[ Page 809 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

On the amendment

Ms. Marzari –– 809

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 812

Mr. Clark –– 814

Mr. Weisgerber –– 817

Mr. Lovick –– 819

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, we officially offer congratulations to the opposition for graciously letting the press gallery win the ball game last night. It was very kind of you to soften them up for us.

Adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 20. Mr. Speaker, the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), who adjourned, is not here today, so the ball will pass, if you will, to the opposition.

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the House Leader mentioned the game last night, I wonder if I could ask leave to just make a comment.

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON: As the members know, the opposition had a softball game last night with those who are never present in this chamber. It was a see-saw battle, and it came to a final crunch where we concluded the game 27 to 7.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the hoist motion on Bill 20 today. In the few minutes that I have, I would like to talk a little bit about my understanding of the history of the BCTF; my understanding of professionalism as it applies to teachers; something about what my constituency believes the issues to be in education today; and something about how we might approach improvements to the primary and secondary systems of education in this province. I believe that this format is essential to give me a grounding in where we think we're going in this province, and to give the House a perspective from the constituency I represent.

Many of my remarks will follow the concerns I have already raised in this House regarding the way this government operates. Bill 20 seems to me to be of a piece with Bill 19 in at least one respect: it undermines fair process and raises more problems than it really solves, if it can be said to solve any.

At a time when legitimate problems in our education system should be addressed, the government has issued a bill which muddies the waters further. Where clarity in thought and policy are required, this government seems to be offering obfuscation and confrontation.

There are 30,000 teachers in this province, Mr. Speaker. The majority of them have families. All of them live in communities. They represent an intelligent and informed community of people that is integral to our province and to what we want to do in our province. They educate our children.

Between Bill 19 and Bill 20 and the budget, to this point the government has managed to alienate, confuse and anger the poor, women, small business, people who live in cities, the real estate professionals, farmers, teachers and big business to a certain extent, because of the lack of stability that people are seeing encroaching into our economy through Bill 19. The only people who aren't offended thus far, as I think through the list, are perhaps people in jail and a few businesses that we claim we are trying to attract from Germany and Japan. This is the community of interest that we seem to be wanting to serve thus far.

Insofar as Bill 20 exacerbates and drags on the problems of confusion and obfuscation, it is a part of the package of demolition that this government seems to be bringing to our province. I would suggest, then, that we need time to rethink, some time to pause, to back off and to redesign the bill. I would like to go through some of the reasons.

This legislation and the government's determination to impose it so quickly are unprecedented not only in this province, but in Canada. This is not a fact to be taken lightly, for it indicates that this legislation violates some of the basic principles of our democratic way of life. That the government insists upon imposing institutions and powers without the consultation and effective input of those affected is serious enough. That it does this in the context of a system designed to educate our young people, to prepare them for lives as citizens in a democratic state, suggests that this government really does not have a handle on the nature of how to run a democracy.

Other jurisdictions have introduced legislation similar to this: Alberta and more recently Ontario. Both provinces withdrew or abandoned that legislation after it became clear that those affected were opposed to that direction. When Bill Davis pulled his legislation in 1981, he admitted that it would be naive to construct a college without the enthusiastic support of teachers. I doubt whether the Premier is so naive in this instance. If he wishes the benefit of the doubt, we offer him Bill Davis's way out: withdraw the legislation. Does this government understand the nature, the definition, the idea of freedom of association? Do they understand the right of free individuals, including teachers, to choose the nature of their associations?

Let me put it another way. If the government introduced a bill tomorrow which imposed membership in a small business federation upon all small business operators in B.C., the nature and powers of which were determined by the government, then charged them for the costs and dues of this organization, and as an afterthought told them that the government would now determine the methods of business appropriate to their business, would the government expect the small business people to go along with such a plan? If they did, they would be fools.

Mr. Speaker, just as small business people have formed their own association, so have teachers in B.C. And teachers have chosen democratically, for over 70 years, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. When New Democrats formed the government in the early seventies, this federation did not always agree with policies undertaken by the NDP government, and we understood that was as it should be. Free and independent associations take independent and sometimes outspoken positions. The history of education in B.C. demonstrates the need for such associations. Overall, teachers through the BCTF have played a progressive role in assisting in the development of a public education system which provides quality universal education.

[10:15]

[ Page 810 ]

According to the government, the college is important to the development of professionalism within the teaching profession. It's for this reason that the government, without consulting teachers, has imposed the college structure upon teachers. "After all, don't other professions have colleges?" they ask. It's a very odd logic, Mr. Speaker. A set of rules and procedures do not a profession make. In fact, Bill 20 seems designed to make puppets, not professionals; for the essence of professionalism is independence and the responsibility that independence entails. A lawyer has the independence to reject clients. Doctors who oppose abortion do not have to perform abortions if they choose. Even a nurse is not forced to use only one method approved by the Minister of Health when addressing a patient's needs. Under this bill, the teacher is prescribed in almost every instance in the practice of his or her profession.

This bill reduces the independence and responsibility of every teacher in B.C. It destroys professionalism in the classroom and replaces it with bad labour relations. Please read your own bill. Couple that bill with Bill 19 and read for yourself the recipe for disaster that you are bringing down on education in this province. Read it.

Clearly you are confused about the nature of professionalism. Let's look at another example of this ignorance. A necessary component of professionalism is collegiality. Collegiality suggests shared responsibility and a harmony of interests. This bill ends collegiality in the school system by severing work relations of teachers and principals and by setting boards up against teachers, giving them almost total power to fire teachers for, to quote the bill, "any cause which renders the teacher unsuitable for the position then held by him." Bill 20 does more to destroy professionalism as it's practised in the classroom than any other piece of legislation brought down by a Socred government. In its place you enshrine confrontation and hence demoralization in the classroom, destabilization of the profession and, I think, chaos in the system in this province.

It's dumb legislation. It doesn't speak to the intentions laid out by this government in its throne speech. When I look back at those promises, I wonder if the government knows the meaning of its own words. Maybe it is time for a little remedial education. The government proposed to, in its own words, "cut government interference in the lives and activities of British Columbians." How does the creation of an entirely new and duplicitous bureaucracy to control the lives and practices of teachers achieve this end? The government said it will listen, consult and lead by example; the changes enshrined in Bill 20 were not asked for by teachers. The government will increase involvement in decision-making in the Legislature, you told us; why the rush to push this through, bypassing committees which would hear the public and broaden the decision-making process? You said you wanted to restore more decision-making power to the community level, yet this bill marks an unprecedented level of centralization in the education system, taking power away from boards to determine curriculum and from teachers to determine teaching methods.

At the very point when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is saying he doesn't want to touch hospital boards because they have been appropriately elected, we are turning around and creating a tripartite bureaucracy layering a new level of bureaucracy in a system which is already democratically run. This is the government which in 1976 removed the community resources board concept because it was another level of government, and here we have the same mentality imposing another level of government, another level of professional government in the province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The government promised a royal commission to investigate education in our province. Has this government now decided that the commissioner is incapable of doing the job it set out for him? Can the government expect others to find the commission credible if by the introduction of legislation it demonstrates that it can't trust the commission to do an adequate job?

Dr. Norman Robinson, who has sat on many commissions in other provinces, done a major study on education in Australia, worked for this provincial government as well as the BCTF and the BCSTA, in a recent interview said:

"I have never heard of controversial legislation being brought down in the middle of a royal commission. In the history of this province there has always been a suspension of important legislation while a commission is in progress. As I understand it, the terms of reference of this commission are broad enough to encompass anything and everything that Bill 20 addresses."

If Bill 20 contradicts the government's own stated intentions for the current legislative session, then what can have been the motivation for its introduction? Recently I visited the schools within my electoral district. I talked with principals, teachers and parents. From them I heard many suggestions for improvement in the schools and many concerns with the way things are now being run. None of these concerns are reflected in the legislation now before us. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us serves only one obvious purpose: to deflect from the real, legitimate concerns of parents and educators in this province.

In my riding, parents and educators are concerned with underfunding of the public education system. They are concerned that the provincial government now contributes more out of the general revenue to the private school system on a per capita basis than to the public school system. Does Bill 20 address this concern? It does not. Parents at several schools told me how frustrated they were at the amount of time and effort they spend fund-raising for their schools, effort they would rather expend in improving the quality of education. Bill 20 doesn't do anything for them. Maybe they should ask for an amendment to the bill. Maybe they should request that the new college be obliged to coordinate hot dog and candy sales and auctions to support the public education system. Parents are very unhappy with this slush fund you call the fund for excellence. When this government doesn't like a school board it doesn't get grants, but the parents of Point Grey know it's their kids whot feel the effects. Does Bill 20 address this concern? It does not.

One thing that struck me in my rounds was the good will between administrators, principals, staff members and parents. If there's anything that's working well in this system, it's the working relationship of parents, teachers and administrators. That's collegiality. Adversity has helped this in the last number of years, but it was there anyway. Local democracy works. We have a system that basically works. It is precisely these relations that Bill 20 undermines. Instead of fixing the well-known and obvious problems in this system,

[ Page 811 ]

the government seems intent on destroying the one thing that is working.

I'm not relying just on my impressions of my meetings with school staff and parents; for the last week parents, teachers and principals have been calling my office and writing me here in the buildings to say that they're worried by the confrontational mood of this government and the intent of this bill. They are telling me that the government is adding to the problems in schools with Bill 20 and they want it to back off. They're telling me that the government has offered no justification of this legislation which makes sense in terms of their experience and their terms of reference. They mistrust the government's intent. The people are calling my office, they're calling the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), they are calling all of us, I am sure. They don't believe that the government has the health of the educational system as its main intent here.

I can't argue with them. The Premier has told us himself that it's his own private concerns rather than those of the public which inform much of his policy-making. I shouldn't doubt that now. In this light Bill 20 makes more sense. Did the Premier not express his profound displeasure with the BCTF when he was Minister of Education in the Bennett government? Did he not revel in a regime of unmitigated confrontation? Was he not the author of a bill which would have introduced highly centralized powers in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs while reducing those of locally elected officials and staff members? Take a look.

I believe there might be personal motivation going on here on the part of one person, a personal anger which didn't seem to resolve itself in 1983 –– I would ask the government to read its own bill, to couple it with Bill 19 and take a look at what you're doing to the teaching profession in this province. Do you realize that what you've got here is a situation where, if there is a complaint laid against a teacher, the principal can reprimand and transfer the teacher within seven days; that the board can then deal with that teacher and fire that teacher with 30 days' notice; that all transcriptions, that all such incidents, will be reported to the college? The college then has an ultimate authority to dispose of a teacher.

You have a tripartite system of discipline. You don't have professional development, you don't have support, you don't have the community behind you, you don't have parents having an input. You have given the teachers the right to strike with 20, taken it away with 19.

You haven't given the teachers what they asked for. They asked for professionalism. They asked, for example, for consultation on matters of educational policy; but you have retained all power. No provision for consultation at either the provincial or local level. The teachers asked for school staff committees elected by the staff to determine programs and timetables and learning activities. These powers you've given to principals and vice-principals and they have now a management function. They are particularly vulnerable to the dictates of this college. The teachers asked for provincial curriculum committees consisting of one-third teacher representation. You are retaining total control.

You can tell the Vancouver School Board what they can and can't say in their AIDS program. Do you want to do this job? Do you as a cabinet want to sit behind closed doors 24 hours a day, sending out for pizza, so that you can run the education system in this whole province — you and your appointed representatives in the college, who will be writing all the bylaws and all the procedures for this college before it ever gets a chance to elect its own members? Do you want this job? Are you being paid for this? Is this in your job description? Do you want to control the activities of every classroom in this province? Do you have the time? Do you have the patience for this? Do you have the desire to remove from local communities their input, their democratic decision-making, the systems that they have set up for themselves over 70 years between school boards and the BCTF, with some assistance from the province? Do you want to replace those systems? You're doing it in other areas. This government is doing it in other areas, and now it's going to do it to the classroom.

The teachers asked for local evaluation committees to ensure that processes for pupil evaluation were fair and educationally sound. This is expressly excluded from inclusion in any agreement between teachers and boards. The teachers asked for school-based determination of processes for the evaluation of students. This is expressly excluded.

[10:30]

No, I think that the demands of the teachers were professional demands, Mr. Speaker. They are now being told that they've got the right to strike, so they should be quiet. Yet the list of things they asked for was a professional list, and it has been denied.

I would suggest, because I cannot find the motive, outside of a personal vendetta.... I cannot find the political motive here, unless it is basically to destabilize the public school system in this province for a few years, perhaps on the assumption that it will somehow, miraculously, become even cheaper; that $400 million cutback in the last six years wasn't enough. Perhaps the destabilization of the system will make it easier for the private school system to become more a part of the mainstream in our province, and there will be an equalization of access both to the private school system and the public school system, with equal funding going to each. This is privatization of the worst variety, Mr. Speaker, because it takes a universal and accessible system and makes it funded equivalently with a private system which does not serve the needs of the democratic community at large. It is not accountable to the total community.

I would suggest that we must hoist this bill, Mr. Speaker. We need to take a different approach to education in this province. The mechanism is in place already. You have your answer already. The royal commission, if it's to be effective, should be considering these questions that the government is presently trying to legislate rather than inquire about, rather than talk to the community about.

The commission can help us set a framework for renegotiating the fiscal framework. It can set a framework to eliminate the fund for excellence, which is stealing money away from some communities and dumping it into others. The commission might hear parents express their real concerns about double standards within the public school system because of the cutbacks. The commission might help us take a look at the existing democratic machineries that we have developed in our society for educating our children, and help make those machineries better; help develop the teaching profession, help make it not a profession that people run away from in this province and go to California.... We are exporting teachers rather than softwood.

I think our kids' futures depend on it. I think that the simple hoisting of this bill would be an appropriate back-off mechanism. It would be a face-saving mechanism for the government. You could then rely on the commission to come

[ Page 812 ]

in with, for the first time in 25 years.... A good commission could come in with the kinds of recommendations that would in fact reflect what the community is saying, would give you a solid base for decision-making, and would remove this issue from the business of privatizing public schools and from the suspicion people have that we have a personal vendetta going on here between the Premier and the public.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is an unfortunate day to have to rise on the hoist motion on this bill, because it is a day, I think, in which a lot of very decent, hard-working teachers in this province have been led down the garden path. I am very, very upset, as a parent, as the son of teachers, as a teacher myself, and as a former Minister of Education, to see that we have some kind of work stoppage going on to prevent a bill which will allow legal work stoppages from being passed. Can you find me the logic in that? I try to explain that to people who are not in the educational fraternity, and their eyes glaze over. Why are teachers striking illegally against a bill that will give them the right to strike legally? Some school boards have had the audacity to say that their schools are closed and that they're not going to keep them open today, and teachers all over this province are put in the position as to whether they should honour their duty to their children and their profession or whether they should show solidarity to their trade union. I think that's very unfortunate.

In 1980 I had the pleasure of doing a kind of speedy job that we have now consigned — thank goodness — to Mr. Sullivan and given him a year to do. I tried to do some of that in 1980. For two months I went around the province and held 50 public hearings on education, most of them on the K-to-12 aspect of education. I held them in every section of the province and heard over a thousand briefs. I can tell you that many of the things that the teachers and educational community were asking for at that time are things that have been delivered in this bill.

Let's just go over them. Firstly, they said to me seven years ago, as they have said more recently in "Let's Talk About Schools, " as they said more recently to Mr. Sullivan when he went around on a very specific project for us involving child abuse: "Teachers are frustrated; teachers do not feel that they're able to adequately govern the learning and working conditions around them. They want to be able to have some determination of that, and they cannot have that determination by the artificial system of arbitration and bargaining that now exists in this province." I heard that time and time again, like an old refrain.

What does the bill provide? They can at the local level be certified by the BCTF to be a trade union and have full scope of bargaining, not limited to salaries and bonuses. They can — and perish the thought that they would — and they would have the right ultimately to have a legal work stoppage — not all these study sessions, sit-ins, seminars, or whatever you want to call them, but an upfront work stoppage. Why can't they call it a work stoppage? Why are they so squeamish about it? It's a work stoppage.

But they can have all those things legally under this bill. We understood that that was what they wanted as an ultimate sanction, not that they wanted to walk out. I have no doubt that most teachers don't want to walk out. But they have a schizophrenic aspect to their professional lives: the trade union aspect and the professional aspect. What this bill does is separate those and put them each in their own place to allow them to deal with bargaining matters, working conditions, class size and salaries and increments. That is the responsibility of the BCTF, who will certify them at the local level. On the other hand, they have a college — another thing that I can remember them asking for seven years ago — which they will run. They will govern their own standards and ethics and be able to deal with themselves as professionals, not have some minor functionary in the Ministry of Education looking at their certificates, turning over their pieces of paper, destroying their records or keeping their records. There will be none of that stuff, but their own association. This is what they wanted; this is what they have in this bill.

The college isn't something the government is going to dominate. I constantly hear strains of paranoia coming out of that sector, saying: "Oh, my goodness, this college. First of all, the minister will appoint the first trustees of this college. That means he'll appoint 20 people who can't stand Larry Kuehn." Can you imagine that? That's what he'll do right away. Who is going to appoint a college on an interim basis that is going to be anything but representative of the profession? Very shortly the profession will be electing, on an area basis, all their own members of their college. They will be running their own show, and they will be setting their own standards. They'll be coming to government and saying: "This bill that you passed for us two years ago needs some changing and fine-tuning so we can work it. Here are our proposals." And that will happen. But they'll be running their own show — that's the important thing. It will be a teachers' college for teachers. I wish they could accept it.

Another complaint that I've heard.... I had my own teachers in twice in my office, teachers from all three school districts in greater Victoria, and I had two good sessions with them. I know several of them quite well, and they were very concerned. One thing they said to me was that teachers are concerned that this legislation was designed to get rid of the BCTF. Well, if it was designed to get rid of the BCTF, it sure wasn't a very good design, because in that bill I read precisely the perpetuation of the BCTF.

Here you've got two options for bargaining locally. One option is the trade union route. They've become a trade union; they are certified. It will obviously be the BCTF that will certify them. It isn't going to be the aerospace workers, although after today we might well wonder. But it isn't going to be; it is going to be the BCTF. It will have full, wide bargaining rights, and they will have the sanction of strike. On the other hand, the soft option — if I can call it that — is no trade union, local association, can't bargain for anything but salaries and wages, and the only recourse is non-binding interest arbitration. Do you tell me that very many teachers are going to opt for the second option? If we wanted to destroy the BCTF, we would have made that soft option a lot less soft and a lot more attractive.

So let's stop kidding around. The legislation protects the BCTF; it doesn't go at the BCTF.

I was terribly disappointed in the BCTF, because they had a tremendous opportunity here with this bill. If you remember their president's remarks on the day that it came down, the first thing she said was that this presented a challenge to teachers and a challenge to their organization, and they will try to accept that challenge. She was on the right track then, until she went back to Burrard Street and talked to her staff, and they saw some dire plot in this legislation and told her that it had to be fought because it was going to destroy the BCTF — which means, I take it, threatening staff jobs, because the BCTF isn't going to be destroyed by this. The

[ Page 813 ]

BCTF could be alive and well and much stronger, but the BCTF has behaved like a trade union part of the time and a professional organization part of the time, and has now got to be both things. It can't be all things; it's got to be both things.

The other thing my teachers said to me was: "The BCTF did such a wonderful job in professional development, and now all that is going to be lost. The BCTF are removed from professional development. It will be nothing but a trade union. We want them to do professional development." Fine. What's to stop the BCTF from taking all those wonderful professional developers and moving them from that organization to the college so they can be the officers that run the college? The teachers will decide that; if they like the job the BCTF were doing in professional development, then those people will be the college personnel. There is absolutely no problem; there is no difficulty with it.

I have not heard a single objection to this bill, from any educator, that I can explain to anyone I know in the real world. They cannot understand it. They just can't fathom it. "What do they want?" they say. "They've got everything they want here, and all they do is complain." Well, that is the unhappy image that the teachers' union are presenting to the province of British Columbia. So unnecessary. Why didn't they seize the mantle? Why didn't they go ahead and run with this thing? Why didn't they have the best college in Canada, the best professional body in the country? Why didn't they....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Stopped me in mid-thrust.

Why didn't they rise to that challenge? They could have risen to that challenge. Also, the notion of going out and reestablishing your local constituency and getting local members to vote for you as their bargaining unit — what's wrong with that? Every other poor slob trade union in this country has to do that –– I can't imagine any sympathy, on the part of a business agent of a union who has to look after his flock, for somebody who says: "We want it done automatically by statute." The fact that they've got to go and sign up their members and serve their members and give them good performance is good for them, not bad for them. It will make them stronger; it will make them more representative. I hope they can rise to that challenge.

[10:45]

I detect also nothing but contempt for their position on the part of other trade unionists at the present time, and not very much real sympathy on the benches opposite, although a certain ritual has to be gone through, I understand.

So let's get on with things. Let's get on with making the new bargaining system work and making the college work.

Another thing they asked for, Mr. Speaker — they asked the minister almost daily and weekly for an end to controls. The bill gives them an end to controls. They're coming out of controls in 1988. What's more, they're going to have true local bargaining, and they're going to have true local organizations, and the local teachers are going to decide. That's one of the things that I think was unfortunate about this so-called strike vote that they took across this province: it all went into Burrard Street and was counted there. They weren't allowed to know how one district or another voted –– I dare say the teachers in my district, the Greater Victoria School District, probably voted against that work stoppage, but their votes will never be counted. They'll be rolled in with other teachers from Burnaby and other places.

So the bill is a good bill. It gives teachers basically what they've been asking for. The bill can work and the college can work and the bargaining system can work. The Sullivan commission will be in the field and the Sullivan commission can monitor this bill and can monitor the resistance to it. But I think it's largely resistance based on misinformation and knee-jerk reactions and suspicions, and I'm sorry for that because I think that the teachers are going to come to realize that the legislation is good.

The Sullivan commission I wish well. It goes out into the field with two excellent journeymen on this kind of endeavour: first of all Pam Glass, who did the same thing for me and was the wagon master of my tour and is an absolutely superb person at organizing community meetings, getting major turnouts and participation and in following up with people afterwards. They couldn't have picked a better person, Mr. Minister of Education, to give to Mr. Sullivan. And secondly, Mr. John Walsh from the Ministry of Education, a tireless, devoted, energetic registrar who will take enormous pains to record everything and who is a very kind and sensitive man.

So I think that that commission is well launched. I am pleased that it's launched, and I wish Mr. Sullivan well. I think that as he goes around — and hopefully he'll be doing that in the fall when the tempers have cooled, the misunderstandings have been sorted out and teachers begin to understand that under this new system they have some clarity in their life instead of schizophrenia in their professional and labour relations, and they can see how they can follow professional endeavours in the college and they can follow betterment of working conditions in their bargaining — you're going to find a lot of positive feedback.

Another criticism of this bill which I think is one of the most ill-founded of all is the criticism that in the bill the minister has removed from the bargaining unit, if I can call it that — and that's what it's going to be called — administrators. Why on earth would we have ever over all those years left principals, vice-principals and directors of education and the like as part....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, I'll tell you, I was quite wrong. I used to hear arguments as to why I should continue to do so and those arguments used to range along the lines that it was good to have a moderating influence within the BCTF and that that's what the administrators were. But you put principals and vice-principals in a very invidious position in relation to work stoppages and what's going on today, because their job, the job as they perceive it, is to try to keep their school open and to keep their school going and to provide for children who are coming to school. It is impossible to do that when your union which you are supposed to stand solid with has exactly the opposite point of view and that their point of view is to try to ensure that there is a maximum bang for the buck, that people hurt and the children and parents are inconvenienced and people don't turn up for school. Therefore when principals are good at keeping schools open, they're behaving inimically to the interests of the union. There were all kinds of bitternesses after the work stoppages in '83 in the schools when there were reprisals and

[ Page 814 ]

silent, sullen campaigns against principals and vice-principals who tried to do their job. You put them in an invidious position.

I know the BCTF line is: my goodness, we're going to ghettoize principals and they won't be educators anymore, and they won't be teachers anymore, and they'll lose all those cozy attributes because they've been taken out of the unit. Well, of course, that is unmitigated nonsense. They will continue to be members of the college, and the principals and vice-principals of this province are going to be very, very happy with this bill and very supportive of it.

So I rise on a dark day. It is a dark day. It's a dark day when we have massive work stoppages by dedicated professional people who have been so badly led by their leaders, who wouldn't grapple the mantle of a bill that would give them great opportunities in the future, great chances to increase their authority and their influence in education. They weren't prepared to run with it, they weren't ready for it, they weren't up to the challenges. So much for that opportunity, it has passed. We now have to pass this bill and we now have to quietly build our bridges, and we will have a better regime in 1987.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to hoist. I thought that this education bill, Bill 20, was about education. I thought it was about improving the way we do business in education in this province until I heard the comments from the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) yesterday — I wish she were here today — when she said that the reason we're in this House debating this bill is because of the actions of a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Well, I have heard people accuse the government of that, but I never heard anybody say it. I didn't quite believe it until yesterday. I believe it now. This massive change in the way we do business and education in this province has nothing to do with education; it has to do with a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

The abolition of compulsory membership in the BCTF is not a positive move for education in this province; it's because of a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The decision to split the BCTF into two groups, a professional group and a union group or an association, has nothing to do with logic or rational thinking with regard to education. It's got to do with the fact that there are a few people in the BCTF who irritate the government. It's shocking and it's irresponsible. It's irresponsible regardless of how you or I feel about people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation or how they think or what they do. You don't change the whole system of education in this province, or the way we've done business for 70 or 80 years, because of a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It's vindictive and it's dumb.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The BCTF haven't supported the NDP; they've been non-partisan all through the years.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: They don't support the NDP. When the NDP was the government, they were critical of the NDP government, very critical. We didn't move to abolish the BCTF.

Regardless of how you or I feel about the BCTF, those people are elected; they are elected democratically by the membership. There have been no allegations that their process is not democratic. The majority of the teachers consistently have supported their leadership, both in terms of this vote that happened today and the walkout today and in terms of who they have elected consistently over the years to speak for education and to speak for teachers.

MR. LOENEN: Why did they need compulsory membership then?

MR. CLARK: The reason for the abolition of compulsory membership is because you don't like the actions of the BCTF, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. CLARK: In spite of the fact that we know the real motives behind Bill 20 now that the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) has made them clear, the minister in his first statement introducing this bill at second reading said: "The government welcomes the input of various groups from the education community and from the community at large on this important new piece of legislation." Well, regardless of what we've heard, I think it's time to take the minister at his word and hoist this bill. Let's have some real input from the people concerned before we embark on this essentially vindictive path based on the fact that there are a few people in the BCTF who have got under the government's skin.

I think, in brief, there are three reasons for hoisting the bill. The first is the need for consultation on these dramatic and massive changes to the education system, the second is that education needs stability now more than ever, and the third is the fact that there is a royal commission in progress. I'll go through each of those and describe why I think it makes sense to hoist the bill for six months.

In my view, Bill 20 has been introduced without adequate consultation, and the government is proceeding with unnecessary haste. We know that they've held hearings and talked to people over the years and that they continue to talk to people, but we know that they haven't been listening. It's quite clear they haven't been listening. I don't think there was one person that advocated — certainly in the last year — splitting the college function and the union function. No one advocated that, so let's take a look at it, and let's hear from all parties.

Talks with the BCTF and the BCSTA are actually still underway. At the very moment the minister brings the bill forward for second reading, talks are ongoing between the parties. Neither the BCTF nor the BCSTA asked for what was contained in Bill 19 or Bill 20 — and the second member for Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has pointed out what the teachers asked for and what, in fact, is in this bill. They didn't ask for what's in the bill. The BCSTA didn't ask for what's in the bill.

In briefs presented to Lyall Hanson there was remarkable agreement, as a matter of fact, between the BCTF position and the BCSTA position. There was all kinds of common territory in terms of their briefs before the government with respect to new legislation that would be forthcoming. And

[ Page 815 ]

yet no one listened. Clearly the legislation doesn't reflect any of the comments or very few from both sides.

I got a letter — I think the minister probably got it too — from a school consultative committee in my riding, at MaeCorkindale Elementary School at East 49th. As a matter of fact, I might say that the NDP only loses three or four polls, and this is one where we don't do as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll improve on that.

MR. CLARK: We'll improve on it now, yes. So here's the chairperson of the school consultative committee, Pat Brighouse, saying:

"The primary problem with this legislation is in the way it has been developed and presented. Any legislation that affects so many must be developed carefully, with full consultation with those most affected — school trustees, teachers and parents. Your apparent unwillingness to delay the legislation and to participate in meaningful negotiation is disturbing, to say the least. Is the real intent of the legislation to improve our school system or is it merely an attempt to destroy the B.C. Teachers' Federation?"

This is a parent — not a schoolteacher — talking, and of course that was before she heard the remarks of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), who said that the whole reason for this is "a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation"; it's nothing to do with education.

MR. R. FRASER: Who said that?

MR. CLARK: I'll read it again. The first member for Vancouver South didn't hear this: "The reason we're in this House debating this bill . . . is because of the actions of a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation." That's why we're here; it's nothing to do with education.

The second reason we should be hoisting this legislation — and I think this is the most important — is that education needs a break. It needs calm and stability now in British Columbia. There's been a constant attack on teachers for the last five years by the members opposite — constantly attacking and belittling the profession of teachers and their organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. There have been significant cuts — $400 million in real terms — in the education budget in this province. We spend less of a percentage of our budget on education than any other province in Canada. Think about that. New Brunswick and Newfoundland spend more of a percentage of their budget on education than British Columbia.

[11:00]

Clearly, Bill 20 will cause further disruption in the school system. I want to talk about the removal of principals and vice-principals from the bargaining unit, because I think that's a critical area where there's a clear difference of opinion. I'm going to try to change the minds of the members opposite on this very important question.

I'll read again from the school consultative committee's letter, a very well-written letter:

"In forcing principals and vice-principals into a strictly management role, with the additional lack of job security, the legislation creates a totally unnecessary and potentially destructive division within the school system. Principals and vice-principals within our system have often been effective as advocates on behalf of our children. This legislation could prevent this positive role by requiring that they only represent the views of the local board. Our experience has been that school boards are quite capable of speaking out on their own behalf. But what is of major concern with this aspect of the legislation is that it will destroy the invaluable and effective element of teamwork in our schools. Principals are more than managers. They are a vital part of the team as they assist teachers, parents and children on a daily basis."

That's the view of a parent in one of the schools in East Vancouver — not the view of a teacher but of a parent, a school consultative committee chairperson who works daily, acting on behalf of her children and the other children, within the system.

You know, it's kind of a factory or industrial shop mentality that they're trying to impose on the school system, and that's not how it works. You just can't impose that kind of rigid industrial relations structure on the school system. But I will say this: if you want to carry on the analogy of the industrial shop within the school system, then I would make the argument that principals are more like charge hands — if anybody understands this analogy. Most collective agreements in industrial shops have a common clause, and it says: "Charge hands are responsible for the quality and quantity of work." They're part of the union, always part of the bargaining unit. They work as leaders in a management sense, in terms of the quality and quantity of work. They report to the management. They don't have the power to hire and fire; they report to the management. Charge hands clearly have much more in common with principals than do foremen, in my view. And of course, this bill attempts to make them foremen. The potential for disruption is significant: dividing teachers and administrators, an adversarial situation in the schools that I really think is very significant. I want to just make two cases, the first . . . . Having talked to a teacher in my riding, where they had what they considered a bad principal . . . . There are bad principals just as there are bad MLAs and bad people in other professions. Someone said "bad British Columbians, " but we won't use that.

They have a tremendous influence on the tone of that particular school.

MR. PETERSON: Can they manage? That's what they should be: managers.

MR. CLARK: What I'm saying is that they had a principal in this case who attempted to act like a manager, not as part of a team. What happened was that the morale in that school went down, and when teacher morale is down, education suffers. There's an absolute, clear correlation between the attitude of the teacher towards their job and their work situation . . . . As someone said: "Teachers' working conditions are children's learning conditions." They really are. When you put that kind of adversarial role or system within individual schools, then the potential for disruption is clear, and I've seen it. I've talked to teachers in my riding who've had a situation with a bad principal who's attempted to act as a manager, who's caused disruption and division within the school. Therefore the morale of the teachers has gone down and so has the quality of education.

That same school with the same staff changed principals to a more collegial principal, who worked with the teachers in the school, and there is no problem now. The quality of

[ Page 816 ]

education is higher; people are working harder; there is much more of a genuine education atmosphere conducive to education.

The second case I want to talk about briefly with respect to principals is something I have been raising in the Legislature. It has to do with children going to school without lunches. When I phoned the principals in Vancouver East and asked them whether there were children going to school without lunches . . . .

MR. REE: Order! On the hoist. Be relevant.

MR. CLARK: This is on the hoist. This is a reason for the hoist.

When I was phoning the principals, one of the principals said to me . . . .

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon. members. This heckling will stop, and the second member for Vancouver East will please speak to the hoist motion.

MR. CLARK: On the hoist, Mr. Speaker. The second reason why we need to hoist this bill and delay it is because of the role of principals and vice-principals as now defined in Bill 20 — very clearly a reason for delaying the bill for six months.

When I phoned the principals in my riding regarding children going to school hungry, a number of the principals said to me very clearly: "Don't phone me if Bill 20 passes. I'll talk to you now; I'll tell you how many children are coming to school without lunches. But if Bill 20 passes, don't phone me." You can see why: because it is a potential embarrassment to the school board if they indicate to a politician that there are children going to school hungry in their school district, and if they have an individual contractual relationship only with the school board, then they are not free to speak out and advocate on behalf of children in their school.

There is a clear correlation, and I saw it just a couple of weeks ago in talking to principals. Under this new bill they will not be free to advocate the kinds of things they have done over the years. I think principals have been admirable in speaking out on behalf of education and speaking out on behalf of children in their schools. That will no longer be possible with Bill 20.

Just in case the members opposite think that I am only making a case for the BCTF in terms of principals, I don't think that has to be the only model. For example, in the longshoremen's union, to use an industrial analogy again, they have a foremen's union. It is different and separate and apart, a different local from the union that represents all longshoremen. That could be a model; I'm not saying it is. It is a good reason for hoisting the bill and discussing it for six months. Maybe there could be a separate local for the principals and vice-principals within the system, to give them some protection so that they can speak out on behalf of children in their school or speak out on behalf of education, so they are not simply contracting individually with school boards.

I ask the minister to think about that, at the very least, because I think putting them in that position really hamstrings them, and they have real difficulty. You are going to lose some very good principals who are going to opt not to work under the situation where they are essentially at the whim of the school board. No protection and no collective agreement doesn't make any sense and is not good for education.

We've had a couple of people here on the other side talk about how principals want to be out of the BCTF. I have a letter here from a principal in my riding, at Vancouver Technical Secondary School, who happens to be the president of the Vancouver School Administrators' Association. Their motion passed:

"That the Vancouver School Administrators' Association (which is composed of elementary and secondary school administrators and school board coordinators) express its agreement with the motion passed by the Vancouver School Board, April 13, 1987, regarding a request to delay the passage of Bills 19 and 20, pending full discussion by all affected parties, and that notice of this agreement be forwarded to the Hon. AJ. Brummet, Minister of Education, immediately."

So the principals in my district in Vancouver are saying: "Hoist the bill." Or at least they are saying: "Delay it for some time and let's have some rational discussion of the implications of this." More than anybody else, the principals and the vice-principals have very difficult decisions to make on Bill 20. I think they are in a very tenuous situation with respect to their future professional and work-related experience.

This section really needs careful discussion. I have just outlined one option that I think is available other than the status quo. There are other options. We just have to put our mind to it, and a little imagination wouldn't hurt for a change.

To wrap up the need for consultation, pushing forward with this bill now will have a negative effect on children. We've already seen that today. It will further depress morale of teachers and administrators, and introduce additional elements of uncertainty in the system.

In B.C. we've had six Education ministers in seven years. We've had five major curriculum changes or reviews in four years. We've had over 17 reviews of, or changes in, financing formulas in five years. Three thousand teachers have been lost from the system since 1982. I'm saying that constant changes in curriculum and staffing and budget, constant turmoil within the system, hasn't been good for education in this province; and this bill certainly just adds to that uncertainty, it adds to that instability.

Clearly now we should take a break. We should take a look at this legislation in a very clear way. The minister is meeting with the parties and that's commendable. I don't see any reason to rush through with this legislation, particularly while those meetings are going on. Job action by teachers and ramming through legislation in the House doesn't make.... It makes sense right now to step back from that, okay? Step back and think, and continue to meet, with a view to making this legislation much better. There's lots of room for improvement here. I think that if the parties get together and continue to meet, there can be real improvement.

The third reason that I rise to support the hoist motion is the fact that we have a royal commission on education in place. I think this really prejudges that royal commission. It doesn't make sense to me to bring in these kinds of massive changes in the education system when we've just appointed a

[ Page 817 ]

royal commissioner to look at the whole question of education in the province. On March 14 the government appointed a royal commission, and this commission is supposed to report April 1, 1988.

The proposed college is supposed to begin January 1. Many of the terms of reference of the Sullivan commission overlap with the proposed college. For example, the royal commission has been asked to look at appropriate mechanisms and standards of measurement for teacher performance and teacher qualifications. Why do we have a royal commission on the one hand looking at teacher measurement and qualification, and on the other hand say that we're going to create this college to look at teacher measurement and organization? It doesn't make sense. You either have a royal commission, which seems to be the appropriate forum to do this kind of massive overhaul of education, or you don't have a royal commission and you do it whatever way politically you want to. Do we want the college to begin functioning without the benefit of the royal commission report? Are they going to start functioning, and then have to change everything after the . . . ? It doesn't make sense to me to have a royal commission going at the same time that you do this. I think it makes sense to delay any massive changes in the education system until the royal commission reports. That's my view. I just want to sort of wrap up by reading again the last little section from Ms. Brighouse, the chairperson of the school consultative committee at MacCorkindale Elementary School. She said:

"We suggest you slow down this process and rethink your present stance towards the BCTF. Your actions will only lead to further disruption of the school system if you do not take the time to consult fully with all those involved. Our children have paid too much over the last four years, but not as a result of job action by teachers. While teachers are often outspoken in defence of what is good or needed in our system, they've always been reluctant to withdraw their services. They are professionals and have consistently placed the needs of our children ahead of their own basic democratic rights."

That's again the words of a parent within the system.

This bill really is bad for education. It doesn't do anything to improve it. The real motive behind it was stated very clearly by the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran). It's disruptive and it continues the attack on teachers and on the education system. I don't think there's a particular rush. What's the rush? Why should we push this through when there's clearly this kind of opposition in place, both from the teachers and also, of course, from the parents — as I've been reading — and, of course, from the B.C. School Trustees' Association. Why rush it through for some political agenda? It doesn't make sense. Let's hoist the bill, take a step back, review it, and continue to meet, as the minister has, with the parties concerned, and improve this legislation. I ask all members to support the hoist motion.

[11:15]

MR. WEISGERBER: I rise, Mr. Speaker, again to speak against a hoist motion. It's interesting, this first session. We've brought in, it seems to me, four rather important pieces of legislation, or items, to this House, the first two being the throne speech and the budget. I'm now somewhat confused that we didn't have hoist motions on those two items. We've attempted to hoist everything else that's come into this House.

The theme seems to be: what's the rush? I guess maybe we have to question using that line of thought — what's the rush in this House? Lie back and we'll do all this stuff in six months? Perhaps if these folks across the way are ever fortunate enough to be elected again, they'll bring in some type of legislation that will require everything be hoisted for six months. You bring it down and then we'll hoist it automatically. We could save a tremendous amount of time. However, that's not likely to happen, either from the point of view of election or of them ever passing it.

I really am pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak for a few minutes in support of Bill 20. It's an important . . .

MR. CLARK: On the hoist.

MR. WEISGERBER: Oh, okay. In support of Bill 20 and opposing the hoist.

Bill 20 is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and it gives the teaching profession many of the items that they've been asking for, like full bargaining rights. These people are dedicated, responsible professionals, and they've been left out of this process too long. They now have a choice of forming a union or having an association bargain on their behalf.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for teachers in this province. I have two daughters, one who has just completed high school and the second who is in grade 12 this year. Education has been an important part of our family for the last 14 years and will continue to be for a few more years yet. During that period we've had a close relationship with a lot of teachers, principals, vice-principals and people on the school board. We've taken an active interest in the education of our children, and it is something that's very important not only to us but to most people in this province.

Most of our teachers give many hours of their own time to the system. You have only to look at the football teams, the drama clubs and the tremendous number of activities that go on. Graduation ceremonies are an important part of what happens in the schools, and those are coming up in June for a lot of young people, and I think that it's worth considering that alone as we discuss whether we should hoist this bill.

The BCTF has been suggesting to our government for many years that changes are needed. They've also suggested that we have not consulted with them, and we hear this consulting thing about as often as we hear hoisting. The Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) held extensive hearings, but he never consulted. The minister talked continuously with the Minister of Education — a past teacher, a past principal, a member of the teaching profession — but he hasn't consulted with him. We have here a copy of a submission to the minister from the B.C. Teachers' Federation, some 30-odd pages, but we haven't consulted.

If we look at this document entitled "Improving the Labour Relations Climate in Public Education," and compare it with Bill 20, it's interesting to note how many of the recommendations are part of Bill 20. When you relate that to the demonstration that's going on at the arena today, I'm somewhat confused. It seems to me that we're giving the far . . . the greatest majority of things that were asked for are in the bill.

[ Page 818 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That you're confused is becoming apparent.

MR. WEISGERBER: Well, I am confused, yes. And believe me, I doubt very much whether anyone opposite is going to help me sort through that maze. I don't even think they really want to very badly.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few minutes to look at the main things that were requested in this submission from the B.C. Teachers' Federation. This document made two main points: firstly, the BCTF recommended the normalization of free collective bargaining for teachers in British Columbia's public schools; and secondly, the BCTF wanted the compensation stabilization program eliminated. That's the main thrust of that document. Our government has addressed both of these concerns in Bill 19 and Bill 20. On page 2 and pages 23-33 of this submission, the BCTF requested that the compensation stabilization program be eliminated. The government has met this request. It's hard to understand why we're having a study session to discuss the fact that we've given them what they asked for in that area.

On page 5, the BCTF suggests that teachers want to be able to bargain all matters under the B.C. Labour Code. On page 7 the BCTF demanded the right to withdraw services in favour of negotiation objectives. Government has met these requests. But in spite of that fact we are still having a study session down at the arena today.

Our government wants to protect the rights of individual teachers. We recognize that all teachers do not want to be members of a union. Teachers will be able to vote on whether they want to form a union or an association at the local school district level. I think that's an important opportunity. When I listen to the concern from the BCTF that they weren't set up as the bargaining unit for the teachers, I find that such an unbelievable idea. I can imagine the cry that would have come from across the way had we put in the right to strike for teachers, and then told them who their bargaining agent would have to be. Can you imagine going through the rest of society, the rest of our unionized employment force, and start legislating who would represent them? We'd look at this group and say: "Yes, the steelworkers would be good folks to represent you. This is your bargaining unit." We'd look at another group and say: "No, perhaps the operating engineers will suit you better." We could legislate that.

If we look at the crux of this problem, we look at the fact that the BCTF put this thing together with a lot of good recommendations, but didn't think through where it would eventually lead them. And now they're standing there in shock, saying: "My goodness, we have unions, but we're going to have to go out and organize each school district. We're going to have to convince the teachers in each school district that we are the organization that should represent them." They may well be the group that should represent the teachers. Quite honestly, I hope that they are, because I really have a problem with the thought that it might be the Teamsters that are representing them, or the steelworkers or the IWA or any other group or combination of unions who could come in.

The second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) shakes his head, but we see in situations where the union that does represent groups . . . . Often it's a question of why that union represents that particular group of people, because there doesn't seem to be a correlation. Believe me, there was a meeting of the Teamsters in Fort St. John not that long ago, which a large number of teachers attended, and the hon. Minister of Education may well be dealing at his home level with that group representing his teachers.

I sincerely hope that the BCTF gets off its backside, quits howling and gets out to the various school boards and gets these things done. I think it is important that the BCTF represent the teachers, and I think that their organization is not truly threatened unless they are not as effective as they would have us believe — unless they do not have the support of the vast number of teachers. If that's the situation, then perhaps we'll have to look at some other role, some other group to represent the teachers.

Mr. Speaker, this is my first day back in the House after the weekend. While I was in the constituency, I met with several teachers. I met also with the president of the local teachers' association, Mr. Roy Ronaghan, and with the chairman of the school board, Mr. Browns. I asked all of those people what they thought. Why was this thing happening today? Why were the teachers walking out? What were the concerns, really? Although this wasn't unanimous, the main thrust of it seemed to be that there were three major concerns.

One related to sick leave: that there had been an accumulation of up to 120 days of sick leave, and that the accumulated sick leave was by the most conscientious of the teachers, who didn't take every opportunity but saw the possibility of sometime when they might be sick for an extended period of time, and they were concerned about the loss of that accumulated sick leave.

The second major concern seemed to be around the exclusion of principals and vice-principals from union membership. That seemed to be a concern by most groups. And the third and not particularly well-defined fear seemed to be around the opportunity or the possibility of harsh discipline from this new teachers' federation; these fears, again to relate to the BCTF, seem to be encouraged by that group.

I'd like to take a few minutes to explain my thoughts on this and how I see these concerns. I recognize that they are legitimate concerns. Anytime we start changing the rules that people work under, they get nervous. Anytime someone other than myself starts changing my circumstances, I get nervous. So I can fully understand the fact that these concerns are there and that they're legitimate.

But if we look, to start off with, at this question of sick leave, I think that sick leave will be negotiated at each local by each bargaining unit and that that's the way it should be. If, in fact, we are going to go to the full bargaining rights, as the BCTF have asked for, at least to me that doesn't mean that there are two or three sacred cows that we don't touch, but that we bargain for all the things that we want. If we're going to bargain, we should bargain for all things. If sick leave is in fact a major concern to the majority of teachers, certainly and surely it will be part of any new agreement. The boards — from talking, at least, to the chairman of my own school board — have no concern. They're not worried about trying to bargain away sick days. They don't see them as a threat.

[11:30]

The issue of principals and vice-principals seems to me to be a very basic one. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) talked about treating them as foremen or . . . . What was the other word? Job-something-or-others. Anyway, the suggestion was that principals were in fact not quite

[ Page 819 ]

foremen in their schools but very close and that they should be dealt with in that manner. I'd suggest to you that they are in fact managers of fairly large establishments.

MR. SIHOTA: Is that what they asked for?

MR. WEISGERBER: I don't think it's a question of what they asked for or didn't ask for. But I think, in all fairness to them and to everyone, that the right for them to be part of the union would be a large disservice to principals and vice-principals.

We are giving, through this legislation, the right to teachers to strike. It would seem to follow that at some point, perhaps today or at some later date, there will be something recognized as a strike. Today it is a study session; but after Bill 20 it will probably be a strike.

If the teachers strike and withdraw services, there is a facility there that someone has to accept responsibility for. If the principal is part of the union, then his taking responsibility for that facility would require him to cross a picket line, a most disruptive thing for that person. I don't think anybody would want him to have to do that. If you give them the right to strike, if you force them into that situation, who looks after the physical building? Somebody has to lock the doors. Somebody has to make sure the heat is on. Somebody has to make sure the kids are looked after, at least until 3 o'clock on the day of the strike, so that their parents can pick them up. I suggest to you that that is the principal's responsibility, one of many of his responsibilities. If the principals are going to be part of a bargaining unit and are out on strike, then it is left to either the janitor to do these things or to an elected school board official to leave his place of business, go down to the school and lock up. I suggest to you that there are not enough elected officials to cover the schools in the average district. So someone has to take responsibility for that, and the principals and the vice-principals are the logical people to do it.

Not only that — and I think the relationship between teachers and vice-principals is an important one and generally a good one — if these responsibilities are laid out and delineated, there aren't going to be hard feelings when the principal does his job and the teachers do theirs. The hard feelings are going to be created if the principal has to make some type of moral decision on whether he should or should not cross the picket line in order to do what is part of his job. So I think it is important that principals and vice-principals not be part of the legislation.

Finally — and I am going to wind up quickly, Mr. Whip — there seems to be some concern about the fear of the disciplinary powers of the teachers' college. I understand that the college will be formed by a number of teachers who are appointed by the ministry, whose only responsibility will be to make arrangements for an election of teachers by teachers to the board. It seems to me that the establishment of a college, a genuine college of peers, is a recognition by this government of the professional aspect of teaching. The movement to a trade union, to me, diminishes somewhat the teaching profession. I genuinely believe that. I believe it brings it down somewhat. A college, on the other hand, tends to bring it back to the level of doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, veterinarians — we could go on — with professional people who are governed by colleges. I don't see . . . .

MR. LOVICK: Sounds like trade union's a dirty word. Tell me more.

MR. WEISGERBER: No, it's not a dirty word, but it has a connotation that is not genuinely professional. I'm not aware of any other professional unions. I'm only talking . . . .

Interjection.

MR. WEISGERBER: That's right. And that's all it is. It's a connotation. It's when a group is striving for professionalism, that's all it is. It's a connotation. It's a public perception of what their job is.

MR. LOVICK: Which you're encouraging right now.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'm encouraging, and I'm suggesting to you that that college enhances that public perception; that professional organizations have colleges. If the government says to the teachers: "Here is an opportunity for you to have a college," it raises the professionalism of teachers. I think that's important. I think it wasn't an accident. I think it was a design of the minister and this government to help the teachers. I don't think there's one thing in Bill 20 that was put in there to beat teachers down. This is probably the best, fairest and most encouraging legislation for teachers that I could have imagined.

Finally — and I want to speak again to this hoist, the need to put it off for six months — if we look at what's happening today and happened yesterday . . . . We hear talk about study sessions, walkouts and lockouts, and withdrawal of services, work-to-rule. Early in my speech I talked about grads. Two years ago my oldest daughter graduated. That's an important part of a young person's life. My second daughter, my only other daughter, is graduating this year. The teachers have suggested now: "Don't count on a graduation. This is going to be part of our work-to-rule. As well as not having basketball teams, football teams and drama sessions, you probably aren't going to have a grad."

That alone, I suggest to you, for all of the grade 12 students that we have in this province — the possibility that this dispute, brought on in my mind by the BCTF, will seriously disrupt graduation — will serve no purpose other than to carry on the uncertainty and the confusion that's there now. If we hoist this bill for six months we're going to leave that feeling of uncertainty there for another six months.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I very much oppose this hoist. I would encourage the members opposite to wind up their speaking on the hoist and get on with Bill 20.

MR. LOVICK: I'd like to begin my comments on the hoist motion, in speaking in favour of the hoist motion, by responding ever so briefly to the comments of the member for South Peace River.

I want to compliment and commend that member for taking the time to try to articulate the point of view that he holds, and apparently in all honesty and sincerity. I'm delighted to recognize that and to see that he was indeed prepared to stand up and quite clearly tell us why he thought this was a good bill.

However much I want to compliment the member, however, I want to suggest that some of the comments are sadly misguided. Let me just deal with a couple of the

[ Page 820 ]

references made. The member for South Peace begins by suggesting that we on this side are constantly saying something like: "What's the rush?" Let me, however, juxtapose our comment with the one that comes from the other side, which is, of course: "Let's get on with it." I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two points of view: one called government, the other called opposition. The nature of a hoist motion is such that we have a natural and clear cleavage. Perhaps that is a good idea, because that is perhaps what's missing in this whole area of education. Perhaps the absence of a clear cleavage, a clear demarcation of boundaries and attitudes and positions, is one of the reasons why people are so concerned and upset about Bill 20.

I want to say, as kindly, generously and graciously as I am able, to the member for South Peace River that when he proceeds to tell us that he has nothing but the greatest respect for educators and loves them like brothers and sisters, the predicament . . . .

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that what he said?

MR. LOVICK: It certainly was implicit, I would inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who understandably is wondering what he said, because she didn't seem to be paying much attention.

But the point I'm making is simply that we have heard so many comments of that kind, both with regard to Bill 20 and Bill 19, that you will surely forgive us for concluding that perhaps somebody is protesting too much. If it becomes necessary to tell us again and again that "we love you as we do you this injury," then don't you think that the injured party at some point is going to be a little suspicious and say, "I'm not sure I can believe you"? I am merely raising this point now to draw your attention to the fact that we, too, are suspicious.

Just one point further, in response to the member for South Peace's comments. His concern about the graduation ceremonies. I would like to suggest that it is precisely because of the timing of this bill that the graduation ceremony is now in jeopardy, sadly, and that the hoist motion at least will guarantee that students can indeed graduate and have the benefit of that experience. The hoist motion will salvage that, and we're not sure that speedy passage of this bill will salvage that. So if you want to bet on a sure thing, I would suggest that the hoist motion at least will guarantee you graduation, if indeed you are as concerned as you claim to be.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's like having the tail wag the dog.

MR. LOVICK: Why is it that that gentleman from the other side of the House, using the phrase "that is like having the tail wag the dog" or the end of the dog wag the whatever . . . ? You know the line. Why is it that members opposite continue to see any challenge or any questioning of their authority or judgment as tantamount to their renouncing or giving up on their responsibilities? For heaven's sake, that's what consultation is all about, and that's what we've been trying to say again and again: consultation means a free and open discussion — some give and some take, some willingness to acknowledge that perhaps the other side has a case. As long as the member opposite and others like him continue to say that any suggestion of backing away from the initial position amounts to the tail wagging the dog, then I'm suggesting that you are merely demonstrating to us precisely the lack of commitment to consultation, in any meaningful sense of that term.

[11:45]

Let me respond, less graciously and kindly perhaps, to some other members of the government who have spoken in this debate thus far. Let me quote to you from Hansard yesterday afternoon, the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) speaking. I hasten to point out that I am not going to quote what my colleague from Vancouver East did. Rather, what I want to quote you is the concluding statement from the first member for Langley: "The hoist motion bothers me." So far so good. That's quite legitimate. "All it is is a stall. All you are doing on the other side of the House is . . . ." Here's the true part I want to draw everyone's attention to. I'm delighted to see the Minister of Education has returned, because he is next on my list of people I wish to quote. "All you are doing on the other side of the House," the member for Langley continues, "is prolonging the frustration and the upset in the schools." My God, Mr. Speaker, what irony! The frustration in the schools, I am sorry to say, is the legacy of ten and more years of Social Credit government and administration of the schools. The anger and upset in the schools is a direct, clear response to what is perceived to be an assault on the school system. For the member for Langley then to suggest that our stalling is somehow exacerbating the problem, it seems to me, is more than misguided; it is indeed malevolent.

Let me turn to the Minister of Education's comment on a statement made, I would assume, in every paper in the province; certainly the five or six that I have read all quoted the same letter from the Minister of Education, who stated: "This legislation in Bill 20 has been introduced quickly because that's what teachers and school officials asked the government to do." One has to ask the obvious question, and I realize the tone of my voice may suggest some incredulity on my part: how is it, then, that all of those thousands of people, compared to one Minister of Education, are arguing the contrary?

They are saying: "We are not getting what we asked for. This is not the product of the discussions we have had with the minister. Please don't do this." The minister, however, is saying: "But I am doing this because you want me to, and I am doing it quickly because you insisted I do so." Clearly there is a considerable discrepancy between those two pieces of testimony, is there not? The discrepancy between the two pieces of testimony is sufficient in itself to justify hoisting this motion for six months, I would suggest to you.

Let me turn to another member from the government side who spoke to this motion. I am referring to my hon. friend the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith). The Attorney-General, in his most ingenuous and apparently sincere manner of speaking — low-key, quiet, understanding, tolerant, compassionate; all of those good things coming across to us — suggested that he couldn't understand why the teachers were upset, because after all they've been given just what they requested. Again, one reflects on that for ever-so-few moments and comes to the obvious conclusion: "Well, if so, why have we got something in excess of 20,000 people today not at work? Why do we have chaos and discord and unhappiness in the school system?" If in fact it is the case that these

[ Page 821 ]

people have been given what they ask for, why are they so unhappy?

Let's try some possible answers to the question. The Minister of Education imitates the gallic shrug made famous by the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau. He shrugs to us to say: "I have no idea." Let me suggest a possible answer to the question. The possible answer is that perhaps the real problem with the teachers is that they're just too dumb. They don't know what they want. We're telling them it is good for them. They're saying it isn't good for them, so obviously the only conclusion — apparently the Minister of Education is assuming — is they are just stupid.

Well, isn't that a good basis for bargaining — to suggest that the other side is stupid, to say to them again and again: "We're giving you what you want. Obviously you don't like it, so clearly you must be stupid"? That's really good negotiation; that's consultation; that's cooperation. That's going to take us a long way forward in this province. I suggest to you that that's, to use a term used earlier by one of my colleagues, just dumb.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I wish the Minister of Education would speak up a little when he makes comments. I'd love to hear what he said. Instead, I gather, it's just a mutter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're distorting.

MR. LOVICK: No, I don't think I am distorting. I think I am presenting a case to you, and quoting directly from comments made by members opposite. The Attorney-General and various others have made the point with depressing regularity and frequency: "Why are the teachers upset when we're giving them what they wanted?" The teachers just as loudly and just as regularly are saying: "That is not the case." If you are saying that the teachers are getting what they wanted and they are denying that fact, and you continue to hold to the claim that they are getting what they wanted, the only explanation that's rational is that they must be non compos mentis — they must be stupid or addled or some such thing. That's not distortion; that's just logic. Perhaps to members opposite those two terms are understandably confused.

I also want to suggest — again thinking in terms of the Attorney-General; he has an uncanny ability to talk about consultation and friendship and decency and all that, but nevertheless to provoke, perplex and anger people . . . . Certainly he has done that with his comments about teachers. What he said — and it's the same refrain we heard when we discussed Bill 19 — was that the real problem we've got here, friends and neighbours, is not with the teachers but with the — you guessed it — leadership. If we could only get a whole group of individuals who were truly representative of the organization, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead, we have this cabal of leaders who are plotting, it would seem, in the darkness of the night.

That kind of argument, I'm suggesting, is pretty clearly inflammatory. That's not going to get us any closer to consultation. That won't get us any closer to solving our problems. It is simply going to anger and provoke people to take actions that they otherwise would not take. Our predicament of course, is that today we are seeing just those kinds of actions.

I want to turn now to some substantive arguments in support of the hoist motion. A good way to begin this is probably to say that it is difficult to be very original when one speaks for and against a hoist motion because, after all, the debate is simply between delay and action. The arguments for delay are going to be more or less predictable and the arguments for action are going to be more or less predictable. Thus one has the sense in speaking to this kind of motion of going through a kind of ritualistic response. That doesn't make it any the less significant, but it is ritualistic.

The basic arguments for the hoist motion . . . . Let me try it from the other side, Mr. Speaker. The argument against the hoist motion is simply that you're reluctant to change. You're stalling instead of getting on with the action. The problem is that people — so the argument goes — are always fearful of change. That which they do not understand scares them. That, of course, is a valid proposition. However, the point is surely that the government, the initiator, the agent of change, has the obligation and the responsibility to do something to allay the fears of those people who are apprehending change. That's their responsibility. Unfortunately — sadly — it would seem that we do not have a government that has done enough to allay those fears. Thus we have this incredible groundswell of opposition to Bill 20 — more so, I might add, than I thought would happen.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The second argument for a hoist motion in general is because the people who are directly affected perceive that what is being proposed is not in their best interests, and pretty clearly that too is a perception that is alive and well. Individuals have looked; they have examined and they have concluded that this bill is not healthy for them as professionals in the education community.

I would like to point out — I'm going to end here, Mr. Speaker, because I see that the hour of adjournment is approaching — that if it is the case that the changes are really not harmful and threatening to the integrity of the teaching profession, then that too becomes the onus for and the obligation of government. Government must very clearly, as the agent of change, demonstrate to those most directly affected that your fears are groundless, are not solid, do not rest on any kind of firm foundation. It is clear from the evidence before us that that has not been accomplished by government. Rather we have, as I say, something in excess of 20,000 people outside the walls of the schools today. We have that because they perceive that what is being done to them — or for them, to put it more charitably — is not acceptable, is unhealthy. The government is at fault, and the way to solve that problem is to give us that breathing space. Give us that extra time; agree to the hoist motion.

When we resume, Mr. Speaker, I shall turn to some more specific arguments for this hoist motion, and I hope that the audience on the other side of the House, who have thus far been very attentive, will continue to give me more of their attention when the House resumes. On that note I would move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.