and terrifying era, which perhaps could be the beginning of the end of a civilization, at that time employing a nuclear device with its purpose to win and terminate a world war. But it was not until many years after that explosion, that event, that it began to register with people as to what really had been done and what had been set in motion and just how and when — if, indeed its frightening and frightful consequences could ever be checked.

[ Page 782 ]

In general terms, people of the world have divided essentially into three camps or some combination of each on this issue: those who are convinced that everyone eventually will be destroyed through the use of nuclear weapons; those who believe no one would ever be insane enough to initiate a thermonuclear conflict; and those who believe that every effort has to be expended to end the nuclear arms race and reduce to eventual elimination all nuclear weaponry.

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious concern to all citizens of the world. One hates to be glib on a serious subject, but if we recall a comment by the former Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Garde Gardom, he said that it's like two men standing in a pool of gasoline. One has five matches, one has six matches, and they're fighting over who has the most power.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think we have some optimism, particularly in the last year with negotiations we and the world have watched. We are introducing this motion at a time of increasing optimism in the arms question. Both the U.S.S.R. and the United States have begun to adopt new attitudes of conciliation in key areas, and we have seen progress begun in both short-range and intermediate-range missile talks. At such a time, we as Canadians have a tremendous opportunity to assist in the successful conclusion of these negotiations by contributing responsibly, using our strengths as a nation and as a people. Canadians hold a great deal of respect in world forums for our calm and reasoned moral suasion. Through resolutions such as the one before us today, our voice can be added to those of all individuals throughout the world calling for a better peace.

Recognizing that the imbalance in conventional forces is a factor that cannot be overlooked in reaching the goal we all desire, the elimination of the nuclear threat to ourselves and to the human race, we cannot stop in our search for alternatives. The creativity and ingenuity of our species for peace as well as war must be greater advanced and cultivated. We should not forget the lessons of history, but at the same time we must clearly understand the unprecedented threat to humanity's survival as humanity. The government of British Columbia welcomes signs of new and innovative proposals to deal with the critical question of verification, which is a necessary requirement for the negotiation of a meaningful treaty, and it is with pride that we understand that the federal government has become a leading nation on this vital question.

British Columbians in their thousands have demonstrated repeatedly and will continue to demonstrate, as tomorrow will no doubt indicate, how vitally concerned we are with the preservation of humanity and the reversal of the nuclear arms race. We applaud their sincerity and their courage. The race we must all enter is the race for peace. This is a call to and from all the people of goodwill and righteousness of purpose in every country right across the globe. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move the motion.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased to rise and second the motion. I'm sorry that my response won't be clothed in such elegant language as the hon. government House Leader's, but I wasn't aware that the matter was likely to come up this morning. But I think it's appropriate that it does. I'll speak very briefly, because my colleague from Victoria would like to have a few words as well.

I echo the minister's statements on the optimism that appears to be in the atmosphere today in talks between the Americans, the Russians and the European allies of each about reducing the medium-range missiles in Europe. It seems the height of lunacy to have nuclear warheads numbering in the tens of thousands, enough to kill us all 45 times; once would be enough for me. The threat of nuclear holocaust is certainly disturbing to children, and there have been recent psychological studies showing that many of them are extremely fearful. This perhaps leads to more than frustration — hopelessness, as a matter of fact.

We're reminded that even low levels of nuclear contamination can cause permanent injuries and cancer. We know that veterans of the Canadian Chalk River spill . . . . I suppose the most celebrated one is Bjarnie Paulson, who has his body maimed and his life shortened because of working around even a low-level nuclear plant. We don't really know what the outcome will be from such accidents as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island — or even from Hanford, which is just to the south of Spokane.

We are concerned about it. We do believe that there should be a nuclear-free zone. We're disturbed that Star Wars, which is being mooted as a protective device against an attack by America's enemies, will only stimulate a further arms race, and we hope that isn't going to happen. We hope that someone is going to talk a little sense into the American President, who feels that perhaps a nuclear war could be winnable.

Mr. Speaker, this is very much like Motion 2, which is standing in the name of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He calls on us to resolve "that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia request the Canadian government to urge the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in the name of all humanity, to intensify their efforts to achieve mutual and verifiable nuclear arms reductions through the Geneva negotiations." We echo that here. Motion 52 did that, because we know that regardless of the passion we indulge in, our debates on education or labour or finance or anything else are really meaningless if there's no tomorrow.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a great honour and privilege to stand this morning and support, along with my colleague on this side and the government House Leader, this resolution. I don't think there is any question that this is the number one issue facing not only British Columbians and Canadians, but the entire world. There is no other greater issue today. We are, I suppose, talking about the very survival of our world as we know it. I think all of us recognize, too, that people in all countries feel extremely frustrated when they see that their governments seem to be out of step with the desire of the world. Many times there are issues that governments take a position on that they feel are in the best interests of society or the world. We constantly see in this issue people by the millions expressing the desire for world peace and nuclear disarmament, yet for various reasons we continue to arm and get bigger and bigger, and the ability to obliterate our world becomes larger.

I think it's extremely important that those powerful decision-makers at long last start to hear the words and the desires of ordinary people who want desperately to end the nuclear madness in our world. Here in B.C., thousands of British

[ Page 783 ]

Columbians in various ways have expressed their views on this very important topic. Tomorrow, thousands will walk for peace. British Columbia and British Columbians are probably the leaders in this country in terms of numbers who walk for peace; but also, local governments across this great province have put this item on the agenda by nuclear disarmament referendums. Today, 60 percent of the population of British Columbia live in nuclear weapons free zones. That's 1.6 million people who, through their government, have expressed in their own way the desire to live in a nuclear weapons free world.

I understand there are those who have brought this to the attention of the Premier. All we can say on this side is that we support the Premier. We urge the Premier to support their desires when declaring British Columbia a nuclear-free zone. This issue is way beyond any partisan issues, and we on this side will help the Premier in any way we can to bring a decision on this critical issue to declare B.C. a nuclear-free zone. Canadians are, I think, asking governments to stand up for a nuclear weapons free zone in Canada; to stand up against strategic defense initiatives, Star Wars; to stand up for a worldwide freeze on nuclear weapons and a comprehensive test ban treaty. Canadians desire an end to cruise missile testing in this country. It's time for an independent foreign policy on this issue, time for all nations to renounce first use of nuclear weapons.

We desire — Canadians desire — a nuclear-free and independent Canada. Canadians in their thousands are sending messages not only to their own governments, but to governments around the world, that they care desperately about this issue; that they hope those governments, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union, that are in positions to make important decisions for our future will heed the words and the desires of Canadians and millions of others who want peace and tranquillity in our society.

There is hope today. There is renewed interest, particularly in the Soviet Union. I think Canada, through its federal and provincial governments, should urge our friends to the south to grasp that chance and once and for all attain a comprehensive nuclear ban, disarmament in a major way, so that people in the world will know, and their children will know, that we're going to be safe for a long, long time. Our side of this House will unanimously endorse this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will read the motion: "Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the horrors of nuclear war and holocaust, and urge all world governments to increase their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally eliminate nuclear weaponry." 

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just before moving adjournment, I'll advise the House that Monday and maybe Tuesday, Wednesday, we'll be continuing debate on Bill 20. It may not take long, but then it may take some time. One never knows. With that, I wish you one and all a very happy weekend. 

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House. 

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:14 p.m.