[ Page 823 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 823

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

Introduction and first reading –– 824

Oral Questions

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

Health care for women. Mrs. Boone –– 825

Aquaculture. Mr. Guno –– 825

Farm Credit Corporation moratorium. Mr. Rose –– 825

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

Ministerial Statements

Volunteer Week. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 826

Ms. A. Hagen

Workplace fatalities. Hon. L. Hanson –– 827

Ms. Smallwood

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Lovick –– 827

Mr. Loenen –– 829

Ms. Smallwood –– 830

Ms. Campbell –– 831

Mr. Cashore –– 833

Mr. De Jong –– 836

Mr. Sihota –– 837

Mr. Mercier –– 841

Mr. Miller –– 842

Mr. Vant –– 846

Mr. Guno –– 847

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have some very good friends visiting in your gallery today, from Santa Barbara, California: Mr. Jesse and Mrs. Patricia Nimocks and their daughter Mary Beth, and I would ask the House to extend them a big welcome.

Mr. Speaker, we also have with us a West Vancouver Secondary School class headed by Mr. Odegaard, their teacher. There are 25 students here with Mr. Odegaard, and we would ask the House to bid them welcome also.

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

Coquitlam. First of all, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Bob Walker, Timothy Walker and Mark Overgaard. Timothy and Mark are here interviewing some MLAs with regard to a paper that they're doing at Centennial School on gambling. I invite you to join me in welcoming them.

Also visiting we have members of the Young New Democrats from Maillardville-Coquitlam: Shawna Olynyk, David MacLean, Sarah Deforest, Heather Deforest, Cindy Van Ginkel, and their counsellor Anita Van Ginkel. I ask you to join me in welcoming them.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is a constituent, Dr. Serge Vanry, who is the president of the College of Dental Surgeons, and in your gallery are his wife, Brenda Vanry, and their son Steve Vanry. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery Mr. Mike Rann, Member of Parliament for South Australia, from Briggs constituency. The member joined us on our team yesterday in softball against the press gallery. Despite his efforts, we didn't rout them after all. Would you welcome the member from Australia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the government, let us join with the first member for Vancouver East in also welcoming Michael to our province and to our country and to the Legislative Assembly. I hope that his skills at baseball are just as remarkable as his skills, as he described them to me last night, at cricket; I'm sure they were. In any event, thank you very much, Michael, for joining us today. Welcome to British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have the executive director of the University of Victoria local of the B.C. Public Interest Research Group, Dr. Josephine Payne-O'Connor. She is accompanied by a number of student members of PIRG. PIRG is a student-run research group at UVic and Simon Fraser University. Every semester it funds the student press gallery intern here in the Legislature. Would the House please welcome these people today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today and in the precincts this afternoon is Mr. Jim Bowman of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who will make himself available to any members this afternoon and all day Thursday for any consultation they would like to have with him. I'd like the House o make him welcome.

MR. ROSE: Just apropos to that introduction of Mr. Bowman by the Minister of Education, I'd like to maybe offer goodbye to Mr. Bowman from this House, because he's ) been a representative visiting both sides of the House on ) behalf of the federation for a number of years, and he's retiring on May 1. I'm sure we all wish him great fun in his retirement; he's going to Italy, first off, he says.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd just like to add my few words, of good wishes to Mr. Bowman. I'm sure he's not going to Italy; he's going to Louisville for the Kentucky Derby. Mr. Bowman is one of North America's premier handicappers, and I wish him well in his new career.

MR. SIHOTA: Two introductions. First of all, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming in the gallery today Doris Baxter and 13 other teachers from Glen Lake Elementary School in the Sooke School District.

Secondly, in the precincts — more specifically, in my office — visiting the Legislature for the first time is my six month-old daughter Karina. Would everybody welcome her as well.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to ask the house to join me in welcoming Mr. Ian McCoy, who is a former Victorian now living in the West End of Vancouver and who has helped me in so many campaigns; I can't remember how many. I'm very pleased to know that he's here his afternoon.

[2:15]

MS. MARZARI: I'd like the House to welcome the executive director of the British Columbia Association of Social Workers, who is in the gallery today: Mr. Christopher Valinsley.

Introduction of Bills

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this act contains three minor amendments: one to the Corporation Capital Tax Act, two to the Fire Services Act and one to the Grasshopper Control Act — matters of great import. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be laced on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EXPROPRIATION ACT

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

[ Page 824 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is really a privilege to finally give birth to an offspring that has been gestating for some 15 or 20 years in this province. The commissions that were established to review the laws of expropriation go back to the Clyne commission in the early seventies, an excellent report of the Law Reform Commission, a Green Paper that we put out in 1982. Finally, we have produced a bill that will unify all expropriation of land in this province, with a few minor exceptions; eliminate 30 different statutory procedures for expropriation; provide a uniform bill, a one-stop shop, so that everyone whose property is taken compulsorily will have a fair and accessible procedure open to them.

For the first time in Canada, there will be an expropriation procedure where if the owner doesn't wish the property taken, an independent commission will establish an independent investigation into value and immediately will pay upon the taking the total appraised value of the land, which will be given to the owner without any strings. He can then go to the tribunal and contest the amount. If he gets less, he still keeps what he got and he doesn't pay the costs of the expropriation. He only pays his own costs. But if he gets more, he not only gets more but he gets full costs.

It is a model piece of legislation. It's one of the most advanced in North America and it's the result of our Green Paper consultation for six years. I'm very pleased to bring this forward as a model, and I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON PRINCE GEORGE FOREST REGION

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. The minister released a major report last week on the Prince George region. It indicates that there have been meetings between the various forest operators in the region and the ministry for over two years to carve up the public land base in the Prince George region, clearly a form of collusion and the very antithesis to free enterprise. Can the minister advise the House whether he condones this activity?

HON. MR. PARKER: Again I extend the courtesy that the member for Vancouver East extended this House in his term as Forests minister, and I'll take the question as notice.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise the House how any new enterprise that wanted access to the public forest could get established in the Prince George region? Can he advise how any new free-enterpriser in the province could be given business using forests in the Prince George region?

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister released the study. I would assume the minister read the report. The report indicates that the profile of the forest is not being cut in the Prince George region; that is, that balsam, cedar and low-quality woods are not being cut, that high-grading has been the pattern in the Prince George region. Can the minister advise the House if he has taken steps to prevent the continued high grading of the resource in the Prince George region?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes.

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

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

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

The report also indicated that the valley bottoms are being cut and the hillsides are not. That too is a form of high grading, and this is a region that is wood-short. Can the minister advise the House if he has taken steps to end that kind of high-grading in the Prince George region?

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

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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The report indicates that the Prince George region is the largest in the province –– 38 percent of the provincial forest, the size of New Brunswick — and it indicates classic mismanagement. Part of the problem is size. Can the minister advise the House if he's reconsidering the size of the TSA in the Prince George region, in view of the terrible problems of mismanagement within it?

HON. MR. PARKER: Question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: The report also indicates that in this region there has not been forest inventory for the past 20 years, that the ministry in fact does not know what is there because of lowdown, bug-kill and other forms of devastation in the form of mismanagement, an area with a clearcut 40 kilometres long, the longest in North America. Are there no plans to begin inventory of this area?

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

[ Page 825 ]

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

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the continuous forest inventory program covers the province of British Columbia, and various areas within British Columbia, such as the Prince George timber supply area, fall into a schedule.

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

Mr. Speaker, the former minister, the member for Omineca, indicated that section 88 credits to the companies, excessive grand credits, would be ended. There is talk of using the credits for the extension of the Dease railway into the Sustut. Can the minister advise the House whether he is going to follow the program of the former minister and end section 88 credits?

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The future policy had been announced by the former minister. Could the minister advise if there has been any change in that policy?

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

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

HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

MRS. BOONE: I am talking today to you about the situation that has arisen in Kamloops involving a 14-year old girl who has been denied an abortion. The health of women? No, it's girls; young girls in this province are in jeopardy.

Has the minister taken steps to ensure that all women in this province are given adequate health care and access to health care, especially those who are 14 years old or younger?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this girl having had an abortion or having been denied an abortion. I only hear it from the news media, and I suppose it is correct. However, I should point out to the hon. member that in Kamloops there is an abortion committee duly appointed by a board that was duly elected. The therapeutic abortion committee consists of physicians. They operate according to the Criminal Code of Canada. I do not believe that I would enter into any discussion or any disagreement with a doctor, being a lay person myself. The system is working as it is set up by the federal law.

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

HON. MR. DUECK: I do not investigate on specific people who have either been denied or have had abortions, unless it is brought to my attention by some authority. I have no reason to investigate this at all if it's done properly with the therapeutic abortion committee that is in place. I cannot second-guess doctors or physicians who are doing their job according to the Criminal Code.

MRS. BOONE: Is the minister saying that if a complaint was lodged with you by the parents of this child or by somebody in the know in the Kamloops area, you would then investigate this?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, if I got a report from the parent or from any other one, I would probably be obliged to investigate and would probably do so.

AQUACULTURE

MR. GUNO: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Last Thursday, Hagensborg Resources Ltd. announced its proposal for a new land-based salmon farm near Nanaimo. Can the minister confirm that the hastily completed finfish aquaculture inquiry did not review land-based aquaculture?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is correct, but the reason that we're looking at land-based aquaculture operations for finfish is that it will very much minimize disease in the natural water systems.

MR. GUNO: Supplementary to the same minister. On that note, can the minister provide an indication if any other review is being done to provide information for the government on the effect of the tons of waste which this facility will discharge, or the effect of the use of artificial feed on the local environment?

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

MR. GUNO: This is a supplementary to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister assure the assembly that a thorough environmental impact assessment will be conducted before the facility receives final approval?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his question. Yes, I have discussed this with officials of the fish and wildlife branch of my ministry, and they are quite convinced that the process of this type of tank farming, or ranching if you will, is the appropriate way to go in terms of the ecology and in terms of what we're putting into the ocean, and the ministry is looking at it quite closely, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

[2:30]

FARM CREDIT CORPORATION MORATORIUM

MR. ROSE: To the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is undoubtedly aware of the decision to end the moratorium on the federal Farm Credit Corporation, and he is probably also aware of the vulnerability of Peace grain-farmers. I wonder if he's had a chance to assess the impact of this federal decision, and what plans he may have to take the place of the federal assistance?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. member, that is future discussion. I don't think I can release any details at this stage, but we are working on the Peace River problem.

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

[ Page 826 ]

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

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, those are not part of the discussion. It's a much more complicated discussion that is going on, for longer-term consideration.

CABINET COMMITTEE ON
SOCIAL POLICY MEETING

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Last Friday the cabinet social policy committee met in Vancouver East and I understand that there was great public distress expressed over the many, many briefs that grassroots people wanted to present but didn't have the opportunity. What plans does the minister have to listen to these people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question because it gives me a chance to tell this House that the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy had a very successful day in Vancouver East attended by all members of the committee, wherein we heard some 31 presentations from interested groups in that geographic area. We do apologize, Mr. Speaker, to all those groups that we were unable to hear. We had over 80 requests to make submissions and couldn't possibly handle them in one day. As I explained to the people at the time, we will be coming back into that general area, and we'll be able to hear more. In the meantime, the committee will hear representations from time to time from individual groups. I did promise them all that every group that made a written submission would receive a written answer.

Mr. Speaker, it was just physically impossible for us in one day to hear any more than 31 briefs. But I thank the member for the question.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question. Would the minister tell the House the way in which this process will be reported to the House? Are there plans to table the findings and the intentions of the social policy committee after these discussions have been completed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, these hearings throughout the province are designed to enable the committee on social policy to chart a course or direction for the next five or more years. The results of these hearings will manifest themselves in the policies that come forward from this government.

Ministerial Statements

VOLUNTEER WEEK

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

It is with a sense of pride and gratitude that I call to the attention of the hon. members of this House the occasion of Volunteer Week, which is being observed throughout our province.

Today, from one end of British Columbia to the other, volunteers from all walks of life are giving their time and effort in virtually every area of our vast health care program.

They include volunteer auxiliaries in our immediate and intermediate extended-care facilities and our acute-care hospitals, in adult day-care programs and in home-support services. They serve as drivers and as helpers to the elderly in getting around.

As an example — and only one of many — the number of volunteers serving in the Meals on Wheels program all over the province is an impressive 4,100 and steadily growing. Last year they served more than 406,000 meals to those less fortunate citizens unable to Prepare food for themselves. These figures, I should add, pertain only to those Meals on Wheels programs funded by the Ministry of Health.

There are numerous other organizations worthy of mention who similarly add to the hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer work every year in British Columbia. These organizations provide care, raise funds to assist in the purchase of necessary equipment, promote awareness and understanding, and support research in health care. These exceptional people also serve unstintingly on the boards of our province's care facilities, freely giving their time, talents and energies to ensure the proper and efficient functioning of these facilities and the well-being of patients and residents.

Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to say without reservation that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and thriving in British Columbia. It is that spirit of assistance, that extended hand of help to our fellow citizens, that adds to the greatness of our province.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join with all members of this House in acknowledging this week the many volunteers in our province. It is a very special week, and I want first to endorse the comments of the hon. minister, and commend him particularly for choosing a group of people who work with older people. I think that that was a very appropriate choice of the minister.

We do acknowledge people who work in many sectors in our province — with older people and children, in sports, in cultural and ethnic activities, with special needs people; people who work in institutions and who in fact establish new programs and services. I think it is a good time for us to recall and acknowledge that very often the work of volunteers identifies areas in our communities where we need to expand and enhance our social services to people. They are the precursors of many of the services that we as the body politic need to support.

I would note just a couple of those. In the seniors areas we had a large number of volunteer drivers taking people to hospitals and therapeutic appointments, and we now have a comprehensive handyDART program across the province, something that came as a result of volunteers making that need known, so that people both old and young could be served in transportation. I would also like to acknowledge very briefly the work of the volunteer coordinating centres, who do such a fine job matching the many people in the province and in the country who participate in volunteer activities, who make sure that those agencies and programs that have volunteer opportunities are known to people who wish to serve in their communities. So I join with all members of the House in saluting the energy, caring and commitment of volunteers. It is really a time for all of us to acknowledge their motto, which is: "We share."

[ Page 827 ]

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

HON. L. HANSON: I would like to bring to the attention of this House today that April 28 has been designated by the labour movement in Canada as a day to commemorate those workers in British Columbia and across our country who have lost their lives in workplace accidents. This day has been set aside in recognition of workers who are fatally injured on the job and in respect to the profound grief of their families and co-workers. Unfortunately there are work-related deaths and serious injuries which pass largely unnoticed by most of us, unless we are personally affected by the loss of a family member or someone with whom we have worked closely. Let us dedicate ourselves to finding better ways to minimize the inherent risks in our more dangerous industries and to eliminating the unnecessary hazards and risk-taking which can occur on any job site.

I would like to commend the worthwhile initiative of the Canadian Labour Congress and the effort put forth by the many labour representatives who have written to the Premier and to my office to request the government to observe a day of mourning on April 28. Henceforth this will be recognized as an annual day of commemoration, and hopefully it will serve as a vehicle to encourage workers and employers alike to redouble their efforts to improve workplace safety.

I can assure you that through agencies like the Workers' Compensation Board, the employment standards branch and the various inspection services of this government, we will continue our efforts to put in place initiatives that are preventive and designed to promote and improve workplace safety. We will continue to consult with employers, employees and other governments in order to ensure that problems are identified and that responses are coordinated and effective.

I would also like to announce that the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of the government, has issued a proclamation in support of the second annual Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. The dates are June 14-20, 1987, and it will be circulated to all joint health and safety committees across the province.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to please join me now in a minute of silence in the memory of workers whose lives have been lost in the pursuit of their livelihood and in the service of their employers and, in fact, all of British Columbians.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd also like to thank the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services for his kind remarks and join with the government in commending the Canadian Labour Congress and organized labour throughout the province for bringing this important issue to the forefront. We would like to add our sad feelings and support to those families of injured workers and workers who have given their lives in the interests of production and moving this province forward to prosperity.

I'd like to add to the minister's comments by noting that almost two million days were lost in 1986 due to injuries. That's an incredible number, a number that only begins to parallel the days lost due to management-labour disputes in this province. This is an incredible problem that needs the support of both sides of this House to begin to address.

Perhaps it's also timely to mention another anniversary at this time. We have just passed the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, an incredible industrial accident that this planet of ours has not overcome and will not overcome for many generations. I bring this up at this time because there is a nuclear reactor in Hanford, Washington, that is exactly like the Chernobyl reactor. This reactor lends the possibility of an incredible industrial accident that would not only affect the people of Washington but the people of B.C. as well.

So while we are joining in the moment of silence in respect for injured workers and workers who have given their lives for B.C.. it's timely also to look to the future and the opportunity this presents for the government to initiate programs with the support of the opposition to avoid the possibility of any further injuries or deaths.

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

Orders of the Day

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

While I think of it, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have all members of the House join me in thanking Hansard for this excellent synopsis they're printing now for the benefit of members, indicating bills that have been read, times, members who have spoken.... The Industrial Relations Reform Act — we debated that for 37 hours and 21 minutes, for those of you who are into that type of statistic. And that was just the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)!

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

[2:45]

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, given that some time has indeed elapsed since I left off my remarks, it is well perhaps for me to begin by reminding everybody what a hoist motion is. The hoist motion is simply asking this House to take that bill away from the House for a period of six months, so that the parties directly affected can consult and confer together before we bring it back to the House for attention by this Legislature. We suggest, obviously, that it is a reasonable motion. We suggest it is a motion that ought to receive the support of both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, to launch the second part of my remarks on the hoist motion, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is fond of pointing out that he and his government are indeed predisposed and prepared to consider amendments. On the face of it, that is a commendable and congratulable kind of sentiment for the minister to take. If, however, one pauses to reflect for just a moment about that, a couple of questions arise.

The first question is, if indeed it is already perceived that this notion that the bill under discussion, namely Bill 20, ought to be amended, how then can the minister continue to tell us that this same bill is (a) what the teachers wanted and (b) the product of consultation? It would seem to me that pretty clearly that cannot be the case. If we have seen the need rather recently to make significant amendments to the bill, then it probably has not been everything that was asked for by

[ Page 828 ]

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

The second point I would make, though, is this. Let us grant for the moment that this response to suggest that amendments will be allowed is in fact the product of consultation and collaboration with the parties directly affected. If that is the case, surely it is also reasonable to conclude that insofar as we are recognizing the need for amendment, we are also implicitly recognizing that we perhaps misjudged and we erred in our earlier assessments about what was required. Is this not then a very good argument for suggesting we should hoist this bill for six months so we can allow all of the parties directly affected to have an opportunity to sort out those kinds of questions and differences? I suggest to the minister that that does indeed make eminent good sense.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to make a few substantive comments about why we think the bill ought to be hoisted, in the time remaining to me. I want to start that process by reminding this House that the most significant argument of all is the fact that as we stand here and debate this motion in the Legislature there are somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people not at school today. Now if ever there were evidence to suggest that we have been precipitate, that we are perhaps acting too quickly, that there is a time now to weigh, consider and rethink what we have done, surely the very fact of that many of our fellow citizens doing what they are doing would be that evidence. Surely that evidence must count for something, unless of course we want to pursue the kind of convoluted logic the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) seems to use: namely that this is all the product of a leadership of the B.C. Teachers' Federation that is somehow misleading the rank-and-file membership. I think, however, none of us is prepared, if we seriously reflect on the matter, to draw that conclusion.

The evidence surely counts for something. If it is the case — which it is — that all of those people who are directly affected by the legislation are saying, "We are going to forgo a day's pay; we're going to accept and reluctantly live with all the criticisms, the castigations and the aspersions because of the fact that we deprive the community of the service we normally provide," if teachers are indeed going to do that, surely that must make the comment that this bill is presented to us in inordinate haste and that it ought to be given some breathing-time. We should give it some breathing-time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest one predominant argument that I think is the best case possible to defend a hoist motion. I've struggled with how to phrase it, but I think it can be rendered in this simple sentence: the reason above all else that the education profession has decided to go to the wall on this issue is that this government does not have the trust of that profession. It follows that this government ought to make its first priority the matter of gaining the confidence and the trust of the teaching profession. It further follows from that that the means to do that would be a six-month period in which the sides could indeed talk, discuss and come to terms. That may sound a little simplistic, but if you pause to reflect on the argument, you'll discover that that is not in fact the case.

Teachers perceive — my bias is "correctly perceive"; others will take a different point of view — that they have been victimized for a number of years. They perceive that this government has been no friend to education, all the claims from the other side of this House about how much teachers are loved and respected notwithstanding. That is the perception in the teaching profession. I'm suggesting that what this government ought to do if it truly wants to succeed in this legislation, if it truly wants to redraw the legislation and draft anew the legislation governing education in this province, is make its first priority regaining the trust and confidence of the people it is designed and is intending to serve and service. That's what ought to happen, and that's why the hoist motion makes good sense, above all else perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, when I have spoken on a number of other motions in this House and at some length, it has often been remarked that my comments are perhaps too abstract, theoretical, academic, cerebral and all of that kind of thing. I am therefore resolved to do something somewhat different. I want to do something anecdotal, and I have not yet done that in this House. I want to talk based on my own experience within the profession, because as you know, I have been a college instructor and have some familiarity with the system.

When I was elected to this Legislature, I made only one stipulation to my caucus colleagues, and that was that I did not want a critic role that had anything specifically to do with education. Of course, one can understandably wonder why I should say that. I want to suggest that the reason was that I had become like so many of my colleagues in that system: disenchanted, disillusioned and, dare I say, burnt out to some degree. The reason for that was, more than anything else, the fact that we who serve the public in the field of education felt unappreciated — not by our students but, rather, by the public we were intending to serve and provide good service to. We felt that somehow everything we had done didn't matter; it didn't count.

Let me give the illustration of my own experience. As I say, I taught at a community college. I went there directly out of graduate school at university, and I thought that we were indeed going to build the new Jerusalem in Nanaimo's fair and pleasant land. We had a missionary zeal, a crusading spirit that said, by God, we were going to bring education to the people; we were going to make sure that students who had hitherto been denied opportunity were, by heaven, at last going to get that opportunity. We believed it and we worked 16 hours a day. We never thought twice about that, because we believed.

MR. RABBITT: Hallelujah!

MR. LOVICK: Somebody said "Hallelujah," and that's precisely the point. We weren't exactly Handel's chorus, but we came damn close. We believed. We thought that what we did was significant, was important, that it mattered. Sadly, what has happened in this province is that teachers from K to 12 and beyond into the colleges, universities and technical schools all have come to the simple conclusion that it does not matter whether or not one does a good job, because what's going to happen instead is that government, through its intermediary, namely administration, is going to say: "We still don't think you work hard enough and, by heaven, you'd better do more." That is the malaise that the system has been suffering from. To try to suddenly change that by legislation and say "Here is the way to solve our problems. We're going to legislate happiness and harmony. We're going to all make you feel good about what you do, because we, the government, in our collective wisdom, say 'thou shalt feel good about it"' is simply misguided, muddle-headed and, frankly, stupid. It is not good policy.

[ Page 829 ]

The hoist motion is giving this government an opportunity to save its political backside and also to save any kind of credibility it might have within the educational institution of this province. As I suggested, the predicament above all else is that this government does not have any kind of credibility with the profession. Even if members on the other side, such as the Minister of Education, are entirely sincere and well-meaning in what they want to do — and I hate to be blunt about this — nobody believes you. That's the problem. And what you need to do, I suggest, is to find some means of redress. Find some means of saying: "Let us in fact talk together in an environment where we can see that both of us have the interest of the whole system, the students and the people involved in the system at heart. You will not do that in the powerfully charged environment of this Legislature, given the constraints of the legislative process. For heaven's sake, surely now is the time, if ever, given the evidence, to consider hoisting this bill. Let us put it on hold for six months, Mr. Speaker.

[3:00]

MR. LOENEN: The second member for Nanaimo never fails to lecture this House. He was true to form. Once again we were subjected to a lot of paternalism. He told us that at one time he was very enthusiastic and idealistic. He thought he was going to usher in paradise. No wonder he feels disappointed. No wonder he feels a little bit let down. No wonder he is burned out. Such misguided idealism is bound to fail. Don't blame the government for that. Be realistic. Come down to earth.

I would like to speak against the motion. I am disappointed that once again we have another attempt to further delay. There's absolutely no reason for it. This is excellent legislation, if only we look at it positively and stop being so negative. I would like to outline to you why some of the main features are not only to be applauded but ought to be welcomed and implemented forthwith.

Full bargaining for teachers. They have asked for it, and it's something that teachers in all other provinces of this country have. What is wrong with it? Why should we not proceed immediately? An end to the compensation stabilization program. We've been told that the legislation is to be criticized because it does not immediately abolish the CSP. This hoist motion would simply delay that further still. Teachers in my riding have asked that that be eliminated forthwith. We are responding to what the teachers tell us. I do not understand why we need to wait any longer.

The removal of the principals and vice-principals from the bargaining units. Every other bargaining unit in society has exempted staff. This is not unusual. This is common practice, built on historical precedent for which there is good, sound reason. There is nothing revolutionary, nothing unusual, nothing experimental. In fact we know that the principals and vice-principals have for many years felt uncomfortable within the context of the BCTF Again, it is a move that is defensible in every way.

Finally, the professional college. As was pointed out by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) this morning, our teachers are both part of a profession and part of what is normally called a trade union, a labour union movement. It makes good sense to split those two functions and to not mix in with the bargaining over dollars and cents those issues that ought to be decided on educational criteria and on the basis of what is best for the kids in the schools.

I just wanted to touch on those main issues because I have yet to hear any cogent, reasonable arguments that attack those main features of the bill. All we hear, from the BCTF as well as from the members opposite, are criticisms which are on the periphery of things, which deal with the methodology, which deal with "perhaps we should wait longer," etc. We have yet to hear strong, substantive arguments against the major components and the principles embedded in this legislation.

I am pleased to stand up and defend this legislation, because I want everyone in the province to know that the Social Credit government cares for education. There is perhaps little that is of greater importance to our lives, to our economy, to our community and to our families than education. It is of utmost importance; we need no convincing of the importance of education. I predict that these measures will become a hallmark and that other jurisdictions are going to look at this and are going to emulate us, because under these provisions there is the possibility for teachers to contribute their professional expertise in ways that were never possible before. We have to recognize that as a government we not only have a duty and an obligation to the teachers of our province; we also have a duty and an obligation to the parents, the taxpayers of this province. We have to recognize these things and balance all of these interests.

I have talked to the delegation from the Richmond Teachers' Association. Last weekend I had an opportunity to meet with a number of the principals. I spent a whole hour on a TV phone-in show. I have yet to hear reasoned arguments that are cogent against the main features, and, as I said, I think these main features of this legislation are entirely reasonable and defensible.

This motion to hoist in my opinion is frivolous and silly. There are no other words for it. We are wasting good time which we should use instead to get on with the challenges that lie before us. We should get on with doing what is best....

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

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, all of us are willing to defend democracy, but I'd like the hon. member to know that there is such a thing as an abuse of the rules, and I cannot wait for the day when these proceedings are going to be put on TV, because the people of this province are going to recognize when good rules are being abused.

There have been suggestions that somehow this legislation will spell the end of the BCTF I don't believe that for one minute. There is a good role to be played for the BCTF, and the BCTF is going to be around for years to come. There is nothing in this legislation that will spell the demise of the BCTF, but their efforts will be channelled in ways that will be very constructive.

We ought to recognize that, and we ought to encourage each other to be positive and to make a positive contribution to our educational system. I would like this House to know that in Richmond today 268 teachers are at work, that all of the schools are open in Richmond. I congratulate those teachers. I congratulate them for not participating in what is clearly an illegal walkout.

This legislation has a lot of things to recommend itself to us. It provides for choice. The member talked about democracy. We have built into this legislation democracy. The teachers at the local level can choose their own bargaining

[ Page 830 ]

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

There have been suggestions that somehow this government does not consult with the people, and that therefore we have to create the opportunity for consultation. Well, let me tell you the Premier has set the example. He is on the open line show. He has made himself available day and night, and I challenge anybody to look back in our recent history and to find a government that is as open as this government is. We are happy to be open to the suggestions that come our way, and there is still ample opportunity for input, for making modifications, and for suggestions that are good and positive and wholesome.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who suggests that somehow this process that we go through allows for railroading, for quickly passing something without consultation, simply is not aware of the process. It is a very open process that allows and will allow for ample consultation. The kind of suggestions that have been made, the kind of reasons that the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) suggested just before I spoke, to make us provide more time, all of those kinds of suggestions can be dealt with under third reading, should be dealt with under third reading. We ought to get on with doing what is good for the kids in our schools. Let us do the job that we were elected to do, and let us be proud of the good educational system that we have and the good improvements that we are about to make.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have spent a great deal of time since the bill was tabled before this House, quite by surprise, thinking about the bill and thinking about my opportunity to speak.

I rise in support of the hoist motion and encourage the government to delay the bill for six months, and I am really pleased to have the opportunity to tell in particular some of the previous speakers why. When some of the previous speakers have referred to their government as an open government and the opportunities that the Premier has taken to go on open-line shows, it is on the verge of being laughable.

I find it completely and totally outrageous that a government is talking about consultation when they invite the teachers to sit down and talk to them about the bill and then use a heavy hammer, a heavy fist, and surprise the House by bringing down legislation as a threat to the teachers, while the teachers are trying to have some meaningful discussions about a bill that is going to devastate their organization.

The previous speaker talked about the Premier going on open-line radio in this province to talk about the issue of education. He has in the past talked about the issue of industrial relations, he has in the past talked about hungry children, and the list grows and grows and grows. Is this a one-man show? Is the Premier going to go to my schools in Surrey on an individual basis to talk to the principals, to talk to the teachers, to talk to the parents and the children about this serious problem that is before us? I think not, and if he tries to, he is doing a tremendous disservice to the people of this province.

We have put this motion to this House because we want some meaningful discussion. We want the government to engage in a process that will begin to address the incredible inequities that the erosion of our education system in the past few years has undergone. When previous speakers on the opposition side have made mention of $400 million worth of erosion to the budget of the education system, the numbers are not only staggering but it's very difficult for anybody to relate to what that really means.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Education minister — because there's been no indication from the government side that they're going to support our motion to delay this bill — some of the things that he would hear if he went out and talked to the teachers and talked to the people in my riding. What he would hear is that the high schools in my riding don't have enough textbooks for the kids to do their homework. What he would hear is that the textbooks that they do have are so badly dog-eared that it's very difficult for the kids to use them, that many of the kids in the schools in North Surrey have to stay after classes to share a textbook to do their homework.

[3:15]

Now when this government brings down a bill that deals with the working conditions of teachers in our province, it seems to be totally without the understanding that the working conditions of teachers in this province are the learning conditions of our children; that teachers in this province have been backed into a comer over the last few years of having to take this incredible stand; that the Education minister must understand that the teachers themselves have avoided these kinds of discussions historically, but they have come to the point where they have no choice.

Previous Social Credit governments have put teachers in a situation where they now are fighting for our children. Teachers in this province are heroes, and I'm prepared to say that both inside this House and outside of this House. The teachers in this province are in a situation where they're having to face hungry children in their classrooms, children who are not able to concentrate on the learning that they're supposed to be doing. Teachers in this province are putting money out of their own pockets to provide peanut butter and crackers for those kids. They are putting money out of their own pockets to provide paper for our elementary classrooms to be able to involve the kids in art projects.

Teachers are trying to teach our children and they are not supported by this government in the very primary needs of resources, of textbooks, of paper. Our education system has been eroded to the point that teachers are now walking out of classrooms, and I say shame on this government and shame on the minister for bringing this bill before us and further eroding-their opportunity to stand up for our children.

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

MR. BLENCOE: What an incredible remark!

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that is an incredibly callous remark, and I hope that Hansard picked up that comment from the minister. The minister said that the teachers are striking for money and that they're not striking for children. Well, I want to tell you a little bit about what it's like to work with children. I know that that might be a little bit difficult for some of the members in this House, and I recognize the fact that the Minister of Education has worked in the schools and he should know how difficult it is to be able to help a classroom along, to be able to work with children, to make sure that they're able to move out into our society equipped with the kinds of skills that they need. Given the fact that they don't have the resources, given the fact that they don't have support, given the fact that they are constantly bashed by

[ Page 831 ]

government, and given the fact that the government is in the process of mainstreaming many special needs children in the schools and not giving the schools and the teachers the kind of support that they need, I think that they're doing an incredible job — and, quite frankly, I wouldn't thank them for it.

I find it really difficult to make a great deal of sense of some of the previous speakers. When the members on the government side get up and talk about, "We've given the teachers everything that they want; we've given them everything that they've asked for; they wanted the right to negotiate, and we've given them that; they wanted the right to strike, and we've given them that," that is nothing more than doublespeak. The government members making those statements should read their own bill. If indeed they have read their own bill, then they are being nothing more than deceptive and manipulative.

The government, in Bill 20, has given teachers the right to strike, and in Bill 19 they have taken that right away. The teachers have gained nothing. The teachers, through the BCTF and their democratically chosen and developed organization, have historically looked after their working conditions and their training. The government is eroding the work that the teachers have historically put in place, the work that protects our children and protects the quality — yes, the quality — of the work that our teachers do for our children.

It's ironic that while the government talks about children in a very romantic way, when they talk about how our children are put at risk because of the actions of the teachers, the government is not able to make that next leap. They're not able to understand that fundamental principle that the teachers are fighting for; the government is not able to understand what the working conditions are.

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

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

There are many important issues that need to be explored. This bill, like the industrial relations bill, cannot be dealt with in isolation. The government, if it could see past its own agenda, could understand what not only teachers but children and parents in B.C. are struggling with. I think also that the reason the government is trying to push through this bill — the way the government is using this bill, in its heavy-handed way, to force the teachers to deal with the negotiations that are going on right now.... If the government was to look beyond its agenda.... And the agenda has been speculated on. Whether or not it is a personal vendetta, I can't say; I can only look at past history.

If the government would look beyond its own agenda and look at the realities in this province, it could only come to one conclusion: that it must join in true partnership with the people of this province; that it must stop working in isolation. One of the previous speakers talked about welcoming the TVs into this House. I, too, welcome the TVs into this House. I welcome the opportunity to truly put the case of what is really happening in our province to the people in our province; and with the kinds of statements that we have heard coming out of the government side, the kind of manipulation and doublespeak, I would like to have the people of this province make the decision for themselves. I suggest to you the reason that the TVs aren't here right now is because it would be too revealing; that the people of this province, if they had the opportunity to really look at what is going on with the Industrial Relations Reform Act and with the Teaching Profession Act, clearly wouldn't put up with it for a moment. And if the government believes in its legislation, then it's a challenge to the government to go out to talk to the people, let them understand what's going on in here, and then let the people decide. If they are that committed to this legislation, if they truly think it's something good, then support this hoist motion.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, there have been a great many harsh words spoken in this House this afternoon, and when the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) talks about fond expectations of television in this House, I'm not sure I share her enthusiasm when I see the way in which members of this House are prepared to play even to a gallery, which is clearly full of teachers today; and I welcome them to the House. I welcome them to this debate.

We're debating a hoist motion, a motion to delay the discussion of Bill 20 for six months. I find it interesting that arguments are raised on the philosophy of democracy and yet it appears that the thing that most offends the members of the opposition is that the democratically elected government is presenting its legislative agenda. They are offended by the introduction of Bill 20, failing to notice that it gives some time for further discussion and deliberation in the drafting of amendments to Bill 19.

This is an appropriate time to discuss the philosophy of Bill 20. What is being delayed by this hoist motion is a discussion of the philosophy of the bill. When the bill receives second reading, we will then move into Committee of the Whole where the members of this House — the democratically elected members of the government of British Columbia and the democratically elected members of the opposition — will discuss this bill section by Section in the presence of the press, with the verbatim transcript being taken which is available to members of the public. This is a public and open forum, and that is the essence of responsible government — that governments make their decisions, they develop policy in the cabinet, but they defend those positions and defend that legislation in the greatest detail, and under the scrutiny not only of the public but of a very active opposition whose role it is to criticize that legislation.

The hoist motion deals with timing — the question of the timing of the consideration of this bill. It's been suggested, for example, that this bill ought not to be considered while the royal commission on education is deliberating. And yet it was in fact the specific request of the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Elsie McMurphy, that the government not delay putting teachers under the Labour Code and giving them full bargaining rights until the conclusion of that royal commission.

It is also the case that the government wishes to remove teachers from the compensation stabilization program. Teachers were the last to enter the CSP. They will therefore be the last to leave and they will have the same time in it as other employees, but one of the provisions of this bill is to draw those provisions to a close for teachers.

It is interesting that the opposition thinks this bill needs a six-month delay in order to have full public discussion, but the BCTF appeared to believe that after two weeks the public

[ Page 832 ]

had enough knowledge or the teachers had enough knowledge of this bill to put a strike vote to them, to encourage them to vote on an illegal work stoppage.

This concerns me, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in fact that many members of the teaching profession do not understand this bill. It has some new and innovative factors, and I have seen the materials put out by the B.C. Teachers' Federation which in my view distort the meaning and the intention of the bill. I am making myself available in my constituency to meet with teachers, parents groups and anyone else who is interested in having a fuller discussion of Bill 20. So we have the rush for an illegal strike, the rush to take teachers out of the classroom, but a delay in allowing the elected members of this government the opportunity to debate the bill properly.

There has been the suggestion that there wasn't consultation on this bill. In fact there was considerable consultation, and the BCTF in its own publications has acknowledged the consultation with its own organization and with the B.C. School Trustees' Association. But consultation means having your say, not having your way, and there is a difference between consulting and taking dictation from an organization.

[3:30]

The BCTF is very quick to acknowledge its consultation with the government when it gets what it wants, and in a recent newsletter it was full of praise for what is probably the best early retirement program in Canada for teachers which has just been instituted in British Columbia. This is an early retirement program which does not, in my view, suggest a hostility to teachers or an insensitivity to their working conditions. On the contrary, I think it recognizes two factors very closely that I was able to observe as a school trustee in Vancouver for four years. One is the rate of burnout in the teaching profession — particularly among men, interestingly, in their early fifties — and the fact that teaching is a demanding job and an emotionally stressful job. So it provides an opportunity for those who have worked hard and have given very much of themselves to the teaching profession to retire in health and with the prospect of a happy and healthy retirement.

It also provides the opportunity for young people to enter the teaching profession. It is very popular to talk about the causes of lack of employment for teachers as being restraint; in fact, that is not the primary cause at all. The primary cause is declining enrolment. The reality of the influence of the baby boom on employment patterns in this country, and in fact in the western world, is one that we are going to have to take into consideration in a great many public policy areas.

But as a school trustee in Vancouver, I watched our school population decline from a peak of 76,000 to just over 50,000, and the impact on the ability of our board to hire new teachers was extremely severe. I believe this early retirement policy is an extremely effective way of dealing with those two considerations and, as I say, is a policy that reflects a concern for teachers for the quality of their working life and for the quality of our schools and for the continuity of a young and vital teaching staff.

The BCTF asked for a number of things from government, but they didn't get them the way they wanted. They wanted full bargaining rights, and they wanted other provisions of the Labour Code to apply to them. But they did not want to be subject to the certification rules of the Labour Code, and that is the great hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. The government has brought the teachers of British Columbia under the Labour Code, but they are not prepared to give the B.C. Teachers' Federation a monopoly, a prejudged certification. Perhaps those who argue for bringing teachers under the Labour Code.... They are not under the Labour Code in other provinces; in that sense we are much more advanced than other provinces. I might add that there are many people who oppose putting teachers under the Labour Code.

But the request was there to have the provisions for dispute resolution which are under the Labour Code. That request was granted, but we did not give the BCTF the automatic certification. They may organize every district in this province, and it may be that they will do that. God bless them, but they will not get that from the government. That is undemocratic; it is totally unfair to force teachers in this province to be subject to union discipline when they have never had the opportunity to participate in a certification vote.

It is not a minor point, because when a union has to get that certification vote, it has to be responsible and accountable to its members, and it has to continue that responsibility and accountability, because under the Labour Code it runs the risk of being decertified if it loses the confidence of its members.

That is the right that teachers must have, the same as anybody else who comes under the Labour Code, so if they choose that route for bargaining, they must have that protection. We are not prepared to entrench the BCTF as a bargaining union under the Code without the consent of teachers. If the teachers give that consent, that's fine. The opportunity is there to do that.

The BCTF also asked the government for authority in areas which in fact are the responsibility of democratically elected school boards. They wanted their authority and their range of control in areas of curriculum and teaching methods to be expanded. As someone who has been a member of a democratically elected school board, I would like to say that I am opposed to that, because that is the purview of the community. The basis for having school boards is to allow local communities to have input on their own philosophy of education, their own concerns in the curriculum. That is what they are there for; that is the essence of educational democracy.

I have served on a school board with teachers who are trustees. They didn't teach in my district; they taught in another district, and they didn't happen to belong to my party. I can tell you they were very jealous of their prerogatives as trustees to make those kinds of decisions in Vancouver.

The BCTF asked for a say in the certification of teachers. This was granted to teachers, but it was not granted to the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It was granted to the college. What I find extraordinary about reaction to the college among those who refuse to understand it is that they fail to recognize that the powers granted to the College of Teachers are powers taken from the ministry and given to teachers. The ministry is saying: "You should be on the same footing as every other self-governing profession in this province."

The registered nurses, for example, are a self-governing profession, and they are a good analogy to teachers because many of them are public employees. They have the B.C. Nurses' Union that bargains for them, but the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia is their professional association, the college that determines the curriculum that should be required for accreditation as nurses, controls their licensing and controls professional discipline.

[ Page 833 ]

There was a column in this morning's Province by Crawford Kilian, who certainly is no friend of the government. His comments about the provisions for the college are kind of strange, because he says they aren't so bad. The problem is that the teachers will never use the provisions; they'll never use them to turf anybody out of the corps. It'll just become another self-perpetuating bureaucracy. We won't get people picking on teachers because of their political-party point of view, but any anti-BCTF teachers will get into problems. I find that an extraordinarily patronizing and condescending attitude.

I see no reason why teachers shouldn't make the same success of being a self-governing profession as do lawyers, architects, engineers, dentists and nurses. I hope they will welcome that challenge. I think they will find it enormously invigorating and exciting, and it will provide an opportunity for many teachers who are not interested in political activism of the sort that has characterized the BCTF but who care very deeply about professional concerns. It will encourage those teachers to become involved, to get active and to give the benefit of their experience and their expertise to the profession as a whole.

I think that what the government has done with Bill 20 is to allow the teaching profession to come of age, to recognize them. Bill 20 says that the government has every expectation that teachers are perfectly capable of governing themselves in the workplace and as a profession, and that is what they are being allowed to do by this legislation.

There has been some comment that Ontario doesn't have a college. Several people, including the BCTF newsletter, have quoted Bill Davis as saying in the Ontario Legislature that he would never put in such a college without the teaching profession's approval. I gather he had submitted a proposal. He must have at one point thought it was a good idea, but backed down.

MR. BLENCOE: He was reasonable.

MS. CAMPBELL: The second member for Victoria talks about him being reasonable. I think that the Ontario Conservatives would be very grateful for the endorsement and support of the British Columbia New Democratic Party.

Ontario is not British Columbia. The Ontario Teachers' Federation has very little professional power. The professional power which the Ontario Teachers' Federation has is confined to the right to develop a code of ethics. They don't have anything near the breadth of authority which is being granted to British Columbia teachers in the teachers' college as a self-governing profession.

Why did Bill Davis withdraw his proposal to create a teachers' college? Well, perhaps the Ontario Teachers' Federation, like the BCTF, did not want to have its ox gored, did not want to have to rethink its role with respect to the teaching profession, did not like to think that perhaps some of its prerogatives were being infringed upon. I'm sure they created a great tumult. Some of you may remember former Premier Davis of Ontario, and I would suggest he is not a man who could be said to relish the tumult of a political confrontation. In fact, Bill Davis calls to mind the words of Gilbert and Sullivan in Iolanthe — you can see I've been Nanaimo-ized by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick); Gilbert and Sullivan at 50 paces — when they were talking about the House of Lords during the Napoleonic wars:

The house of peers throughout the war
Did nothing in particular
And did it very well.

I think that could characterize Bill Davis's approach to government. So he is certainly not the Canadian politician who would have been likely to institute such an innovative program. In British Columbia we take the view that governments are elected to govern, not batten down the hatches.

We've listened to the BCTF and the B.C. School Trustees' Association. We have responded to their wishes according to our own philosophical commitment, which has been endorsed by the electorate of this province. This legislation does not create confrontation. This legislation pays homage to the teachers of this province and their ability to govern themselves. It is opposed by those who would like to usurp that opportunity for self-determination with a statutory monopoly. The unworthiness of that premise will become amply apparent as this bill is debated and subjected to full public scrutiny. I therefore urge the defeat of this hoist motion in order that this process of enlightenment can begin.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that I understand that by the rules that govern this place it's not possible for persons in the gallery to applaud; but comments have been made about people playing to the gallery. I would Re to acknowledge that the young people from Coquitlam whom I introduced earlier are still here and listening with a great deal of interest to the debate, and in some ways I will be hoping that the comments I make will be heard and valued by those very fine young people who are representatives of our community.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to point out that the hon. first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) has recently been appointed to quite a significant task, and I wish to congratulate her. It's a task to deal with the heritage of British Columbia, and I would hope that the hon. first member from Point Grey, and all members of the government, would consider the heritage of this province with regard to education, to our educational institutions, to the time-honoured record of advocacy on behalf of better education and on behalf of the children of our province that is a record of the teachers of this province, who happen to be involved in a heritage organization, an organization that has existed for 75 years, the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

But as other of my hon. colleagues have pointed out, and referring to a comment that has been made by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) which has helped to crystallize much of our argument, in getting the proper focus on this issue we need to be aware that teachers' working conditions are students' learning conditions. I think that's a very valid and valuable observation, which would help us as legislators and which would help all members of society as we seek, through a consultative process, to enter into the dynamics that have been foisted upon the people of British Columbia with the calling of the bill at this time. Clearly any kinds of values that we might have that would uphold the principles of consultation are in danger of going out the window by example. If the government insists on forcing this legislation through at this time, the hoist motion is indeed appropriate.

[3:45]

I have a great honour at this time to tell the members of the House that the Coquitlam School Board has requested the provincial government to delay consideration of Bills 19 and 20 until full consultation takes Place with appropriate parties.

[ Page 834 ]

That's a democratically elected board. Here's a partial list of other boards that have done the same thing: Vancouver, Stikine, North Vancouver, Vancouver-North Island, Prince George and Surrey. I think it's very important to take note as we consider these wise recommendations coming forward from democratically elected school boards throughout the province — and I understand there are several more that have been added to that list — that there are members of those boards who come from a wide spectrum of political perspectives. I don't think it would take too great a power of deduction to understand that many of those boards have majorities that consist of Social Credit members. I don't think, when we hear government member after government member rising and stating the same old arguments about consultation and the democratic responsibility, that they can assume that they necessarily have a support as widely based as they would like to think. I would like to remind the government that when they were elected, they were not elected by a majority of the voters of British Columbia. As has been pointed out before, the number of seats in the House do not reflect by any stretch of the imagination the ratio of votes that were made for each party in the election. But I think it would be very valuable for the government at this time to take note of the fact that on a percentage basis they did not have a majority of the votes of the people of this province. Indeed, many of the people who did vote for this government are among those — I think we can assume that — who are calling for the kinds of measures that would support our argument at this time for this hoist motion. I would suggest that the members of the government pause and reflect on that.

One of the very clear reasons for asking for a hoist motion is that there is an emerging call for consultation out among the people of our province. The Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), when he was speaking this morning, said that he had been to over 50 hearings when he was Minister of Education and that he had read a very large number of briefs on the subject of education. I would like to point out to the hon. Attorney-General, and to other members of government, that attending hearings and reading briefs is not an indication of consultation. I don't think that we can form the conclusion that because somebody sits down in a room and goes through some sort of process, that's consultation. It may be some form of considering an engagement, but it certainly doesn't go beyond that to any type of relationship or creative interaction between the ideas presented by those who present those briefs and attend the hearings, and those who are sitting there listening to them.

I think that we have a policy being evidenced by this government which seeks to support the view that this government is a consultative instrument, by having had consultations throughout the province, as they call them, on labour and education. Today we were reflecting with the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) on the consultation throughout the province on social policy, and here we have something like six or seven cabinet ministers going and sitting down at a table and listening to 30 or 40 briefs. I don't think we can call that consultation.

I'm sorry, the best I can do right now is to come up with a cliché, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we haven't seen anything in the eating of the pudding that would indicate that the ingredients that the people of British Columbia have brought to this process have been taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I think it's a kind of a sad thing when there is an effort to put an image out there saying we are consultative when in actual fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Consultation that is really consultation is a process of consensus-building, of interdependence and of working together. It's a process in which the various parties have respect for each other. It is not a process in which one group seeks to say to the other people of the province: "By doing this we hope you'll like us, because we're out here listening to you." It should be a process that says: "We're out here to listen to you. We are going to take your input very seriously. And yes, it is our task as government to put forward legislation." But we have not seen within the activities of this government the kind of presentation of legislation that would really indicate that that is taking place. Instead what is being put forward, unfortunately and sadly and tragically, is an insidious manipulation of the populace of this province through this image of consultation. I find this deplorable.

We must hoist Bill 20 to enable the consultative process to take place, to enable this government to indicate in good faith that it really means it when it says consultation.

What is the product that we seek to produce when we are involved in the enterprise that we call education? Are we seeking, through education, to produce adults? Is that the goal of education? Or is the goal of education to produce obedient beings so that everybody, after they reach the age of 21, will be obedient? Is the goal of education perhaps to enable our finest resource, our children, to appropriate the tools of knowledge and the ability to be able to use knowledge so that they can produce the finest, most creative thinking possible, to enable them to take their position of leadership within this province and within this land and help us get into the coming century with the foundation, the values, the respect for one another, the willingness to uphold democracy to the extent that we truly believe in it and in truly believing in it truly consult with one another in our decision-making? Are we wanting to produce an elite few to manage the masses, or are we wanting the end product of our education system to be young people becoming adults and through that process having great self-respect, the kind of self-esteem that enables them to participate fully and seriously and creatively in addressing some of the very difficult problems that we have in our world today? I suggest that that is the goal of education.

Another way of asking the question is: what are the values that we seek to see coming forward when we talk about education? Are they values of high ambition, values of enterprise, values of entrepreneurship — values that all of us could support — but also values of compassion, values of participation and values of interdependence, when we see the kinds of values that would be present with our young people?

Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm trying to make in talking about the product we seek to produce in education, and in talking about values, is that Marshall McLuhan was right to the extent that the medium is the message. What we as adults do as we take our place of responsibility in this House becomes very much part of the medium that is the message that gets out there to our young people. That education does not take place, for the minister's edification and education, only within the school system. I think that we all embrace that, and feel good about that. Education takes place, in fact, in everything that we say and do — certainly in all of our waking hours and possibly even in our sleeping hours too, depending on the kind of dreams you have. I'd be interested

[ Page 835 ]

in knowing something about the kinds of dreams and nightmares the Minister of Education has been experiencing lately as he forces this legislation through the House. But, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about values, these are values that we must be very serious about in our role as educators here in this House, for we too share the role of being educators in our society. That is a sacred trust, which brings me to the crab story.

One day there were a number of old crabs walking around on the ocean floor. They started to bemoan the fact that the young crabs weren't learning how to walk straight, so they decided that they would set up a school system and teach these young crabs how to walk straight so they could straighten out their lives.

They looked all over for a teacher, and they finally ended up hiring a shrimp, because shrimps can walk in a straightforward direction. So they set up classes, and the classes went on for some time. Finally all the old decision-makers — all the old crabs — got together and decided to have a bit of a royal commission, you might say, They decided to investigate and see how it was going, and they got another old crab to be a representative of the minister of education and go and observe in the classroom. While this old crab was in the classroom, he shook his head when he saw that all the young crabs were still walking sideways.

So they called the young teacher — the shrimp — into one of their meetings and gave her quite a dressing down over her lack of success in the classroom. They were really disturbed and concerned about this, and they felt that what they were paying her certainly should indicate better results than this. Finally she realized she was probably going to lose her job on 30 days' notice anyway, so why not go for it and say what she really felt? She said: "How do you expect me to teach these young crabs how to walk frontwards when all the rest of you — all you decision-makers, all you important people — insist on walking sideways all the time out there in the community?"

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, the medium is the message. By insisting that this legislation be railroaded through at this time, you are walking sideways, to the detriment of the children of this province. Make no mistake about that because, the medium being the message, it will be very clear to the young people of this province that the values of compassion, consensus and consultation are values that are being presented in name only, but not in reality. If we insist on doing that within this House, then we are teaching our young people to walk sideways, not to walk as we would hope they would walk, and not to walk in the way that they will need to be able to walk if they are going to be able to face the problems of tomorrow.

So, Mr. Speaker, the kind of process that is being entered into when we in this Legislature would dare to be involved in any changes in education, when we would dare to be involved in such a bill as this, therefore becomes a process where we have to be absolutely exemplary in terms of the kind of teaching that we're involved in and the kinds of lessons that we're giving as we go through this process.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to you that teachers have a very good and time-honoured reputation for having understood this process very well in this province. Teachers do function as advocates for children; they do so at a time when they are often under duress and under attack, but they do so very capably. I believe it is tremendously important that we find some way of being mutually supportive in terms of showing some appreciation for the kind of valuable work that they do in this way, being advocates for children.

We've heard the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) say that the superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children. We also have him, in the estimates, saying that different people in society are advocates for children. Certainly the teachers of this province have taken that advocacy very seriously.

I know there's been a great deal said about the actions of today. We've heard some very pious comments coming from the government, criticizing the fact that many of the schools are closed today and many teachers did not go to work today. I would suggest — again, the medium being the message — that if you're going to indulge in that kind of piety, you might for a moment stop and consider that this government at times has had its hands dirty. Stop and think about that when you indulge in this kind of piety. Remember the scam to arrange for the tax loopholes in order to finance SkyTrain. Remember the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it seems to me that at one time during the course of debates over the past few weeks we decided that the use of the word "scam" was not parliamentary. Perhaps you'd retract that.

MR. CASHORE: I retract the use of the term "scam." I thank you for bringing me up to date on that. I don't think I was present that day; that was one of the few days, Mr. Speaker, when I didn't read Hansard.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that there have been actions on the part of this government that have left this government in a position of being severely criticized for those actions with regard to the appropriateness of them, and with regard to allegations at least about their legality. We have also the example of the charging of user fees, contrary to the relevant federal statutes. So I would suggest that we be very, very careful within this House when we decide that we are going to pull a long face and jump all over the teachers because of the actions of today. I think it is important that this government not dally with the hypocrisy of saying "shame," when this government has blatantly indulged in acts of disobedience and wrongdoing. Enough said on that.

I wish to say a few words about the record of consultation that has been the record of this government going back to 1982. In February 1982 we received from the government the Compensation Stabilization Act and all that that entailed, and the Education (Interim) Finance Act. This resulted in centralized control of teachers' salaries and centralized control of school board budgets. Mr. Speaker, how much consultation was there with teachers and trustees in that process? Absolutely none. And what was the result? The result was that restraint was imposed and that there was a great deal of opposition and bitterness that developed and grew. This was a combined representation by many, many people in the public; indeed a majority, including teachers, trustees and parents.

Then in October 1982 Bill 89 came forward, and this resulted in a measure to save money and a six-day school closure. Again, sadly, consultation with teachers and trustees was non-existent. What was the result? The result was chaos and confusion in the school system. Again, I don't think that the government should be pious in their critique of what's happening today.

[ Page 836 ]

Then in July 1983 we had the major restraint package, Bill 3 making it possible to fire without cause; Bill 6 giving tighter central control over school board budgets. How much consultation was there at that time? None. No consultation. What was the result? The result was major provincewide withdrawal of services, including a three-day teacher walkout, and a government-planned and manipulated process which was destined to produce more confrontation and no consultation. Subsequent to 1983 there were budget cutbacks and teacher layoffs, and again there was no consultation. This resulted in centralized budget control, the school board of Vancouver was fired, the Cowichan School Board was fired, and there was further chaos and disruption. We now find ourselves in a situation where this process of beating up on education is continuing.

I can't understand what on earth it is that causes the government of this province to continue its attack on education. There was a clear message that came through during the provincial election that you weren't to do that anymore. There was a clear message stated by the Premier of this province that the ways had changed. Yet what are we left with? We're left with a wolf in sheep's clothing; we're left with "Bill Bennett lives"; we're left with the situation that we saw in a cartoon not too many days ago, where Bill Bennett was sitting in a rocking chair, wherever he is right now, and saying: "I sure like that . and the name of the Premier of this province.

Why is it necessary to go ahead and go through this process at this time, when you have every opportunity to be diligent about what you see and to truly be in consultation with the people of this province? I haven't heard a good reason. I've heard people say: "Well, we've got to go on with it; we've got to get going. Time is short. We have to do it right now." But I'm talking about reasons, real reasoned reasons, and I submit that there aren't any.

The hon. Minister of Education has been in the political process for a long, long time. I wouldn't say that he's becoming long in the tooth or anything like that, but I know he's been around for a long time and he's far more experienced in this than I am. As a result of having all this experience, surely he understands the value of consultation with the people you seek to work for in your role as a cabinet minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I do it all the time,

MR. CASHORE: You do it all the time, and I'd like to suggest that you teach all of us how to walk in a straight line and straight forward by doing it some more. Show us how it's done. I think this is a tremendous opportunity for the Minister of Education of this province to do some in-House education that would be for the edification of all of us. I know I would be willing to learn from your example, if you could show us that you're serious about consultation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage that the hon. Minister of Education make use of his God-given talent to be an educator, because some of us forget we have that talent and we revert to autocratic, non-consultative ways of doing things. Here's a golden opportunity for the Minister of Education of this province to show us a better way, and I encourage him to do so. I know that he's wanting now to stand up and give the rest of his remarks because he's so inspired by what I've said. I don't know if the hon. minister is planning on confession or just what, but anyway I was glad to see your eagerness.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. DE JONG: I rise to speak in opposition to the hoist motion, representing the constituents of Central Fraser Valley riding and expressing my own position on the matter.

You know, the residents of Central Fraser Valley constituency are highly appreciative of good work ethics, but they not only appreciate good ethics, they also practise them out in the valley. It's a place of real free enterprise and competition, and resulting from that it's probably if not the strongest economic community in British Columbia, then very close to being at the top. They are a people who believe very strongly not only in the free enterprise system but also in complying with the laws of the land. This applies to teachers and school boards as well. In fact, Madam Speaker, all our schools are open in Central Fraser Valley today and nearly 60 percent of the teachers are at work. In fact some of the high schools are attended by as much as 70 percent of the student population.

Interjection.

MR. DE JONG: I'm speaking of the public schools, not the private schools; they are all in school and are certainly believers of free enterprise and good work habits.

Having had the opportunity to speak to several teachers over the weekend, there is no interest in job action among the teachers in Central Fraser Valley. I was amazed at the dedication to their profession expressed by a number of the teachers. They want to teach and not revolt. Teachers in our community do not want their professional standards jeopardized each time bargaining comes along. They do not favour being tied to a big union or labour organization; they prefer the status quo so they can be their own organization and deal with the local school board on an individual basis. They are proud to have the local school board as their employer; they are not so proud of the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

[4:15]

The individual teachers really do not appreciate paying dues as high as $800 or $900 annually to the BCTF Our constituents, the parents, fathers and mothers, are generally proud of the fine facilities and equipment that have been provided in our community for the education of our children, contrary to the second member for Nanaimo who said that this government has been bashing education. It's not so. The people of Central Fraser Valley are equally proud of the dedicated teachers teaching their children in those facilities. They expect the teachers to employ their professional techniques and understanding in the teaching of their children. The parents of the Central Fraser Valley riding expect the teaching staff to further the basic training of their children based on their beliefs and values and respect for law and order and those in authority.

For the people of my riding it is a dark day which will not be forgotten for a long time by some. A good average day for the community, specifically for the parents and children, has been turned into a day of utter confusion and frustration by one person, the president of the BCTF This person has encouraged revolt without reasonable grounds for it. This person has initiated an action which is not condoned under current laws. I'm sure that most of the teachers participating in this illegal act are for principle reasons against such illegal action, simply because they would not expect such flagrant disobedience from their students either. In my opinion, the teachers have fallen prey to the powers of the self-interest of

[ Page 837 ]

the federation president. I'm sure the teachers would have had no inclination to take part in this illegal action, but the president of the BCTF has encouraged them to do so. The president of the BCTF has had almost four weeks to study Bill 20. The point is that before the president of the BCTF took the time to study the details of Bill 20, she indicated job action and said she was going to go through with it. She wasn't carrying on because of Bill 20, which provides the federation all they've asked for, but only to retain her initial position, and as a result, many teachers have become the pawns of the federation president.

Children throughout this province are the victims of this action, not so much because they lost a day in school but because of the impact that this illegal action by the teachers whom they loved and held in high respect for so many years may have had on their lives. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) said that the workplace of the teacher is the place of learning for the student. Does he really mean that when he takes those things into consideration?

If members of the opposition are indeed concerned about some of the specific points in Bill 20, why are they prolonging the debate by moving this hoist motion? Six months of delay. Are they asking for a further six months of frustration — and perhaps misinformation, because we hear lots of it from the other side? Why not come to grips with the specifics in committee before third reading? It appears to me that hon. members of the opposition are making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to foster further confusion.

I believe that in order to respond to the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this province and to clarify to all of the teachers and school boards the position of the government, which embodies all the requests made by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, we must defeat this hoist motion as quickly as possible and get on with the job we were elected to do. Our job is to deal with the specifics rather than political rhetoric.

MR. SIHOTA: It was interesting listening to those words about rhetoric and specifics within the legislation. I want to start off by talking not about free enterprise, as the member just talked about, but the comments that were made by the previous member. It strikes me as somewhat strange that we're sitting here today — or standing here, those of us who are speaking — and commenting on the number of teachers who went out in our individual ridings. If statistics mean anything, I should say that of the 423 teachers in Sooke School District, approximately 85 of them showed up at work today. The balance chose to take the action that they voted upon in their organization, the BCTF Of the 2,500-odd teachers in the greater Victoria area, about 200 went to work; the balance attended the study session at the Memorial Arena. I find it somewhat disturbing that there is this funny kind of scorecard going on as we ping-pong between each other here in this debate — "Well, look, in my riding 60 percent of them showed up" or "In my riding 90 percent of them didn't show up" — as if pointing to the figures somehow lends further credence to our individual arguments and shows that teachers are on the side of whichever proponent is speaking at the time.

I'll tell you something: I think it's a shame that things have got to the point that teachers have had to make the decision to walk off the job and engage in a study session. I don't think there's any need for any of us to expand our chests and pout about the number of teachers in our ridings at work or not at work. It's a shame that the situation has got to this point, and I don't think that the numbers or the turnout should be used as justification or support for our respective positions. The fact of the matter is that there is legislation before this House in the form of Bill 20 that has caused, as was the case with Bill 19, chaos, confusion, anger, bitterness, betrayal, and all those other words we've heard in the last few days.

As competent legislators who are in this chamber to deal with the problems of the day, it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about the basis of that anger, that bitterness, that sense of betrayal, and be asking ourselves, as reasonable men and women in this chamber, what we can do to try to put an end to that chaos, instead of sticking out our chests and talking about how many people in our respective ridings showed up and how many people in our ridings hence believe in free enterprise and all that kind of stuff. It seems to me that that may be appropriate for other debates, but for the purposes of this debate I think we ought to recognize that there are a lot of people in this province who are affected by this legislation and who are angry about this legislation. Sure, there's a public relations game to be played as to the people who aren't affected by this legislation and how they feel, because I guess there is "some political merit" in trying to get people to step on your side of the line. What I'm saying is that we should perhaps step back for a moment and ask ourselves why it is we're in the situation we're in.

Well, let me address that point by saying that it's evident that the legislation has just not won the support of teachers. I know the members opposite, and particularly the Premier, have a great habit of saying: "Well, we gave them what they wanted. I don't know what they are complaining about." First of all, it seems to me that the Premier may well have picked up the newspaper and seen that there was this wish on the part of the B.C. Teachers' Federation to have the ability to bargain collectively and freely; or, to put it in the inverse proposition, the right to strike, as the headlines say. I don't really like putting it that way. So you try to incorporate that into Bill 20. You may have captured the buzzword, the right to strike or the ability to bargain freely, but you may not have captured in the legislation the essence of what they wanted. It seems to me that it is on that point that the legislation is lacking.

It is easy, when you are trying to get a 30-second clip on TV or a 60-second clip on the radio, to say: "Well, we gave them everything they wanted, and now they are complaining, and I can't figure it out." That's really easy if you want to play the public relations game.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I think we all know that game, Mr. Minister.

But if on the other hand we are here as responsible legislators....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I am sorry to see that certain members of the House are a little upset that some of us tend to be better at getting 30-second clips, but the master of that is the Premier, I'll have you know,

In any event, if you want to come here as responsible legislators, then it seems to me that we ought to put aside those 30-second clips and begin to deal with the real issues. It

[ Page 838 ]

is not a matter of taking the buzzwords of what the teachers wanted and putting that in the legislation, It is a matter of capturing the essence of what they wanted and making sure that the legislation captured that. That's exactly where the legislation fails.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member asked: "What is the essence? Show me the light. Let me understand." Well, let's deal with that. Let me give you a couple of examples.

Free collective bargaining, the right to strike. You have got to understand that the provisions.... I don't mean to lecture, but the members did ask for an explanation here. You've got to....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, I can just see her, excited now.

Free collective bargaining under the provisions of Bill 20 is of course tied in with Bill 19. Take a look at Bill 19. What does it really say about free collective bargaining and the right to strike as it pertains to teachers? It says that at the best — I am glad you are listening — you've got one day that you can strike.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's what the legislation says. Read Bill 19. If the minister says to me, "That's not the way it is going to be interpreted," then I guess my crystal ball has a different cloud in it than his does.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: But they want to know.

You indicate in Bill 20, or you try to indicate in the propaganda that flows on Bill 20, that there is going to be an end to wage controls, in 1988, I believe. But you forget to point out that Bill 20 is dovetailed in with Bill 19, and when you begin to read Bill 19 and the provisions of ability to pay, and later on in the legislation it's tied in with a phrase that talks about existing revenue, then it seems to me at that point you have actually allowed the CSP to remain as it pertains to teachers.

Silence. Maybe for once the penny is beginning to drop. But it seems to me that what you've done through Bill 20.... This is why I am saying it ought to be hoisted off the floor and come back in a better form six months hence, or after you've listened to the.... It surprises me that everyone is prepared to say we'll listen to the teachers the first time, but you are not prepared to listen to them a second time when they try to point out to you the flaws in this legislation.

Anyway, I pointed out the fact that the right to strike under one interpretation is actually limited to one day. I pointed out secondly, for those of you who wanted to have more information, that the compensation stabilization provisions really have not been removed when you dovetail it in with Bill 19. Thirdly, when you begin to look at Bill 20 — and I am going to go into a little bit of detail on this — I would ask the members opposite to take a look at section 122. 1 and in particular 122.1 (2), which talks about the basis for termination of teachers. It says in that section that teachers may be terminated for cause; I think that is the wording that is used. But listen to this. Let me quote from the section:

[4:30]

"Where notice of an intention to terminate a contract of employment is given by a board under subsection 1(b), the reasons for the termination required by that paragraph to be stated in the notice may include professional incompetency, unprofessional conduct, immorality," — immorality? — "mental incapacity or any other cause which, in the opinion of the board, renders the teacher unsuitable for the position then held by him...."

Let's take a look at that.

MR. VANT: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think that this clause-by-clause discussion should be during committee stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, hon. member. I wonder if we could have the remarks addressed through the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: Fine. Madam Speaker, I'm quite prepared to address you through the Chair or the House through the Chair as well. Let me say this: I don't want to spend all day on that section, but the members asked earlier what was wrong with Bill 20. I gave them philosophy, as one member asked for, on the right to strike and the compensation stabilization board. Now what I'm giving them is a specific in the legislation which, if I was a teacher, I would be upset about. It seems to me that that's one of the reasons why this ought to be hoisted, because that's a very poorly drafted section. Let me point it out. Under that section, what it says is that a teacher can be terminated for cause for moral reasons.

MR. REE: Illegal strikes.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. What's a moral reason? Is it immoral, in the opinion of members opposite, that someone may have engaged today in an illegal strike? Is that justification — if indeed it's illegal — for firing somebody under the provisions of this act? That's what the teachers are asking. I think that's a valid question.

MR. VANT: Absent without leave.

MR. SIHOTA: The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) says: "Absolutely." I take issue with that.

MR. VANT: No. Absent without leave.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, "absent without leave." I apologize for that. I didn't hear the member properly, and I certainly don't want it said in the record that he said "absolutely," so I'll correct that at this point.

What is immorality? What are moral considerations?

MR. ROSE: Belongs to the wrong church.

MR. SIHOTA: There was a case once. Being a lawyer, I take interest in this kind of stuff. It was the famous case of McPherson v. City of Toronto. On that occasion the individual was living with another woman out of wedlock. They

[ Page 839 ]

were living out of wedlock, and the city of Toronto chose....

MR. VANT: What year was that?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll get to that.

The city of Toronto chose to fire the person for moral considerations. You know something? It was upheld.

AN HON. MEMBER: The year?

MR. SIHOTA: The year was 1918, for those members who are concerned. [Laughter.]

But I'm coming back to the point. To excite the members opposite even more...

MR. ROSE: Titillate them.

MR. SIHOTA: ...to titillate the members opposite a little more, I would draw your attention to the decision of Reilly v. Steelcase Canada Ltd., which is a more contemporary decision — 1979. It can be found at 103 D.L.R., 3rd, page 704. In that case the employee had engaged in an adulterous relationship with his boss's wife, and he was taken to task and was told that he was going to be fired. I'm sure that members opposite will be pleased to know that in that case the court said that, well, no, that wasn't sufficient reason to fire somebody from their work. So the 1918 law was overturned in 1979. But the point was that at that time that was considered to be morally offensive.

There was also a time when I think some could have argued that it was immoral to be a communist. And now ....

AN HON. MEMBER: They still think that over there.

MR. SIHOTA: They still think that over there? Oh, I thought that ended in 1950.

MR. MILLER: The silent Minister of Forests thinks that.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'm not the Forests critic, otherwise .... He's going to take that comment on notice.

In any event, is that a moral factor, the fact that a teacher may be a fascist or a communist by political affiliation and participates in political actions neither one of us may condone? Is that moral grounds to fire somebody? I don't know. But it could be. Because when you inject the concept of immorality into the legislation, you begin then to do the very thing that was done in the 1918 case and the 1979 case, and you begin to invite the types of arguments that I thought we had put aside in the fifties.

People cannot be dismissed from their tenure or their employment for moral considerations, because then you are asking people to make judgments on things that I don't think ought to be appropriate. What is, for example, a moral consideration? I heard one of the members quoted the other day as saying that if someone is a homosexual, that's a moral factor to be considered. Is that what you want in Bill 20? I think we're walking in on a territory that none of us really wants to see.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You of all people should know that it has to stand the test of the courts.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, under this legislation, Mr. Minister, as I understand part 7....

MADAM SPEAKER: Hon. member, could you please address the Chair?

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

The Minister of Education, Madam Speaker, points out that this will withstand a challenge in the courts. Well, as I read section 122.7 of the legislation, I'm not convinced that one has the ability under that section, under part 7, to go to court, because the section says that the board of reference will make a decision on this matter as to whether or not there should be suspension, whether or not their contract of employment should be terminated, whether or not the contract of employment should be continued; and then it may file a certified copy of that decision with the Supreme Court, in essence giving it the same result and effect as a Supreme Court decision without a Supreme Court hearing. So I think the point, Madam Speaker....

MR. REE: Point of order.

MADAM SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. REE: Madam Speaker, I recall sometime early in this session the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew asking for relevancy and whatnot from the government members in the debate on an issue, and I would ask that probably he could do the same. We are not in committee; we are on a hoist motion dealing with the hoist of Bill 20 — a time delay. Now possibly he has had three or four minutes of his speech on the hoist motion. We'd like to hear the rest of it on the same.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member; your point is well taken. I do believe a great deal of latitude has been allowed to all of the members, and I would ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Speaker, I'm delighted to hear that the member wants to hear more, and I'm delighted to deliver more, but let me say this: my reason for raising that whole issue was to point out a flaw in the legislation which I think is of concern to teachers. It certainly is a concern to me, and hence is a reason why the legislation ought to be lifted or hoisted. It seems to me that there is a flaw, and I think it's quite relevant to talk about it. But that's fine, I've made my point. The point is that teachers are concerned about the right to strike in the fashion that I've talked about it, and about compensation stabilization. I've tried to provide, for the enlightenment of members opposite, another specific example of what ought to be of concern to anybody who reads this legislation, and hence the reason for it to be hoisted.

Madam Speaker, I wasn't in the House earlier on when the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) was speaking.I believe she was talking a little bit about the Labour Code and extolling the virtues of Bill 20, and was saying, as I understand to be the case as I heard it over the speaker, that nowhere else in Canada are teachers governed by the provisions of the Labour Code, and isn't it wonderful that this government is doing so much for teachers?

I want to point out to members opposite that that's just not the case. For example, in Alberta teachers are covered under

[ Page 840 ]

the Alberta School Act and the Alberta Labour Relations Act. Bargaining is under the general Labour Act and covers all employees in the province, including teachers. All terms and conditions of employment save those specified — and there are some minor exemptions in the School Act — are bargainable. In the case of Alberta the impasse is a resolution by economic sanctions, including strikes or lockouts. The Alberta legislation provides for the inclusion of administrative, supervisory or consultative positions in collective bargaining. In other words, administrators in practice in Alberta are included.

I bring that forward to the attention of those members who have participated in this debate and have argued over and over again that the situation in British Columbia is somewhat unique, and that perhaps principals ought to be exempt. I'm just pointing out that there is precedent elsewhere — the case of Alberta — which can be utilized to cite as an example that the industrial relations argument that principals are managers and teachers are employees has not been embraced in other jurisdictions where teachers have been given the right to free collective bargaining.

Another jurisdiction where that indeed occurs — where there is free collective bargaining — is Quebec. Teachers there enjoy the right to strike. So I want to correct for the record again the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, Madam Speaker, who argued that elsewhere these rights never extended to teachers. It's interesting to take a look at the legislation in Quebec, and it would be my submission that the government would be well advised to take a look at some of those provisions; not all of them, but I think some of them actually make a lot of sense. Hoist this bill at this time and bring it back after taking into consideration what was done in Alberta and now in Quebec.

In Quebec, bargaining is also under the general Labour Code of the province. It generally covers all conditions of employment. Bargaining issues are divided between the provincial and local levels; an impasse, again, is resolved through the formation of economic sanctions.

The legislation in Quebec is very interesting, because it mandates that negotiations commence at all levels, between all parties, 180 days before the contract expires. It mandates the establishment of a committee of information on negotiations, in which the parties must make known their relative bargaining positions early on, both to each other and to a specific committee. It has within the legislation a method of voluntary arbitration by a council of arbitrators, and it has in its legislation.... Remember my point earlier on, about Bill 20 here dovetailing with Bill 19. It states that employer interference in employees' associations is not allowed. In any event, that's for another debate, another time.

So you've got the precedent in Alberta and in Quebec, which set out totally different schemes but still allow for free collective bargaining, or the right to strike, if you want to put it that way, for the teachers in those jurisdictions.

New Brunswick is another example, which the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey failed to take note of. Bargaining in New Brunswick is under labour legislation. That specific legislation governs most of the public sector. Negotiations there are provincewide, and they are generally on all terms and conditions of employment. The legislation in New Brunswick — again, distinct from British Columbia — says that all employees are covered. There is reason to believe, in my reading of it; I haven't been able to phone.... The wording of the section seems to exclude persons acting on management's behalf in the grievance process from the collective bargaining regime, but nobody else, which to me seems to indicate the principals are not covered. Once again, under the legislation in that jurisdiction, bargaining must commence two months prior to the contract expiry, and must continue for at least 45 days. Then there's another mechanism if agreement is not reached within 60 days: the parties have the ability to elect to go to a conciliation board for a report, and ultimately have the ability to strike as well.

So it's not unprecedented, as the first member would say. There are at least three other jurisdictions in this country, jurisdictions which, in the case of Alberta, have rejected the concept of the college that is incorporated in Bill 20, that have allowed for free collective bargaining, and that have resolved the matter of principals and their ability to form collective units. There are those precedents elsewhere that can be a better way, or better guidance to us, than what we've got here.

[4:45]

Once again, I would say to the minister that there are better examples, something that will indeed capture the support of teachers. As I said at the outset, nobody in his right mind would like to see the type of event that happened today.

I was disappointed when the member who spoke before me said this has all got to do with the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, as if in some magical way the president of the federation has the ability to dictate to all of the teachers of this province that they must participate in the type of action that took place today. That's not the case. There was a democratic vote, and 70 percent of the teachers voted in favour of taking the action that they did. It was on that basis that....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, here we go again. The member opposite indicates it's only 70 percent of the 70 percent who voted, which I guess is true, just as it's true for provincial elections. Once again, I don't think that we should be using that as a way of bolstering our arguments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you? 

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not. I'm accusing the members opposite of saying, over and over again: "Sixty percent of the teachers in my riding showed up." In my case, 90 percent of the teachers did not show up at school. The point is that we shouldn't be using those figures to stick out our chests. We should be recognizing the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement with the legislation that has resulted in this type of action; and some of us, as responsible people in this Legislature, ought to be trying to remedy that.

The Attorney-General (Hon. II.R. Smith), I notice, was speaking earlier. I'm always excited when I hear other members say, "Let's get on with the debate," and then they...

AN HON. MEMBER: Give a speech.

MR. SIHOTA: ...stand up for five minutes, that's true, and give a speech. But more importantly.... I've gone over it, and I've given you all sorts of examples of flaws in the legislation.

Earlier this morning the Attorney-General was talking a little bit about suspicion. As I understood his argument, he said that the teachers went through the provisions of Bill 20 over and over again and tried to root out the things that could

[ Page 841 ]

potentially be of alarm to themselves and be construed as doing away with the BCTF, its functions, the rights of teachers and the ability of teachers to get involved in collective matters.

I will say that there may well be some merit in the argument that there are elements in this society, including teachers, who when they look at the legislation tend to look for the worst things first and try to read things in the worst light. But the basic problem — and I have said this before — is that there is obviously a fundamental distrust between that occupational group and the government, such as to invite the type of reaction that we saw today, let alone the type of reaction that we saw when the bill was introduced.

It seems to me that one ought to, be trying to break down that level of suspicion and that degree of mistrust through communication. Fortunately, that has been lacking.

I see my time is almost finished, and I want to end on this note. A question that all of us must ask as we look at this situation, and certainly one of the reasons why the bill ought to be hoisted, is: what is Bill 20 doing for education in this province? It is creating all sorts of conflict between teachers and the government, but what is it doing about class size? What is it doing about lunch programs in schools? What is it doing about the quality of education? For example, in my riding, what is it doing about more facilities at Rockheights Elementary? What is it doing to upgrade or to reduce the size of classes at Belmont Secondary School in my riding? What is it doing to make sure that we continue to have a program of instruction at Jordan River Elementary School?

In other words, what has this bill really got to do with the fundamental issues in education as I see them? Absolutely nothing. The bill intrudes upon what I would consider to be a relatively peaceful climate in the schools, invites conflict between teachers and the government, and does absolutely nothing, for education. That's why it should be hoisted.

MR. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak regarding Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act, and against the hoist motion.

Excluding the current Minister of Education, who I think is handling matters exceptionally well, I intend to be somewhat critical of the overall management of our education system over the past 10 to 15 years. There appears to have been some deterioration. Some people think it was over 15 years ago when all concerned — that is to say parents, students, teachers, administrators, school trustees and politicians — agreed that their simple and sole objective was to have an excellent, if not the best, education system.

Why is it now difficult for the BCTF to accept that public school teachers will have the freedom to form a local union under the new labour law with the right to strike, or to remain as a non-certified local association with full bargaining rights but no right to strike? This choice need not be made until late into this year. Why is it also difficult for the BCTF to accept that the College of Teachers will give the teaching profession a regulatory status equal to that presently legislated for doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc.?

The college further will be governed by 15 teachers on a 20-member council. Since the parents and students as well as the other taxpayers in the province are subjected to, but for the most part are not able to directly impact on, the system, I would like to speak on their behalf. My comments will refer mainly to the other powerful interest groups: firstly, the politicians, including the Education ministers of the particular day; secondly, the Ministry of Education, which has over 350 people working on education; thirdly, the teachers, which, by definition at the present time, includes the BCTF; and fourthly, the school boards, which would include the school trustees and their management staff.

I don't ignore that there are other important groups and associations, like the Association of B. C. School Superintendents, the association of school district secretary-treasurers, another of principals and vice-principals, and so on. There are a lot of people in this particular endeavour, and I'd like to take a few minutes today to point out why I think communication has deteriorated. Incredible as it may sound when noting current commentary, all those powerful groups involved individually have only one goal, and that is an excellent education system.

Individually each of those powerful groups believes it is doing its very best to achieve that goal, but collectively they appear at times bent on destroying or killing the system. To the general public, the four main power groups seem to be on different planets. Too often a political stance is taken with insufficient planning or communication, and too often issues receive undeserved prominence when they don't deal directly with what is beneficial to excellence in education. Why is it so difficult and often controversial to provide service to our approximately 500,000 students?

How can we redirect the management of the system from that which often appears to the general public to be mismanagement? How can we bring everyone involved from their respective planets gently back to earth? With good will on the part of all, Bill 20 is a start. Bill 20 can be a vehicle of positive advances in education, and that is why I am opposing the hoist motion.

It is productive when planning for the future to take a few moments to analyze the past. When you look at the past ten years in education, it seems the only constant has been change. There have been actions taken by the main power groups individually and collectively that were not tied together properly, that were not communicated properly and often not planned or executed properly. Those are common symptoms of mismanagement.

Then the question arises: was there a single culprit? No, I don't think so. It took the collective effort of a vast number of people acting in concert but without coordination to arrive at the point we are at today, and I think the conflicts are not becoming to any of us. Bill 20 should be considered a constructive, progressive piece of legislation by all the power groups involved because it recognizes the professional status of teachers while at the same time giving the teachers the right to bargain collectively for their salaries, benefits, terms and conditions of employment, and so on.

[5:00]

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Instead we see the teachers led not too wisely, or at least certainly not in a spirit of cooperation, by the executive of the BCTF to take illegal strike action. We also see the B.C. school trustees this past weekend at their annual general meeting receiving a report from their executive which stresses the need to heal, to renew, rebuild and cooperate in education. The report to the school trustees' annual general meeting also said their relationship with government in 1986

[ Page 842 ]

and 1987 is probably best described as a mixture of expectations, hopes and fears, and I believe that we can allay those fears.

We also hear from individuals in the system who say they are sick and tired of what has gone on in the last ten years. It is my observation that the vast majority of the 26,000 teachers and 2,000 principals and vice-principals simply want to do a professional job. So if the other power groups will take a positive, constructive view, and particularly if the BCTF will take a constructive view of Bill 20, we can help forge a strong alliance among the powers that be to move ahead with collective bargaining, possible changes in tax base arrangements and the finance formula, and policy on curricula.

While the BCTF chooses to be negative, it is our job to win the support of the many excellent teachers who simply want to teach in exchange for fair compensation and satisfaction in pursuit of their professional goals. The task is to convince those teachers that the frustrations of the past few years are history. We should convey a message that we as government intend to remain competitive in salaries and in working conditions, so that we can attract the very best teachers to this province.

On that subject, I also ask the teachers to do their very best to deal with those few teachers who are lowering the standard, who cause a negative public perception of the quality of teachers in the system. They should realize that it only takes a few incompetents in any profession to lower the esteem of the whole body of professionals.

Before I ran in the election last year, one of the things that bothered me in the education system was the apparent inability of the BCTF to weed out those few teachers who did not measure up to a good professional standard. I refer by example to a Burnaby elementary schoolteacher who would leave his primary grade class a few minutes early on a regular basis to go to an evening job as a security guard, who also had an extremely bad absentee record and who, by many reports, was not a competent teacher.

He had many complaints filed by parents over the years. I was shocked to find that the school had no written record of the parents' complaints, no report card on the teacher, so to speak. The principal finally avoided the parents picketing the school for the dismissal of the teacher by assuring that the teacher would be gone from that school come September.

Well, the teacher was gone from the school in September, but not from the school district. He was simply transferred to another elementary school. What really upset me was the Burnaby Teachers' Association member who, presented with the foregoing facts, said that the parents' group would never succeed in the attempt to have that teacher or any other teacher dismissed. That was the state of what had come about in dealing with the BCTF In the future, I trust that the College of Teachers would come to a different conclusion, to the benefit of the education system and of all the excellent teachers that are in the system.

The president of the BCTF, Elsie McMurphy, has said that the proposed legislation has gutted the BCTF I say that she should take a second look, expand her horizons and grasp the opportunity to reorganize in a way that will help teachers become even more effective than they are now.

The BCTF position to date has been incredible and illogical, and I would like to state why I think so. In their newsletter of March 1987, it clearly stated that they would take strike action if they did not realize the stated objectives for 1987 and 1988, which objectives were: (1) to achieve the end of wage controls; and (2) to achieve fair contract settlements and what they called "normalization of the bargaining regime," which meant, in their narrative, the right to strike.

Early in our elected term, legislation has been proposed to meet the stated main objectives of the BCTF In other words, the teachers will have freedom to be, to a greater extent than ever before, masters of their own destiny, So they should be satisfied. They should know there is a new day ahead. Our Minister of Education has his heart and his head in the right place. He has experience in virtually every level in the system. My colleagues on the government side are positive that we can bridge the past few years of very difficult times, difficult in economic and other terms, to reach new levels of excellence in education and to put the system on track for the future.

Bill 20 is the start of bringing good management back to the main task. The main task is very simple: to educate our students. It should be passed, and it should not be hoisted at this time. It should be passed as quickly as possible. Then we, the politicians, and the Ministry of Education and the BCTF and the school boards can get on with collective bargaining, a fair tax base, a financing formula, curriculum policy and long-term planning.

With a few minor amendments, Bill 20 represents a great opportunity. It is a sound document and provides a good structure, a democratic structure, for involving teachers through the teachers' college, letting teachers resume their obligation to lead the way to excellence in education. The school boards, the ministry and this government have similar obligations in this endeavour and, I am sure, will do their very best to deliver for the students and the public at large. In closing, I oppose the hoist motion.

MR. MILLER: If I rise rather slowly this afternoon, it's because last night when I was playing ball I thought I was 21, and I woke up this morning to discover that I'm really 42.

I can understand your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in incorrectly stating that we were resuming debate on a hoist motion on Bill 19, because it's my opinion that the two bills really are companion pieces of legislation. In fact, maybe we should lump them together and call them Bill 39.

There are some very good reasons why the legislation should be hoisted, and essentially they're the kinds of reasons that were outlined during debate on the hoist motion on Bill 19. I note that earlier this afternoon the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) stood and introduced a new piece of legislation, a very important piece of legislation, dealing with expropriation. In his remarks he stated that this bill was long overdue, that in fact for some 15 or 20 years there'd been a need to revise and revamp the legislation, that the previous legislation was faulty and did not offer the kinds of protection that people required when their property was going to be expropriated, and that after an extensive period of consultation following the issuance of a Green Paper.... I believe the Attorney-General said that their consultation process had taken place for some six years.

It seems to me that there may be a lesson in that in terms of dealing with critical pieces of legislation. The most unwise course of all is to bring in a piece of legislation of this magnitude, where there has not been really ample consultation, legislation that could be termed radical, and to introduce it into this House and expect that in a very short time the matter will be pushed through the House, we'll put it

[ Page 843 ]

into action and all our problems are solved. I think that is short-sightedness in the extreme.

Bill 19 should not proceed...or Bill 20 should not proceed at this time. The legislation....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: As I outlined earlier, I think that there are parallels between this piece of legislation and Bill 19, and if I occasionally lapse, I'm sure the members to my left will forgive me — either that or thump their desks.

Nonetheless, the legislation is radical, and that's not a term I use lightly. The legislation would in effect get rid of an organization that has existed for 71 years in this province, representing teachers. I'm a bit surprised that some other members on the other side express surprise as to why the teachers would be so upset at this legislation, doing away with an organization that.... Obviously, one that has lasted for 71 years has done a fairly decent job in terms of representing the aspirations of that organization, of the teachers.

I've been concerned about the manner in which we're doing business in this province. You know, I have to go back, because the government during the election used the term "fresh start." Things are going to be different; we're not going to proceed in the same manner that we've been going in in the past. Things are going to change. Certainly governing is, in some sense, a matter of trust, and trust does not come about after a period of turbulence by a government continuing to act in the same manner as in the past. When the Premier, I think last November, issued his marching orders to various cabinet ministers, he quite proudly told the news media and the people of British Columbia: "This is the way we're going to change. I've given these cabinet ministers their marching orders. They have to go out and review this particular thing and that particular thing, and I want them to come back...." I think people got the impression that because that was taking place we really were moving into an era of consultation in this province, that the bad old days were perhaps behind us. Well, some of us have a little more jaundiced eye, and with the passage of time we were proven to be quite correct.

In my opinion, it's significant that on Bill 19, despite the statements made on this side of the House about consultation, the government's response was that there had been ample consultation. Member after member on the other side got up and said: "There have been 700 briefs and submissions. We've listened to the people, and this piece of legislation is the product of our listening to the people." A week or so later we read in the news media that significant portions of the bill were in fact drafted by private consultants. Despite the assurances of the government and members on the government side that there had been ample consultation, it was revealed that private consultants, whom the government still won't name, really drafted the legislation. I believe the report went on to suggest that members of the ministry staff were quite surprised at some of the things that came forward. If that's what they mean by consultation, if that's their definition of consultation, then no wonder the teachers are not on the job today.

I think that if the government persists in continuing in this vein, there will be more than the labour movement and the teachers who are angry out there. Already people are reaching the conclusion that there has been no change — and, in fact, an even worse conclusion. When I was in my constituency over the weekend, quite frequently in meetings and in conversations with people they were saying to me: "This government is even worse than Bill Bennett's government." You've had six months to try to change the scene, and people are now saying that things are worse.

[5:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: To the hoist.

MR. MILLER: I'm speaking to the hoist, hon. member, if you'd care to listen — and probably with a little more relevance than some of the speakers I heard on the other side.

This legislation should be hoisted, because the government really has got off to a bad start.

MR. S.D. SMITH: How many times has that Bennett man beaten you?

MR. MILLER: Well, the member for Kamloops wants to talk about the former Premier. I would think the member for Kamloops would want to forget about the former Premier, but that's all right.

The legislation should be hoisted, Mr. Speaker. The government has got off to a very bad start, and hoisting this legislation would perhaps do something to convince the public that they're prepared to listen and change their minds.

I checked the definition of the word "consultation" before I came into the House. The Oxford dictionary has three or four short definitions, and I'll read them. One is to "have deliberations with." I don't think that has taken place. Another is to "seek information or advice from." I don't think that has taken place. And the other is to "take into consideration feelings or interests" of the parties. I don't think that has taken place.

I think this process, unfortunately, may jeopardize what the government might want to do in other areas. For example, there is now a liquor review commission. It's been given the job of travelling throughout the province to review policies with regard to the sale of liquor. Obviously, if you read the releases about that review commission, privatization is on their list. Privatization seems to be very big with this government at the moment. There's a minister in England studying how Margaret Thatcher has managed to privatize. But my reading of the submissions, just following it in the press so far and talking to hotel owners, municipal councilmen in my constituency and other people about how the public is reacting to this commission, is that they seem to be giving a direct message: we don't want any fundamental changes. There is some real concern about the availability of liquor, and yet I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when that committee comes back and reports to this House, and maybe in the form of legislation, whether or not the preconceived notions they and members of the government have will really be what determines what we eventually do. In other words, for the consultation process to have some meaning, it has to be demonstrated that you've not only listened to people, but also translated some of the concerns that they have raised into legislation.

This government should be quite aware of the problem of consultation. I recall — and it wasn't that long ago — that there were loud cries from the government of British Columbia concerning the federal Liberal government of the time, Trudeau's Liberal government. Summing up the nub of the complaints, it was that "the federal government won't listen

[ Page 844 ]

to British Columbia; they won't pay attention to our concerns." There's a government that can, on the one hand, take that position and understand it, but it doesn't seem to take that position and understand it when they themselves have to deal with the people and the organizations in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I did a bit of research into what may have been said previously in this House with regard to education and teachers. I did that because of the remarks made in the debate by the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran). I want to read those, because they indicate to me why some of these changes have been brought forward in Bill 20.

Just to refresh the memory of members on the other side about why this bill is before the House: "The reason we're in this House debating this bill, for the most part, is because of the actions of a few people in the B. C. Teachers' Federation." We're not, according to this Socred member, in this House dealing with this legislation because it's important for education, to our children or to our province. According to the first member for Langley, we're in this House because of a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

She goes on to say: "...in order to keep our education system intact, this government had no choice but to bring in a bill to bring order to the education system in this province." Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill that they brought in will do just the opposite of what the member is talking about.

I'll conclude with a quote from the first member for Langley which seems to me to be rather disrespectful in terms of that organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, which has existed in this province for 71 years. She says: "It doesn't matter to me, frankly, what happens to the B.C. Teachers' Federation." Those are remarks that are made in this forum and that are available to the public. I'm sure that the teachers, probably more than anybody, will be the first to find out what was said in this House. There is a member on the government side saying: "I don't care about the B.C. Teachers' Federation." It follows that she is saying: "I don't care about teachers."

On the other side, the government brings in the bill and says: "No, this is going to be good for teachers. We are really concerned about the system." But sometimes the true intentions are revealed more by back-bench members who write their own speeches.

So when I read that, I was concerned, and I went back in Hansard — not very far back, just to 1982 — and extracted some speeches. I will read some excerpts from those, because I think they are enlightening or indicative of the kind of attitude that exists on that side of the House and the commensurate attitude that exists among educators in this province — the fear that they have about the actions of this government.

Mr. Waterland in his address on September 30, 1982, made several statements regarding the B.C. Teachers' Federation that are in line with the statements made by the first member for Langley. He says: "The leaders of the BCTF have turned that once-professional association into nothing more than a radical trade union through the positions and antics with which they carry on." He goes on to talk about a person who is active in the BCTF, and the minister at that time — I believe he was the minister — uses probably the favourite bogey word that I hear when I read previous excerpts of Hansard; and I hear it from the members on the opposite side of the House. The worst thing possible that anybody could possibly be is a socialist. Mr. Waterland says, and I quote..... [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, there is vociferous thumping coming from the farthest reaches of the Socred back bench. There is another member who wishes he were on the other side, on the cabinet side. I guess if he keeps pounding his desk and making thoughtful speeches, he might wind up there some day.

I am going to talk about something I believe is in his riding. Mr. Waterland says: "I mentioned the politicization of the BCTF, and there were a few raised eyebrows and guffaws from members opposite. But indeed it has happened. The present president of the BCTF is a known political activist." Shame! "He's a known socialist from Kamloops." Finally, the minister at that time, Mr. Waterland, says: "Political involvement in the classroom is something we should not allow in British Columbia, nor should the teachers allow their professional association to become politicized...."

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from those remarks that the real problem that the government perceives and the real reason why they brought this legislation in is the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Let's get even with the BCTF Let's silence them. Let's break them up so we don't have to listen to them any more. Unfortunately, if they think that the concerns about education are simply going to disappear because they've brought in legislation designed to get rid of the BCTF, they're fooling themselves, because they won't disappear.

I quote again from October 1, 1982, another member who's still in this House, the Hon. Mrs. McCarthy, talking about the BCTF She was talking about a bill that was before the House at that time, a bill that caused a lot of disruption in this province and the effects of that bill are still being felt in many ways:

"I am going to tell you why this bill is before this House, Mr. Speaker. It's just so that this kind of thing cannot be done in this province and so that a few people, such as the B.C. Teachers Federation, who want to play politics.... The union hierarchy of the teachers wants to play politics by putting the fear of God into those parents."

There were teachers, educators, speaking out about their concerns about education and what was happening under this government, and the response from the cabinet members of that government was that they are a bunch of militant trade unionists who had no desire to protect children, who had no concern about education, but were only trying to further their own ends.

At any rate, I think I've made my point. If you were to do a very thorough perusal of Hansard and go back and examine the kind of statements that have been made by members of the Social Credit Party in this House, I think you would find that the fear that the teachers have with regard to this legislation is quite genuine and is based on history. History sometimes is the best guide to the actions of a particular group in the present.

But let's get on to the teachers themselves. Very few of us in this House are professional educators; for the most part we're lay people, whether that be professional or whatever, and our experience with the school system generally has been through contacts through our children. I've seen three children graduate from the school system, and I've tried to be pretty diligent about going to the schools at the appropriate times in terms of reviewing report cards, and about consulting closely with teachers in terms of my child's performance or lack of performance, to see what I could do, what role I could play in conjunction with the teacher. I can tell you

[ Page 845 ]

that that personal experience has led me to conclude — and I think justifiably — that the vast majority of teachers have a deep and genuine concern for the education of children in this province. Given that, and given the fact that for the most part people — the people I know, at least — tend to be somewhat conservative and not radical by nature, I wonder why they would participate to the extent that they have in having a one day walkout today, and why they would participate, as they have in past years, in terms of what they see as a defence of the education system. I guess it's all too easy to say that it's strictly self-interest. I don't think that that's particularly true. It seems to me that their concern is genuine. If, as conservative people, they're prepared to go to those lengths, then there's a message there and the government should pay attention to that message.

Teachers are in a kind of peculiar situation in our society. They are a bit of a hybrid in some ways: they're neither the professionals that an engineer or a doctor might be, nor the workers that someone who might work in a pulp mill is. They are a bit of a hybrid, and I think they require some particular attention, in terms of the kind of legislation that's brought down to deal with their situation and with the fact that they want to foster that kind of professional development and that they understand they're charged with the responsibility of educating our children — and that's not an easy task. At the same time, there must be an avenue for teachers to negotiate on their own behalf; altruism is worth something in this society, but it's not worth a heck of a lot when it comes to putting food on the table and paying the mortgage. So they require this kind of concern, and I think that teachers should be held in high regard by our society. In other societies and jurisdictions teachers are given much more regard than we afford them in British Columbia.

[5:30]

I wonder, given the conservatism of the group and the fact that they're prepared to take these kinds of measures.... I'm trying to bring that back and relate it to what has been said on the other side of the House with regard to the teachers and with regard to the bill. There has been a staunch defence of Bill 20 as there was a staunch defence of Bill 19 from members opposite. I asked my colleague the member for Central Fraser Valley what the term was for someone who never thinks he is wrong — you know, an individual who consistently blames the other person. The term I got was "zealot," and I also checked and I don't think it's unparliamentary. You know, I don't think that there is room for zealots in this province.

We've had a very disruptive time in education in this province over the last 12 years, and given the kind of reaction to this legislation that we're seeing, it seems to me that it's incumbent upon the government to say: "Maybe we have to share the blame in this. Maybe there is something we're doing; maybe it is our attitude; maybe it is our approach. How can we get back on a better footing so that we can deal with the serious problems in this province?" I wonder if the government, either the cabinet or the back-benchers, have really asked themselves that question. What responsibilities do we have in terms of trying to normalize relations in this province, whether they be between teachers and school boards or labour and management, or whatever it might be?

I don't think too many people on the other side would make very good negotiators in labour relations matters, be cause one of the things that you do require when you go into those kinds of negotiations is flexibility, the ability to look a the other person's point of view. If you go in there with a hard and fast attitude of "we're right, this is the way we're going, we're not going to listen to anybody, and anybody who opposes us is either a socialist or a militant trade unionist or self-interest group" — as has been said many times.... Never do I hear: "We have some responsibility, and maybe what we're doing is wrong."

I think there are many reasons to hoist this legislation, and it's unfortunate that up to this point the government has refused to listen.

In the Sun today, tagged onto the tail-end of an argument dealing with the walkout and the reactions of various individuals to that, there's a statement. I think it makes a lot of sense, given the debate we're in at the present time.

First of all, I thought the chairman of the Vancouver School Board made a good statement in terms of the walkout, its legality and repercussions, and all the rest of it. He said: "The Vancouver School Board does not want to be vindictive." I thought that was a very appropriate statement, and well said in terms of what is happening. It seems to me there is an understanding there that this is a serious issue and that people don't frivolously decide to embark upon the actions that the BCTF took today.

Further on in the article.... I'll just read the excerpt from the paper, because I think it's important to this debate:

"While the bill is being vociferously challenged, officials from the BCTF, Education ministry and the B.C. School Trustees' Association will continue their talks today to discuss changes to the legislation.

"BCSTA president Charles Hingston said there has been progress at the talks, but it is difficult to have completely successful discussions, with the threat of teachers' job actions on one side and of having the legislation pushed through quickly on the other side."

There was a very reasoned statement about what's occurring right now with this legislation. I think that the government would do well to heed.... The chairman of the B.C. School Trustees' Association obviously must be a fairly neutral person in terms of his political affiliations. He can't be blamed for being a radical socialist; you can't hang that label on him. So I think the government would be wise to pay attention to those kinds of signals that come from people in our society who do have a deep concern about this issue.

I see that my time is up. I think I made some pretty reasoned arguments as to why the government should hoist. I'm sure that my colleagues will continue in that vein, and I can only urge the government to pay closer attention than they have to date.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have two minutes.

MR. MILLER: I have two minutes, but I just said....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Normally I'm not this reserved.

When I was reading the excerpts from Hansard, the s newspaper, and the Blues, about statements made by members on the opposite side, there were also a few quotes from the person who is now the Premier. He's done enough in the past to indicate that he's got a long way to go before people — will really trust his legislative initiatives, and certainly proceeding in the manner that he is proceeding now, not only with Bill 20 but with Bill 19, I don't think it gives him a good

[ Page 846 ]

start. I think he is going to be behind consistently, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for him, and it is unfortunate for the people of British Columbia.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this hoist motion of Bill 20. It is such a good bill, I wouldn't want to delay all the good things for the teachers for one moment, so my remarks will be very brief.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Prince Rupert what he would consider ample consultation to be, because after all, since August 1986, just after he was sworn in as the Minister of Education, the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), has been to all kinds of meetings and consultations with the BCTF executive, with the B.C. School Trustees' Association executive, with many school boards, with many individual trustees and with many teachers. So I say there has certainly been ample consultation.

Also, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am very pleased to report that all schools were open today in South Cariboo School District, School District 30; Cariboo-Chilcotin School District, School District 27; and Quesnel School District, School District 28.

There are some teachers — believe it or not — who are for the children. Of course, there are some teachers who are very short-sighted. They're looking primarily to their own interests, for themselves. There are teachers — a very small minority — who are just for politicizing everything. But it seems that in my part of this great province, in the Cariboo, most of the teachers are very hard-working and very dedicated. Indeed, they're so hard-working and so dedicated that often.... For example, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association has a very difficult time getting a quorum at its regular meetings; but at a recent meeting they were briefed: "Now look, don't use the 's' word when it comes to this illegal work stoppage happening today." They're afraid to call it what it really is: a strike. So it's just a withdrawal of services for study purposes — call it what you will. In my books it's a wobble, a wildcat, because there is an agreement currently in place.

Of course, we on this side of the House are very open and consultative. I'm against hoisting Bill 20, because we have consulted with many teachers. I myself consulted with the president of the Quesnel District Teachers' Association, also the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association, and I trust that the broad generalizations will work down to very specific concerns, which we are listening to and addressing. I don't believe that this hoist motion is reasonable at all. It's just timed to perhaps impress a few Victoria teachers who have walked out and abandoned the children today.

I'd like to say that with Bill 20 we are not trying to tell the teachers what they want. After all, we can't tell them. What we can do through Bill 20 — which should not be hoisted at this time — is set the stage to give them a choice. I would ask the question here this afternoon of the members in the socialist comer of the House — and I notice that their leader is not here again today: do teachers in Manitoba have the right to strike? The answer to that question is no. They don't currently have the right to strike in the province of Manitoba. Perhaps that's the real reason why the members in the socialist corner presented this hoist bill. They want to deny....

Interjection.

MR. VANT: That's right; they don't have the right to strike in a communist state. But maybe that's why they want to delay and hoist this bill.

No, I really believe that under this Bill 20 the B.C. Teachers' Federation will have the opportunity to earn the support of the teachers in this province, not to demand it. To me the BCTF is a pseudo-union. It has acted somewhat like a union, but it's not really a union. It's a semi-professional collective. I would call it a "ham-fisted union" which condones illegal wobbles and wildcats while an agreement is currently in place. So....

MR. WILLIAMS: What's a wobble?

MR. VANT: Well, I know from firsthand experience what a wobble is, so if you don't know, I'm really surprised.

But I'm against hoisting this bill, because in addition to salaries and benefits it will give the teachers the legal right to bargain for such things as leaves of absence, sick leave, overtime pay and even class size. So I see no reason whatsoever to hoist it.

Teachers in the Cariboo, I'm happy to report, are very significantly involved in the communities in which they work. There's a good rapport between the community and the teachers. Just last spring I attended an annual general meeting of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association. I took part in a panel which had representatives from all the political parties in this province. I was the only person there who got an ovation and who received questions from all those teachers. So I'm just emphasizing that our party is always open to listening to and dialoguing with teachers. We do have a credible record, despite what you may read in some of the big-city media.

[5:45]

This bill certainly gives the teachers lots of choices, plus a lot of time. They don't need this hoist motion to give them time. They will have until January 1, 1988, to make up their minds concerning certain items, and in others they'll have right until June 30, 1988. So even if we don't hoist this bill, there's lots of time for the teachers to study the bill and hopefully decide which direction they will go with the options contained in it.

Another reason I'm against hoisting this bill is that the initial appointments to the council of the College of Teachers will take place, according to this wonderful legislation, after the minister consults with none other than the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. What could possibly be wrong with that? Why hoist something as good as that?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Of course, being from the interior I'm very happy that these appointments will take place on a zone-by-zone basis, so that that this college will not be dominated by teachers from the lower mainland or from any one particular part of the province. Within the year of 1988, as specified by Bill 20, elections will have to take place in each zone, and each candidate will have to have his principal residence in that zone.

I just became aware that every household has received a pamphlet put out by the BCTF One article is headed: "Professionals don't need to be bossed." I'm against this hoist motion because the question I have is: when is the BCTF

[ Page 847 ]

going to back off bossing around these very competent professionals, who can make up their own minds? Also in that pamphlet it says: "Who will speak for the kids?" In my constituency it's usually the parents who speak up for the children, and they cooperate 100 percent, for the most part, with the teachers, who as I said are very hard-working and dedicated.

I'm against hoisting Bill 20 because it really removes this conflict of interest which exists between a bargaining authority and the body which concerns itself with professional matters. For sure, these functions should properly be separated. So the bill should not be hoisted, because it's a positive bill: positive for teachers, for students, and for principals and vice-principals.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill should not be hoisted because it will not affect the proper concerns of the operation of our schools, where the hiring and selection of teachers will still be performed by the school board. The Ministry of Education will still properly select the courses of study and the program of studies. Also, it will not affect the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher. So I am opposed to this hoist motion. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak against it.

MR. GUNO: I have a very cogent and flowing speech to make. In view of the time, and not wishing to disrupt the flow, I would like at this point to move adjournment of this debate.

Interjections.

MR. GUNO: Okay, then I'll have to break my flow.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, joining my colleagues in supporting this amendment to hoist this bill. I think it's appropriate that we do so in view of the confusion and turmoil that the introduction of this bill has generated throughout British Columbia, which is demonstrated today by the overwhelming majority of teachers who have participated in a demonstration against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the impact will have such far-reaching ramifications, it is fitting that this government today consider taking this bill aside, in order that there may be meaningful consultation with all parties affected.

As I said, it's readily apparent from the reaction of teachers that there are serious concerns about many aspects of this bill. It can only lead to serious disruption in the education system.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government must understand the necessity to reconsider Bill 20 to allow time for appropriate consultation to take place with all parties affected. I have a telegram from the Stikine School District, wherein they have expressed their concern on a number of points relating to Bill 20. They make four points: first, that Barry Sullivan has been appointed to head up the Royal Commission on Education; second, that the budget submissions were made by March 15, 1987, and Bill 19 would phase out the compensation stabilization program, effective October 1, 1987, with increments removed immediately; third, the fact that there is a lack of direct consultation with those parties directly involved; and last, the speed with which Bill 19 is being forced through the Legislature. The message front for the Stikine School District goes on to say that the passage of Bill 19 "will have a dramatic and serious effect" on: first, the school boards, teachers and community relations; second, the quality of education in schools; and third, the future of education in the province of British Columbia. For this reason, the board of trustees for School District 87 in Stikine, which is in my riding, in conjunction with the Stikine Teachers' Association, "urge the government of British Columbia to withhold passage of Bills 19 and 20 until all parties have had an opportunity for discussion and input."

There are further messages, Mr. Speaker, from other school districts. The Vancouver School Board, for instance, recently passed a motion, joining the Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association, urging this government to slow down and provide for full consultation and input.

There are a number of them, Mr. Speaker. I only want to cover a few just to demonstrate that there is a broad community concern expressed throughout British Columbia. In Victoria there was a letter sent to the Premier by courier wherein the board of school trustees of greater Victoria joined with the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association to urge the government of British Columbia to withhold the passage of Bills 19 and 20 until all parties have had an opportunity for consultation and discussion.

So there is a fairly unanimous view that it would be in the interests of all British Columbians if this government were to withhold this bill. In speaking to a number of people from my riding about this bill, I have been advised they feel very strongly that, at least from a northern perspective, they feel once again left out, that they were never consulted, that their particular problems in the north have not been considered in drafting this bill.

There is a feeling among many teachers in the riding the many teachers that I have spoken to — that this government is giving them an ultimatum: take it or leave it. I would ask if this is the proper way for government to foster a spirit of cooperation which is so necessary to come to grips with the serious problems which are at hand in the education system today. If the government insist on passing this bill without meaningful consultation, then they will have to accept the responsibility for the ensuing disruption or confrontation that will certainly take place in the school system as a result of it.

Mr. Speaker, do you hear a number of government speakers in this debate on the hoist asking why we are trying to delay the bill? I think that we've made a good case in saying that the intent is not delay but rather to try and convince the government that there is a need for a reasoned pause, a sober second look.

Mr. Guno moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Members will remember that last Thursday I indicated that we would be sitting on Wednesday, so that is taken as said. Anyway, we are sitting tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.