[ Page 875 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill PR406).

Mr. Huberts

Introduction and first reading –– 875

Tabling Documents –– 875

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 875

Mr. Blencoe –– 877

Mr. Stupich –– 879

Mr. G. Hanson –– 884

Mr. Skelly –– 887

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA FOUNDATION
ACT, 1979, AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Mr. Huberts presented a bill intituled University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, Amendment Act, 1987.

MR. HUBERTS: I move that the bill now be read a first time. The purpose of this bill is to update the 1979 act, to permit the University of Victoria Foundation to administer and invest charitable donations most effectively, consistent with the safeguards and security of these donations.

Bill PR406 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Hon. Mr. Strachan tabled the eighteenth annual report of the activities of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on the amendment to second reading of Bill 20. The government adjourned debate, and the Minister of Education will be speaking first this morning.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, of course I'm speaking against this hoist motion, in that I really feel that there is an emergency to deal with this issue that everyone is familiar with in the educational situation.

Let me give you some indication of why I feel it is that urgent. Let me read very briefly from a Vancouver Sun article:

 "A quiet march through Vancouver streets by about 600 teachers Monday could soon be overshadowed by much stronger protest action, including a possible shutdown of all B.C. schools, says the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

"Elsie McMurphy said Monday that if the B.C. government doesn't give teachers the kind of bargaining rights enjoyed by teachers in every other province, including the right to strike, a full-scale withdrawal of teachers' services could begin as soon as September."

Let me read you another brief quotation:

"B.C. teachers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday on a course of action that could see them on strike by June. B.C. Teachers' Federation president Elsie McMurphy said that unless teachers get a fair wage settlement, see the compensation stabilization program eliminated and get full bargaining rights, they will begin a staged process around May that could lead to a provincewide withdrawal of services by June. The number attached to the 'fair settlement' is an 8 percent increase in teachers' wages — a cost-of living increase plus a partial catch-up on the ground teachers have lost to inflation in the last five years.

"McMurphy got a standing ovation from the more than 500 delegates attending the federation's annual convention as she concluded the two-hour private strategy session saying: 'We've set ourselves a challenging course. It won't be easy. But we want full, free, fair bargaining in this province for the teachers, and we're going to get it."'

I might point out that these two articles are dated March 17 and March 18 this year, long before this legislation was introduced to this House. They said "we are going to get free collective bargaining," and that is why there is some urgency in moving in that direction. Surely, the threats that we hear now about instruction only and withdrawal of services because of the legislation.... We had to deal with it because we were threatened with that kind of disruption in the school system before the legislation was known to them or introduced in this House.

I think it's urgent, then, that we get on with it so that we can give what this legislation gives. There's been a lot of criticism that it removes democratic choice for teachers. How anyone can interpret that from this legislation is beyond me and also beyond a lot of people in the public, because what this legislation does is give teachers, by free democratic choice, by democratic vote, the right to form a union or to form an association, to give them that choice; to choose what union they want — that is, the BCTF, which is the most logical one that they would choose; to choose strike action if they want; to run their own union, which they are doing now. It allows local associations and the continuance of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

Under the college aspect, it allows them to elect their own representatives to run the college: that is, a college run by teachers for teachers. Again, how anyone has interpreted that the government is setting up a huge bureaucracy to run the affairs of teachers, when in that college act the powers now held by the minister — the issuance of certificates, the setting of standards and qualifications, the professional discipline, the removal of certificates.... All of these powers now in the hands of the minister are turned over to be run by their elected representatives — and that somehow or other is a government bureaucracy? How many people they hire and how much they do is by their choice. Surely to goodness the opposition and the B.C. Teachers' Federation are not speaking against choice by teachers — democratic choice, the right to make their own democratic decisions. When you turn over most of the powers now held by the minister to the teachers themselves, it's an indication of the faith that we in this government and I have in the professionalism that teachers can exercise, given that opportunity and given that choice. They talk about the cost of this college. The cost can be minimal, because remember, their activities are limited to the professional activities. Someone said: "Some of the functions of the ministry are going to be taken over by the college." I said I'm willing to discuss that, if they're concerned about costs. But the costs are going to be minimal — certainly minimal in comparison to what the teachers are now paying to the B.C. Teachers' Federation by compulsion, not by choice. Even the council cannot set the fees for the college. It has to be done at an annual general meeting where

[ Page 876 ]

they set the fees, where the teachers have every right to vote on that.

[10:15]

There have been criticisms about the dismissal — that all of a sudden teachers are going to be let go because they speak up or something of that nature. The legislation clearly spells out that for dismissals the reasons have to stated. In other words, the cause has to be given, and there is due process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any cause.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Any cause, certainly. However, if they form a union, then surely that is challengeable. That cause has to be defensible. If they form an association, that cause has to be defensible. So are you saying that school boards and their own people, their own representatives, are going to be coming in with capricious charges that are not defensible through the whole process — either the union route or the association route and the boards of appeal? Is this what people are saying, that because it says, "for any cause which renders a teacher unsuitable to teach in that position."? Are you defending someone who is unsuitable to teach the students in the classroom and saying you want him in there anyway?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But that cause has to be defensible. And this is why we're getting some of these distortions. If teachers out there really believe that they can be dismissed without a reason, without a defensible cause, then you can understand some of the concern that they have. But that is not correct. That information has not been provided to them in study sessions. It has been provided to them in large emotional rallies, where you have people getting up there using emotionally loaded phrases like: "This is to gut the B.C. Teachers' Federation."

Let me read to you from an article by a couple of people who stopped and took a look at what the legislation does and what it can do. These were Christopher Hodgkinson and Jim Cutt. It's a very reasoned article. It says that through this legislation it is possible for "a strong association or union in each school district federated with and led by a reformed and resurgent BCTF, and a BCTF analogous to the present B.C. School Trustees' Association, but considerably more integrated, powerful, vocal"— because these members will be there by choice. And if they're forming a union.... When people in any other employee group in this province are given the right to form a union, which they are being allowed to do, do you say to the members: "But you don't get a vote on it"? So surely it is right and correct to say that the teachers must make that choice. Now if they make the choice to continue to belong to the local association or union and that association by a simple majority vote makes the choice to support and extend the activities of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, I think that's where that conclusion is drawn from that it would make them more powerful and more vocal, and they have all the protection that's provided to anybody under the Labour Code.

In the final statement it says: "Most important of all, true professional status for teachers. At last." So they have this opportunity. And if anything that is happening in the school system now and was proposed in March. If anything, it is making the case for the need for teachers to have the right to be handled by a professional organization. It also makes the case that they have every right to form a union upfront, as any other employee group; that a strike is a strike is a strike, not a study session. They will be able to make that choice.

So what this legislation is doing is providing the very thing.... When we say they got what they asked for, they wanted the primacy of the local association as a bargaining unit. They wanted full bargaining rights; they have been granted those. They wanted professional control over their members. We felt that the two needed to be separated because we didn't see how you could extend the bargaining rights, and at the same time.... In other words, the primary function of the organization is to defend and protect its members at the same time as it would deal with qualifications and/or discipline. A lot has been made of the discipline. How many people in this province are guilty of gross moral misconduct in the classrooms? Very, very few; but for those few, so that it does not damage the reputation of the rest of the professional teachers in this province, there must be a mechanism to deal with them professionally.

There has been the criticism that: well, you are saying that the act.... It's related, I guess, to the methods and techniques that teachers will be allowed to use in the classroom. What the legislation says, if anyone wants to read it carefully, is that no one is allowed to write in an agreement how to control a teacher's hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute activities in the classroom. You can't spell that out and hold them to it. That's what the legislation says.

Then somebody said: "But somewhere else it says the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations, so that dispels all of that." Well, I guess there is some reason for the newness here, but practically every act in this Legislature allows for regulations. But those regulations have to support the act, not contradict it. This is what I would call building straw men and then trying to attack them— things that couldn't possibly exist.

So the techniques and methods that teachers use in the classroom are going to be their prerogative, not my prerogative, not the prerogative of their association or their union. They are going to say to teachers that there may be a program of studies and there may be certain objectives that you are asked to achieve. But nobody— and rightly so — is going to be able to tell you what words to use in the classroom, what exercises to hand out and those sorts of things. That is protected, not enshrined. No wonder teachers are concerned when some of their leaders and some people who should know better are saying to them that their right for methods and techniques in the classroom is being taken away. I know that many teachers don't have much time to read this legislation and study it, but the people that are telling them that have legislative advice, legal advice. They have all that, and they must know that they are misinforming the teachers and distorting that information.

Educational leadership and staff relations. When all of the people are in a professional organization and are dealing with a professional purpose of the schools, which is to give the best possible education to children, are we suddenly going to find principals and teachers trying to undermine each other? They haven't under the present structure. There has been conflict now. The BCTF and their notion of collegiality.... They don't want the principals to be writing reports on the teachers, and say that as a peer you have no right to judge anyone else. There has to be someone who says, "You're not doing your job," or, "You're not capable

[ Page 877 ]

of doing your job," and that has to be the administrative officers. So surely educational leadership is going to be and can be enhanced by this process, not taken away.

A big item has been made about who will speak for the children in this province. Well, I can tell you who speaks for the children. The parents do; the children speak for themselves; the public speaks for the children. They're concerned. The government is concerned for the children and speaks for the children. There has been a lot of misinformation that, through funding and so on, we have shown a lack of concern for the children. The amount of money that's gone into education has gone up every year, and has gone up again this year by something like $90 million. The concern that I have is that a 1 percent salary increase in this province adds up to $15 million. How many extra teachers could you put in the classroom, how many counsellors could you put in there, and that sort of thing, for that?

I'm not denying teachers the right to wage increases. But for all that's been said, look at the statistics. The teachers have, since 1982, averaged a $1,000 per year salary increase. Compare that to anybody else in the rest of society. I'm talking about average salaries, because I can't take the entire 27,000. But the average teacher's salary in this province has increased by $1,000 per year; in other words, roughly $4,000 in four years. And they're saying that we are picking on teachers.

Who will speak for the children? The parents, the government, the students themselves, the public and the teachers. The right for them to speak on behalf of the children is there. But when I read you these articles, when they were threatening job action before the legislation was introduced, what was it about? Children weren't mentioned.

We need to proceed with this legislation because what we're trying to provide here is a true choice, by a ballot, by teachers who can sit and think and have their questions answered, not by rallies where you have somebody like the president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation coming out and making the most outlandish, distorted, emotional statements, clear evidence that he either hasn't read the legislation or feels threatened by it in some way even though he isn't here. Some of the distortions made there are almost ludicrous. Here we are in this legislation saying that it is time to call a halt to somebody else's telling a teacher whether or not he may coach a team, that that is the teacher's prerogative, and that the teachers are going to have the choice, by vote, and you have somebody like that standing up and saying we're destroying the democratic rights and trying to destroy education.

I can tell you that with this legislation in place and with the responsible action of the teachers, which I have every hope . . The legislation indicates my faith in those teachers. This education system will be better. The education of children and the professional role of teachers will again be paramount in this province. It certainly provides to teachers the professional role, as even the people who have sat down and really read it and thought about it have said, rather than some of the distortions that we have here. It provides for a better education. It provides for the professional role of teachers. It gives them that, and it also gives them the full right, up front, not disguised or mixed up with the two, to the same bargaining rights as any other group in this society has. It's going to be a better education system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps you might read the legislation, because from your comments in the House, Madam Member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), you were obviously not informed about the legislation. You were taking the distorted version you were given.

I can also tell you that there have been accusations that there have been no substantive discussions going on. For several days some of the discussions have been going on; people are now working on trying to translate some of the concerns into amendments. But the separation and the basic principles of this bill I think are necessary to ensure the rights of students, the parents and the public in this province to the best possible education for their students. That I think is paramount, and that I think can be best accomplished by the separation, clearly distinguishing between the union role and the professional role.

The consultation has been good. There are amendments being looked at now, and I think they will satisfy some of the concerns. There was a concern about the minister appointing the college. The legislation clearly said that the intent is that the college be elected by zones, by the teachers, and all of them getting to vote, not just the ones that raise their hands at a meeting and call it a secret ballot. So they will all have the opportunity to vote, for quiet reflection, and I have full confidence that when they do that, they will do the job well and these will be their representatives. The appointment was a transitional measure. If it raises that much concern, I'm quite willing to look at an election, if that's what they want, because that's clearly the intent of the legislation.

So those are the kinds of things that we have been looking at. There have been others and these will be pulled together. But what we need to do here is move on with this legislation, not prolong what was anticipated and promised and threatened in March before the legislation was even introduced. We have to get on with it; we have to give that choice to teachers, and I know that teachers will exercise it professionally and responsibly, and the kids again will be served the way they should by the professional teachers of this province.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, what we have seen and heard this morning, I think, is what is really worrying the average concerned British Columbian, and that is that we are getting ourselves dug in, entrenched and not being prepared to move. Here we are debating a bill that, whatever the minister says, is of grave concern to the profession.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If the minister is correct in what he is saying in terms of what this act will do in the interests of the kids and the system, then he should sit down privately as soon as possible and work it out, not bring it here and force it through here despite the concerned objections of those to be affected by this legislation. Work it out first. Otherwise we are going to continue the confrontation that this province has come to accept, unfortunately, as a tradition.

People are tired of that tradition, very tired. The minister has tried to convince us that he is right, and it's come down once again not to who is right but what is right; and what is right is that we've got a confrontation in this province again. We've got those who teach our young people — the majority, 85 percent nearly, the other day who decided to take action — who feel this legislation is bad for this profession and bad for the system and therefore bad for the children.

[ Page 878 ]

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to argue about the past, Mr. Minister; I want to argue about now. We've got a fight in this province; we've got confrontation again, and people are tired....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Who started it?

MR. BLENCOE: Who started it? We know who started it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The guru of the Socreds, Gorde Hunter.

MR. BLENCOE: This legislation came in here; the discussions were ongoing with the various affected parties. We had hoped those discussions could have continued but instead, for whatever reason –– I suspect the tough guy image that we've come to expect from the Socreds that they're going to force something through come hell or high water — they bring the bill in for second reading.

Well, I know you're the government, you control the agenda, you can do what you want, but we've got a problem in the province again. We've got confrontation on Bill 19; we've got concerned citizens of all political persuasions, of all economic backgrounds, saying that Bill 19 is a problem; and you've got people who know the system, who know what we need for a good education system, saying: "Look, we've got to work this out. We've got to have some discussion" — privately, quietly, outside this steam bath at times in here. Get it out of here; talk to them. If you are right, Mr. Minister, about some of the things you are saying this morning, then talk to them privately.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I did for six months, and their answer came in March.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've only got to look at some of the legislation. We've only got to look at some of its aspects. You can't say, where there is genuine concern being expressed.... It is in your interest and the interest of all British Columbians and children — and that is what we should all be talking about — to get this thing worked out first.

Mr. Speaker, this wouldn't be done to other professional groups. We know that. They wouldn't dare do this to the doctors or the dentists or the engineers without extensive consultation; without working it out quietly, privately, with full discussion, with all issues on the table, and coming to a consensus on where we want to go. It wouldn't be done with those other professions; it just wouldn't be done. There would be resolve to work it out prior to the legislation coming to the floor of this Legislature. That's what we are all asking in this hoist motion.

All we are asking for is some sanity, some rational discussion, some moderation and some consensus-building on a very important aspect of our province: teaching kids and our education system. It's all we're asking for: time, breathing space. Get this thing worked out. Don't let's speak back and forth across the Legislature about who is right. What is right is that we have got a problem again in the province of British Columbia. We've got confrontation again. We've got turmoil in the thing that is going to build the economy of this province, that is going to make us an attractive place to invest, that is going to create the wealth of this province. That's our education system, and the ability of those children to get the best education they can get anywhere. Again, that's in turmoil. That's got to be the basis of our concern: the system, the education process and the children.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you arguing for the bill? Because that's what it does.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, I have just said, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if you are right about some of the things you said this morning, then we will be the first to agree. But sit down privately with those who are saying they've got concerns and they don't understand, and work it out first. That's what we are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has to try to give a strong impression in this House. He's got to defend the government. We all understand that. We all understand the political process; we all know what we've got to do at times. That's the game; that's politics. But this is not politics any more. This is not politics. This is kids; this is children. This is our future, and this is the thousands of people who participate in the system and who want to give those children their future in an atmosphere of conviviality, friendship — not fighting, not confronting the government — and looking for the opportunity to find the ways to achieve consensus.

Mr. Speaker, the government can do that. They can sit down privately to work out some of these things that the college.... There can be some understanding. We will be the first to say: "Good for you. Well done." But at the moment, we have not got that situation. At the moment, we have heard the minister, for the first time, I think, come to this House this morning to give the pitch in terms of defending the legislation, come hell or high water.

That's unfortunate. That's really unfortunate, and that's why we put forth the hoist motion asking for some reconsideration. It may take a little time, but those who are going to be affected in the end — that is, the children in our system will be the better off for it.

Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, Bill 19 and Bill 20 are very much linked, in terms of what is happening to our province. Bill 19 — and many have said it — is destabilizing to the economy and will give us a bad image outside this province. It is destabilizing. Bill 20 is based upon the same theme, I think. It's destabilizing. It creates unrest and concern. It doesn't allow those in the system who are trying to prepare our children for the future.... It's bad for morale.

Mr. Speaker, after a number of years of turmoil in the education system, among other systems, we need to get back to basics. We need to get back to talking to each other. We need to end the turmoil. Over the last five years we all know millions and millions of dollars have been withdrawn from the system — $400 million, including inflation. We've had six Education ministers in seven years, five major curriculum changes, 17 reviews or changes in financing formulas in five years, and there have been 3,000 teachers lost to the system. We don't need any more confrontation in the education system. The message that is being shared and given by teachers and by many others outside the profession and by all teaching organizations across the country is that this bill is not going to be good for the system.

[ Page 879 ]

I don't disagree, Mr. Speaker, that there may indeed be some good things, as the minister indicates. Let's be fair about it. Let's accept the fair things and what's good, but where there is at the moment confrontation and lack of consensus — not only from the BCTF; all teaching organizations across the country are united in this — let's sit down privately and deal with those and start to deal with the things that I've just indicated have created turmoil in the last five years. We need to ensure that education is the number one priority in our objectives in this legislation and in our discussions about the future of this province. At the moment we're again heading to turmoil and confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, there's no need to have this bill in the House right now. Discussion was going on. There were, I hope and I think, some very important meetings being held. But while the talks were proceeding — and who knows, maybe in a week or so they would have reached some consensus — the government decided to bring Bill 20 onto the floor of this House.

It's very much reminiscent of the old government. We all remember the Bill Bennett government — the image it tried to create as being the tough government, the tough-guy image. Despite all the objections and concerns from thousands and thousands of British Columbians, they were going to pursue their agenda. Mr. Speaker, we know the result of that agenda and that kind of process. British Columbians rejected it, and the Premier has indicated that he certainly doesn't want to go that route; he wants a different style. But unless there is a change in attitude right now, we are on the route to creating that style again –– I don't like to say that.

It would appear on the surface, and I hope I'm wrong, that this legislation very much is a kind of personal attack by some government people who feel they've got to take on the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The Premier has made a number of statements in the past –– 1983 was a very well-known one. He said: "I really don't wish a fight with the teachers, but I think the problem is with the B.C. Teachers' Federation." Mr. Speaker, he also made some statements back in '82 about the problems of curriculum and diversity. "Why give them the tools to form an individual opinion — I'm talking about kids — when the consensus should be one basic opinion –– I call that socialism...and of course from whence I come and where I stand, you can appreciate, I think this is dangerous stuff."

Mr. Speaker, if we look at what we see in terms of this legislation and the attitude of some members of the government and their speeches, it's very difficult not to conclude that this government is on a mission to destroy the BCT17 for political reasons. We very much hope that's wrong, but when I see the statements of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran)— a very extreme right-wing kind of mentality, I think — talking about attitudes about the BCT17 and quoting certain people saying that it's full of all sorts of bad people and left-wing people.... She bases the tone of her message on: "That's what we're doing with this legislation: we're cleaning up the profession."

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but get the impression that this legislation is trying to shoot the messenger, trying to eliminate what this government thinks should be done in the school system, or what kind of teachers it should have in the system. We can't support that kind of attitude. We will support legislation that helps the system, that builds our educational future and that helps our kids. But when I read the remarks of the first member for Langley, I can only conclude that there is an attitude very much pervading that side that thinks the teaching profession is something that has to be dealt with and attacked and that somehow they've got to eliminate certain people.

It's very sad and it's very scary, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're putting this hoist motion forward: to ask the government to reflect on its course of action and take some time to consult. I mean, the government has appointed a royal commission. We called for a royal commission; we're glad the government decided to do that. The royal commission has been asked to look at certain mechanisms and standards of measurement for teacher performance and teacher qualifications, and been asked to take a look at the system in general. Why appoint a royal commission and then bring in this heavy-handed, fairly extensive piece of legislation at the same time? It doesn't make sense. Again, it only helps those who feel that this legislation is attacking them conclude that there is another agenda with Bill 20.

Mr. Speaker, education needs time; it needs a breather. And we need time to build back the morale within the system. This is not going to do it.

I said earlier that this government wouldn't take on other professions like this, and I think that's very true. I wonder what would happen if the doctors' B.C. Medical Association was in the same position. I wonder if this government would take the same kind of attitude, if it would use the heavy hand of legislation to order certain things about a profession. I suspect not, Mr. Speaker. I think that if this government had some ideas for change, it would work it out with those professions. I'm convinced of it. But for some unknown reason, because they're dealing with teachers and with the education system, this government has taken a certain course of action that can only lead to further problems.

The message coming from those who work in the system is: "Please rethink your course." Bill 19 and Bill 20 are destabilizing. They can only hurt the future of this province. If the royal commission is to be a success, then allow it perhaps to look at some of the things you want to do. Allow it to consider some of the objectives you think are so important, and bring back some recommendations. Because despite what the minister said today, there was not consultation on this particular piece of legislation. There was not. It's come as a surprise. It's reminiscent of the old style under Bill Bennett of taking a two-by-four and clouting this profession, saying: "You will take this, or else."

We need a different approach in this province. All we're saying in this hoist is try and achieve the consensus that's necessary for education to be an exciting part of building the economy of British Columbia and our future.

Let me close by saying that if the minister was right in what he said this morning, then withdraw from this debate. Take Bill 20 out of here for a while, sit down privately and achieve some consensus on the issues. Otherwise the fight will continue, the confrontation will continue, and all British Columbians will be the worse off, particularly the children. It's the system that's going to get hurt. We need a better atmosphere in education, and we need to get back to some basics in terms of returning the morale, the funding. We need an educational system that'll be a benefit to the future of the province of British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: May I say from the start that the NDP caucus is 100 percent in support of this hoist motion.

[ Page 880 ]

There have been some remarks of mine quoted in the press, and several interviews that have occasioned some question as to just exactly what my position is. I suppose one of my experience should be a little more careful. I recall one recent interview where the interviewer said well, he'd asked me the same questions five times and couldn't get me to budge from my original answer, so he was going to let it go at that.

I'm reminded of a poem by Lewis Carroll, "Father William." There's a set of questions that a young upstart is asking his father. In response to the fourth question, Father William says:

I have answered three questions, and that is enough,
        Said his father. "Don't give yourself airs!
        Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
        Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!"

There are times, I think, when all of us would like to take that position.

The gratuitous advice that I offered to the teachers I stand by. We're in a political fight in this province to save education. Not to save teachers, not to save a teachers' organization, but to save our very educational system.

You don't fight politics, I believe, by being confrontational at this point in time. There are things that can be done. The Premier gave this advice to a questioner, I think it was up in Terrace or Struthers, when he responded in answer to the question: "Well, are you going to restore funding for education, among other things?" The Premier said: "I can answer that very easily. For the things you want, vote NDP." That is the position of the government. If you want any improvement in education funding, vote NDP.

More recently, speaking in Ladysmith, the Premier said to the same question about education — not the question about funding, but the same question about education: "If you want any cosmetic changes, we're prepared to listen. If you want any changes in principle, then you'd better get involved in politics."

Mr. Speaker, that's the advice that I'm giving. You fight politically by making friends. I stand by my advice. The teachers should be doing everything possible to cooperate with the parents and with the students at this time, making friends, winning friends who will stand by them over the next three years. This is going to be a three-year fight, not a three-week or a three-month fight. It's going to be a long period, a period when people like that will have the opportunity to win support for their position, which is that this government is bad for education. I believe it is. They believe it is. If that is the case, we have to make that case; not just teachers, but those of us who believe that we have to work together and make certain that the public, by the time the next election rolls around, is ready to change governments to get a government in office that will be good for education. I stand by that.

Nevertheless, I admit that my gratuitous advice, offered at that time and in the way I did it, might not have been well received by some — there's no question about that. So I should have handled it differently.

There's no question about supporting the hoist. I think that perhaps every one of us who has spoken so far has mentioned that talks are going on. That in itself is reason enough to carry on talking. Internationally, for a long period we went through what we called the Cold War— much better than shooting, Mr. Speaker. Had we started firing atomic weapons, that would have been the end of all of us. It was a war, but at least it was a cold war; they kept talking. In this instance, in bringing this legislation forward and, by his own remarks this morning, the minister is exacerbating the cold war that has been going on among his ministry, the teachers and the trustees. We have to cool that down some, not escalate it.

There's talk of disruption in the education system. Disruption in any system is bad at any time, but it's particularly bad at this time of the year. Students looking forward to graduation don't want their graduation ceremonies disrupted. They don't their opportunities to take part in scholarship exams disrupted. They want to make sure there's optimum continuation of educational services at this time. And then there are the traveling groups— bands traveling to different communities and different parts of the country; exchange students of one kind and another. All that has to be kept going, and that needs teacher participation beyond work-to-rule. By bringing in this kind of legislation, we're upsetting that cooperation right now. There's no need for it at this time. There's no need for it at any time, but it's particularly bad now.

Then there's the royal commission. I made this point in my response to the budget: why talk about legislation when a royal commission has just been appointed to look into the job? How can a royal commission expect to get reasonable submissions from those interested in education at the very time the war among the various groups is at its hottest? I just don't understand the timing. It wasn't needed now, in spite of what the minister said — and I'll deal with that a little later. The timing is bad.

What is it, Mr. Speaker, that the government has against select standing committees? There has been talk of putting the select standing committees to work. I participated in two organizational meetings for two separate committees. In each committee, as the committee adjourned and I stood up to walk out the door, I said: "Well, I'll see you all next year." Both times they denied that that will be the case. Both times they insisted that the committees will be put to work. Well, today is April 30. We've been here since sometime in early March. Some of the committees have yet to hold their organizational meetings. Nothing has been referred to any of these committees, with the exception of Public Accounts, which has to work when the House is sitting.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm told that Public Accounts has not yet been convened. Mr. Speaker, what does the government have against select standing committees?

There's no question but that there is confusion, if not among all of the groups, certainly between the minister's position and that of the teachers — no question about it. Why not keep talking? Why not have the select standing committee meet? Hear from the teachers. Hear from ministry people. Hear from trustees. Hear from parents. Hear from everyone. There's no urgency. This is not the time for it. Let's take six months, Mr. Speaker, and during that period let's refer this legislation to the select standing committee. That should be the job of that committee.

The government tells us: "Oh, yes, the committees are going to meet; they're going to work." But every time an ideal question comes up for referral to such a committee.... The government is determined to push it through on its own, perhaps in fear that the committee might want to

[ Page 881 ]

change the legislation. It's not a position of strength to say: "We are not going to refer it to the committee." To me, it indicates potential weakness. The government may be afraid that such a committee, even where the opposition is outnumbered two to one, may, in listening to submissions and in discussing submissions from various people in the community, come to the conclusion that in some areas this legislation should be changed, perhaps even substantially. So rather than take a chance, the government, out of fear, is determined to push ahead at this particular time.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, I have no personal hang-up about education. I feel very strongly that it is an extremely important service. I could marshal all kinds of economic arguments, but I don't have time this morning; I've done it on other occasions and perhaps will again.

In the debate on Bill 19 I referred to my father's experience. I talked then about the sacrifices he was willing to endure personally, and us as a family, in order to reorganize a union that had been destroyed by the Dunsmuir interests in the 1912-13 strike. He, among others, was prepared to endure those sacrifices. They did endure them, and they were successful in organizing. That same father had almost no academic education: two and a half years in a relatively small community in the Austro-Hungarian empire before the First World War. But he always knew the value of education. He saw people in the communities in which he lived, in the States, the Yukon and British Columbia, who were able to rise to positions much better than his, who were able to get out of the coal-mines and start working in offices, making real contributions. He saw those people and recognized that the difference was education. He had a good mind, but he wasn't able to use it, because it was never trained. He took correspondence courses, but that wasn't nearly the same. He instilled in his whole family, six children, the importance of education.

I am speaking today not for the people working in the system but for the system itself. I am in favour of education. I want all of us to have as much as we possibly can, and that is why one of my concerns about this government for the last 12 years has been that it has been demonstrably anti-education.

I have no concern about teachers, individually or as a group. The BCTF is the teachers' own organization. Mr. Speaker, you can find in almost any barrel of apples a bad one and say: "Let's throw out the whole barrel because there is one bad apple in there." Certainly you can find one bad apple in any group of people. One of the arguments being used by the people opposite is that they have found one bad apple, so we have to change the system totally in order to deal with that bad apple; we have to throw out the whole barrel and start all over. That is not necessary. To the best of my knowledge, the legislation that we currently have allows for dealing with individual bad apples; and now we are rewriting the legislation and saying the authority will be there. That is not adding anything new — maybe a different way, a different manner. There is the possibility now of getting rid of a bad apple when that bad apple is identified; but there is also protection for that person who might be accused of being a bad apple and isn't. Mr. Speaker, we don't have to rewrite the legislation.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

My father had the same respect for teachers that he had for the system. His words to all of us were: "If you come back from school and tell me that the teacher gave you a strapping, my response will be to give you another one, because you must have deserved it." I don't recall him ever laying a hand on me, but I was always afraid that he might.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the teacher?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, the teacher did, and I deserved it. On one occasion I didn't, but there is no point in arguing that. That's how I got in trouble: by arguing.

I have a great respect for teachers, because I know some individually — three members of my own family: my sister is a teacher; my nephew a teacher; my former wife was a teacher. I saw the way they worked. I saw the interest they took in their profession, the way they worked with the children, and not just during the school hours — all of them. Now you can pick one person and say that person is not doing the job properly, the way he or she should. I can say of the three I know, members of my own family, that they are all extremely conscientious. I know a lot of other teachers in our community, as all of us do, and most of us, in talking about the teachers in our communities, will say that we have a very high respect for them.

So to say that the teachers should not have the right to form their own organization.... I know the minister will deny he is saying that, and I'll come to that. But to interfere in the teachers' rights to their own organization, I believe, is showing want of confidence in them, and I am not surprised at that, because of the speeches that I have heard in this House over the last ten or 12 years — no question about it.

I guess I am one of a number of members on this side of the House who have picked on the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and some of the remarks that were made in debate. I suggest to that member that it is a compliment, in that while we may not agree with what she says when she speaks, the way in which she says it and what she says does make us listen. There is no question about that.

One of the sections I am just going to quote briefly: "In the last ten years the federation has become a political organization." My question would have to be: why in the last ten years? I understand the BCTF is something like 70 years old. I am not sure of that figure, but I heard something at one point. Why in the last ten years has that organization become political? If one becomes political, it doesn't necessarily mean partisan political, because I am sure there are various political organizations represented within the BCTF. But what happened 11 years ago, Mr. Speaker, that has turned the BCTF into a political organization?

A new Premier was elected in December 1975, and it was very early in the life of that new government that it became obvious to teachers that if they were going to do anything for teaching, if they were going to be able to help their students, they had to take some interest in something beyond their own local school or even their own local school district. They had to become political, in the sense of trying to influence governments; not always opposing the government necessarily, but they had to become a political organization that could go to the Ministry of Education, go the B.C. School Trustees' Association, and put forward their views with respect to improving the educational system.

Before that they were resting relatively comfortably; things were rolling along without too much trouble. But some ten years ago, apparently — I didn't check the date; I'll accept that it was ten years ago —- the BCTF recognized that

[ Page 882 ]

if they were to discharge their responsibilities as teachers of children in this province, then they had to take some interest in something beyond the classroom. They did become political. I wish they had all joined the NDP; things might be different. They didn't do that, and I don't know that there are any more now than there were then — whether they're in any higher proportion. I rather doubt it.

But certainly, as an organization, they started speaking out against education cutbacks. They started speaking out and showing what is happening in other communities where they did go through the same business of cutting back, and the cost in terms of how it affected the economic development in those communities. They did speak out; there's no question about it. And I think they would make no apology for becoming political some ten years ago. But they would ask: why was it necessary for us to have to speak out in the way that we did? Why was it necessary for us to become a political organization? Why did the government change its attitude towards education so much, starting in the late seventies?

The member went on to say.... The minister has said this and others have said it, and the minister says he has given it to them. But the Teachers' Viewpoint — I'm not familiar with that paper; it may be a local one — wants full collective bargaining rights for teachers, including the right to strike. Almost any group of employees wants the right to strike, but no group of employees wants to go on strike.

When you're bargaining, you have to have something some ace in the hole — and even if you bargain it away, so be it. Certainly groups of employees, trade unions, have on occasion bargained away their right to strike because they've been persuaded that it's in the public interest and because they've had an agreement they could live with for a number of years. The teachers don't want to go on strike, but what is the alternative?

Up to this point, there has been a system for resolving the disputes that neither side has been totally happy with — the arbitration process. Neither side has been totally happy. Now the teachers say: "Give us the right to strike, so that when we go in there we will have some more bargaining power on our side." Of course, on the other side there would always be the right to lock out. It puts them on a par, maybe, but at least they do have one more bargaining ploy, if you like, available to them.

If they had that right to strike, I believe that in many instances employee groups generally, perhaps even the teachers, would be prepared district by district, providing they had an agreement with which they felt they could live, to bargain away the right to strike, at least for certain periods and for certain years. That's part of bargaining. But give them something that they can bring to the bargaining table and say: "Yes, we're prepared to give this up in exchange for" — whatever.

It's part of the bargaining process. So certainly any group working anywhere in our community, in our western world, wants to be able to say, if it comes to a breakdown in bargaining, in negotiations:, "We always have the right to withdraw our labour as a group of people." Are we going to deny them that right? Can we enforce it if we do deny it?

I think I repeated, earlier in the debate on Bill 19, John Lewis's remark when Roosevelt threatened to use the army to put the miners back to work: "You can't mine coal with bayonets." If 30,000 teachers — whatever the number is — in this province decided that they were going to withdraw their services, or even if a whole school district decided to withdraw their services, does the minister believe that the legislation we're discussing this morning would put them back to work? You don't get cooperation by wielding the heavy stick, as the minister is doing with this legislation. That isn't the way it's done. You get cooperation by sitting down with people, consulting with them and listening.

The minister this morning.... I thought when he spoke that if anybody on the other side had any doubt at all as to whether or not they should support this amendment, that should have convinced them to support it. The very attitude he showed this morning shows that he has absolutely no understanding of the teachers and the BCTF. I don't say that negatively. I'm not saying that in his total lack of understanding he's dumb or anything like that, but obviously there isn't the understanding on both sides of the bargaining table.

The minister said: "We've been discussing it for six months, and look where it got us." Well, there are discussions and there are discussions, and I can't help but wonder whether the minister was telling them what he wanted to do, and the teachers were saying no. I don't know, but I will say this: it's obvious that if this bill came out of the results of six months of discussions, then something fell down between the time they finished discussions and the time they wrote this legislation. Because certainly the BCTF has indicated that they're totally unhappy with the legislation.

Now either they didn't understand what they were agreeing to during the discussions or the minister is totally unable to understand the objections from the teachers. There doesn't seem to be any other way of understanding the attitude of the minister and the teachers right now. That in itself is a good reason to take time. To refer it to a select standing committee would be my own preference, but at least we should take time, especially now at this time of the year. There is time.

For one thing, I wonder whether the minister really understands the effect of Bill 19 and whether he's had an opportunity to read that bill. He told us the teachers wanted to get rid of the Public Sector Restraint Act, and we're doing it in this legislation; that the teachers wanted to get rid of the Compensation Stabilization Act, and we're doing it in this legislation; that the teachers wanted to get rid of the Essential Services Disputes Act, and while that isn't covered in this legislation it's my understanding that it was an oversight and that it will be done away with as well. But the provisions under all of those examples of legislation are included in Bill 19, which overrides Bill 20. Provision for all of those ways of solving problems is included in Bill 19, and even more so, because some of these things could only be implemented by cabinet approval, whereas Bill 19 gives one person, a commissioner, the authority to implement many of the features of these three pieces of legislation that previously could only be done on cabinet action. Mr. Speaker, that's worse. The minister doesn't understand why the teachers are concerned about this, but if he reads Bill 19 he'll find that the teachers are going to be in a worse position than they are with the legislation that we currently have, and the legislation that we currently have has been working.

Full bargaining rights, the minister tells us, but subject to the provisions of Bill 19. The minister's speech this morning sounded very much like the wartime phrase: "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." It doesn't really matter what happens to the educational system; it doesn't really matter what happens to teachers and their organization; unfortunately it doesn't really matter what happens to the students at this time. The government is determined to force through

[ Page 883 ]

this legislation, so damn the torpedoes, let's go ahead with the legislation.

If the minister truly wanted to get cooperation from the teachers.... Legislation or no legislation, we are not going to get a good educational service within this province unless there is constant cooperation, and consultation among the teachers, the B.C. School Trustees' Association and their boards and the ministry itself. We don't get that kind of cooperation with the kind of attitude displayed by the minister this morning.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, the BCTF newsletter — I can't see that either.

What he said is that the teachers are threatening to release the first atomic bomb, if you like, and we're going to beat them — the preemptive strike. We're going to take them on first and make sure that they are so weakened that they'll not be able to live up to any of their threats. I say again that the teachers do not want to go on strike. The teachers are still meeting with the ministry staff and the BCSTA now. That kind of talking is going on, and while it is, even if it isn't going to be productive, at least show that you have the courage of your own convictions. Show that if you give this bill time it will be just as good in your opinion — just as bad in mine, maybe — if it sits for a time, and particularly if the legislative Select Standing Committee on Education has an opportunity to deal with it.

There is no hurry to deal with this. What is at stake is education in this province for years to come. It has been under attack. The BCTF, admittedly, has responded by becoming politically involved, but the system has been under attack. Cutbacks have been imposed. Schools have been loaded with students who previously were kept in separate institutions. I don't say that's a bad thing, but I say that bringing those students into the classrooms has made it tougher for teachers to work with the children. There's just no question about any of those things.

I mentioned my sister earlier — a teacher, and a very conscientious one. She finally retired early because she just couldn't stand the frustrations any longer, and it was an agonizing decision for her to make. One of her problems was trying to teach in a classroom that was built under the new era for a certain class size, but under the present system where the class sizes are larger, they actually had to physically bring chairs into the room if all of the students in that class attended for a particular class. There weren't enough desks. The room wasn't big enough. They had to crowd chairs into the room if there was a full turnout. That's a very small example, maybe, but it's the kind of turmoil that has gone on in the education system. There was a move to reduce class size, and I think it was important that that be done when we were bringing into the classrooms children with some physical or mental difficulty...

MR. ROSE: Mainstreaming.

MR. STUPICH: ...something that.... Mainstreaming, as the hon. member names it.

There was a need, not for more students per teacher, but less students per teacher when that happened. It was a good process. It brought those students in with others and it was good. But it's more costly. Instead of responding to that by providing more money for educational services, the government responded by — I don't say reducing the number of dollars, but certainly in terms of inflation, the constant amount spent in B.C. on education has decreased. And that's been a disservice. It's been bad for British Columbia. It's perhaps one of the reasons why we have not prospered in B.C. in the same way that other parts of the country have.

It's not difficult to advance reasons as to why this bill should be hoisted. In the event that the government is determined to turn it down.... I hope they won't; I hope they'll simply stop discussion. I can't see the government accepting an opposition amendment that the bill be hoisted. But they could simply not call this bill forward for a time. They could make it possible for the teachers to feel that they are being listened to. I'm sure that if the teachers were convinced that they were being listened to, that there was going to be real consultation — not just somebody sitting at one side of the desk telling them what the legislation means, but that there was going to be real consultation about this legislation — then I'm sure that the teachers would be cooperative. Nobody wants to go on strike. Everybody wants the right to strike, but nobody wants to actually withdraw their services. That's just the way it is, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know, I suppose I have to say, in the end, that if the government is determined — and to this point in time they do seem determined that they're going to get their own way totally — then once again I have to remind the community generally, not the teachers, not the politicians, but the people generally, that if they are really concerned about what has happened to education in the province of British Columbia, then they should listen to the person who was Minister of Education from August 10, 1982 to May 1983, and his conduct as Minister of Education when the teachers first really attracted the negative attention of the government.... Certainly it escalated very substantially during that period, during that same period when the teachers became more active politically, although I say again, not partisan politics because they were divided there and still are, but became more active politically in response to the attack that was coming from the Minister of Education at the time, the person who is now Premier, the same person who said that if you want to restore funding for a number of services — health services or education — then you want to vote NDP. The same person said in Ladysmith: "We'll consider cosmetic changes, we'll talk to you about cosmetic changes; but if you want changes in principle, then you'd better get involved in politics."

I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not advising teachers — no more of that gratuitous advice. I'm simply saying to the community as a whole that if they are concerned about what has happened to education in British Columbia — and every indication we get from the government right now is that it's going to be worse rather than better in the years ahead — then they had better take an interest in politics, find out where politicians stand, find out how to change their positions, and if not to change their positions, well then, to change the government.

To my mind, this government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are not willing to consult and cooperate with teachers any more than they are with trade unions. They have their mind made up — what is best for the Social Credit Party and the government. They're not terribly concerned about the short-run experience in education itself.

[ Page 884 ]

They think this will be politically popular. The teachers have been made a whipping-boy for so many people.

Mr. Speaker, the government, if it has the strength of its own convictions and believes this is good legislation, will stand it down and wait until there is that real consultation.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the hoist motion that has been put forward by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It's a very sad day for us to have to be standing in our place and talking to the government about a bill that really is an unnecessary bill in this province at this time.

I have a bit of a cold, so you'll have to indulge my hoarseness.

I think that all members of this House, certainly the members who have been sitting in this House for some period of time — certainly since the '83-86 restraint period — were hoping that this new mandate that was given this government would mean that some of the serious problems in education in this province would be addressed. At a time when our school system is so sorely in need of basic help on the real needs of the educational system, rather than introducing legislation or budget estimates that would address those real needs, what we've had in their place is a politically vindictive act on the part of the government.

We have the largest class sizes in all of Canada. We have the least opportunity for young people to go to university. We have fewer counsellors per 100 students than any other province in the country. There's no need for it in a province as rich and well-endowed in resources and talent as this one. We constantly ask why this is taking place, and why the government is so afraid of the teachers' organizations in this province. I would like to bring to the attention of the House a few figures that illustrate the point I am trying to make.

In our province, the class size violations in the B.C. public schools as of September 30, 1986.... That means the number of students that should be in the class versus the number of people that really are in the class, with one teacher. In our kindergarten classes, 42 percent of all the classes are over the maximum size of 20, which is deemed to be the best learning size for kindergarten children.

In grade 1, some 22.8 percent of all of our classes are over the maximum size of 25. In grade 4, some 17 percent are over the maximum size of 30. Right through grades 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, our class sizes are at least a third over what is deemed to be the maximum for learning within the classroom.

The trend has been to move the cost of education more and more onto the residential taxpayer, so that the homeowner is carrying a burden that is more properly carried out of general revenue by the province of British Columbia.

The statistics do not lie. Statistics Canada has done research coast-to-coast, and we have, for example.... This is Statistics Canada, page 86 to 87, page 220. It is called "Advanced Statistics of Education." It indicates that in the last four years our province has dropped from second to sixth in expenditure per pupil by province. We now are just ahead of the Maritimes, which are lumped together into one category. Here we are, the third most populous province, the third richest province in terms of resources, and yet we are now sixth in per-pupil expenditure in education.

Mr. Speaker, our friends to the south of us, in Washington state, in Oregon and in California have long recognized the importance of a strong, well-funded education system as a key ingredient in a healthy economy. The Washington state public education system, right from K to post-doctoral, is a strong one; it's well-funded. Far more support is given by the state and the federal government there than we receive here, in terms of provincial standards. They are a neighbour that we are competing with economically.

I want to point to the fact that during the restraint period the counsellors, so important in an education system, to ensure that students feel that they're getting assistance that they need, particularly in a society that's as multicultural as ours, with many new Canadians, first-generation Canadians or recent immigrants, whose first language is not English.... Because of the recession in the economy, there are added pressures in the classroom. The teachers and the people in the school system have had to deal with the fact. Recently in this House we've heard about the hunger in the classrooms,

Let me just give you some statistics, Mr. Speaker, about the counsellors in the schools.

In 1983 a cross-community task force report to the Ministry of Education on counselling in the secondary schools of B.C. determined that approximately 250 students can be adequately served by one full-time secondary counsellor. In other words, in a large high school there should be at least one counsellor for every 250 students so that the need could be adequately met. What do we have? In the 57 districts reporting counselling services, with regard to pupil-counsellor ratios, only 18 districts had a ratio from 250 to 350; in 13 districts the ratio was 351 to 400 pupils; in 17 districts 401 to 500 pupils; in four districts 501 to 700 pupils; and in five districts more than 700 pupils per counsellor.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm listening intently and with sincere interest to the first member for Victoria in this debate. I can assure you, it would be most relevant if we were doing the estimates of the Minister of Education, but it's not relevant at all in debating a hoist motion to Bill 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order would seem to be well taken, unless the member can prove relevancy to the hoist motion.

MR. SKELLY: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader had been in the House beyond the last three or four minutes, he would have heard how this relates to the hoist motion that the member has been talking about before this member came into the House.

[11:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There would appear to be some debate on my ruling, as opposed to a second point of order.

MR. G. HANSON: I really have no difficulty relating my remarks to the hoist motion because what I'm pointing out to the House is that the real needs of the educational system in this province could have been addressed and should be addressed if we can get on to the ministry estimates, and that this bill should be moved six months hence to allow for the real needs in the classroom to be addressed, which relate to pupil-teacher ratio and the availability of basic learning materials such as textbooks, pencils, erasers, proper guidance and so on. There's no difficulty whatsoever. Something just as basic as library services that are so deficient in this province....

[ Page 885 ]

Here the government had an opportunity, with a mandate from the people, to address the serious concerns that exist within the educational system, but instead we get a politically vindictive, politically mischievous bill that is designed to just aggravate and disrupt the system rather than doing what all MLAs during the election campaign, as they were meeting their constituents at the doorstep and talking to people in their own ridings.... Person after person, and the government is aware of this, was asking for peace and stability in the educational system. The educational system in the province of British Columbia was deemed to be one of the central issues of the election campaign, and rather than dealing in a forthright way with what the government had planned in terms of a legislative program, we got smiles through the campaign, smiles and style and a little bit of talk about gambling, where the central issue was education. And once the election was over, what did we see but Bill 19 and Bill 20, to totally destabilize the educational system even further. I want to read into the record a frustration that was expressed by the teacher-librarians with respect to what has happened in the school system on the cuts that presently exist with regard to library facilities. When the cutbacks and layoffs occurred, teachers were asked to carry out added duties and be expert in areas where they hadn't received adequate training and support. The quote is:

"Some of the services provided by the library aide include carding and shelving, returned materials, reading and ordering shelves of books, coordinating the process of getting overdue books back, typing orders, typing cards, filing, laminating, processing books and supervision. It is assumed by her dismissal that I will take up these responsibilities, plus complete the professional tasks of the teacher-librarian, plus teach the two classes I have been assigned due to cutbacks.

"Books are in extremely shabby condition, which does nothing to inspire pupils to treat them with care. Teacher-librarians are reluctant to discard worn materials which they know will not be replaced. No new audio-visual material has been purchased since 1982. This year the school received one general encyclopedia and one science encyclopedia, the first large-scale reference acquisition in five years.

"In 15 years as a teacher-librarian, I have worked very hard, with lots of extra time spent, to bring the libraries under my control up to acceptable standards. I now feel that I am beating my head against a brick wall. There is no way one person can run a program on half time and with negligible clerical assistance. In a district with increasing enrolment, the bottom line remains the same. Teacher-librarians are required to perform the same job and supply the same level of service to more pupils and teachers in less time."

What I am saying is that the real needs in the classroom — inadequate library facilities, inadequate textbooks, inadequate materials of all sorts, large class sizes, a system that is run down — were what we expected to see the government address in introducing to this House.... Yet instead we get this politically mischievous, politically vindictive attack on the people working in the public sector.

Those people are committed to the children of this province. They have been under sustained attack now for almost seven years that I can recall. Why is it that the government tries to earn its political epaulets on the back of the public school system in this province, when it could be such a central, integral part, performing, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) yesterday...? It could be an exciting and creative enterprise that could be a central part of our economy, leading us off into the 1990s and the twenty-first century. Rather, we are going back to the forties and the thirties and the twenties, with a government that is so centralist in its approach.

Mr. Speaker, because I was present in this House when the present Premier was a member from 1979 to 1983, I had some sense of what his role was when he was Minister of Education between 1982 and 1983, and what his performance had been in his previous ministerial roles. I knew that the media was trying to communicate the fact that we had a man now who, because he had been out of politics for a few years, had received some kind of personality transplant, that he was no longer the minister we had known in this chamber in previous years. But it is becoming glaringly obvious that, yes, there is a modest change in the general functioning of this House, but in policy-related matters and in terms of political matters in this chamber, that member is wreaking havoc in this province, as he did in his previous roles as Minister of Education, Minister of Human Resources and Minister of Municipal Affairs. His stamp is clearly on this legislation.

Why is he so insecure and so afraid of the B.C. Teachers' Federation? The B.C. Teachers' Federation, whether you agree or disagree with its pronouncements, has been an advocate and a voice for quality education in this province for many, many years — in fact, for 71 years, I believe. Why the haste in dismantling this body, under the guise of providing some kind of collective bargaining rights which, on the one hand, are granted under Bill 20 and on the other hand, severely curtailed and taken away under Bill 19?

Here we have a government trying to do the old divide-and-conquer, trying to drive wedges between people whom they see as being opposition voices in the province. We thought there was going to be a conciliatory attitude. In fact, during the election campaign the Premier made many statements that sort of alluded to a new approach that would be based on cooperation, consultation, peace and stability. Yet I can hardly believe it when I watch the television news at night. I can't believe that it's less than six months since the election campaign — it was only in October — and gymnasiums are full of irate people. The systems are being disrupted in the workplace and in the classroom. What is the need for this? Why is the government...? It's the old political chestnut in this province: you cruise your way through an election campaign, you say nothing, you operate on the basis of the polls; then as soon as the election is over, it's the old sucker punch, "Let's hit them hard now, and in 31/2 years, when they go to the polls again, they won't remember, and we'll just get in again," particularly when we have a political gerrymander in which the seats are not fairly distributed in the province — which is an absolute truth, and in any other jurisdiction it would be thrown out in the courts.

I don't think that there's any number that expresses more adequately the inferior and substandard funding of our public education system in the province of British Columbia: Statistics Canada's "Advanced Statistics of Education, 1986-87" catalogue 81-220, table 12, illustrates the education expenditure as a percentage of personal income by province; in other words, the amount of money that's spent as a percentage of personal income by the individuals within the provinces of

[ Page 886 ]

Canada. The province that spends the least is British Columbia. We rank tenth, at 7.2 percent. Ninth is Ontario at 7.8 percent. The highest, as a percentage of personal income, would be a surprise to the members of the House; it's actually Newfoundland, and it's 11.6 percent.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 will cause further disruption in our school system. Children will suffer as a result of the continuation of the pattern of disruption that has been the norm over the past decade. Our education system has seen six ministers in the last seven years. It's just like a turnstile. It's like musical chairs. There's been no stability whatsoever in policy development. There have been five major curriculum change proposals or reviews in the last four years. There have been 16 studies or revisions in budgeting and finance formulas since the introduction of the first restraint program in '82. And where are we in the province of British Columbia? At the bottom. We're at the bottom in the percentage of our students that attend post-secondary education. We're at the bottom in percentage of personal income spent on education. We're near the bottom in per capita expenditure. Our counsellor ratios and our pupil-teacher ratios are a disgrace.

As my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) indicated yesterday, the dentists of this province have been waiting for two years to have a bill go through this House, gone through, sponsored by a private member, sponsored through the select committee on standing orders and private bills, and yet here we have Bill 20, setting up a college for the teachers, and we have members on the other side talking about undue delay on this side of the House after three or four weeks, when the dentists have waited two years and there's nothing but foot-dragging going on on the part of the government.

The question really before us.... This is a political bill; this is not an administrative bill. This is a bill focused at shooting apart, blowing apart the administrative organization representing the teachers of this province. It's based on political vindictiveness, as I've stated. It is a mischievous bill and not designed to bring stability to the classroom and quality public instruction to British Columbia. That is not its objective. It's motivated by insecurity on behalf of the government and by an old agenda, an old, grudge. It's a grudge match, a repeat that has its origin with the Premier, who was the minister and objected to having to deal in a partnership relationship with the teachers of the province as people who had some firsthand working-line knowledge of what is required to have a quality public instruction system in the province.

I would just like to make a comment on the question of principals and vice-principals that is contained in the bill. I know from personal experience within my own constituency in School District 61 that most principals and vice-principals do teach at least one hour or course every day. They are working teachers as well as administrators. The Premier has expressed his personal view that a manager from business — you know, the superintendent at Midas Muffler or someone else — would be equally competent to run a school. That view is not shared by this side of the House. We feel that people who are adequately trained, have gone through the system and are fully acquainted with the needs of education should be the principals in our school system, not managers of floral chains, hot liners or second-hand-car dealers, etc. We feel people should be trained properly, and that's why we differ from members on that side of the House.

[11:45]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. G. HANSON: Thank you for saving me from that vicious attack by that car dealer over there masquerading as a Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid).

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: You know, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Tourism is an avid crab fisherman, and I hope he was in the House when the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) was telling his crab story.

HON. MR. REID: Sounds like you're being an old crab.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, if I'm an old crab, it's because I feel strongly about the lack of quality public education and public support for the education system in this province, and about the systematic dismantling and destabilizing that has gone on for ten years.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Scope of bargaining. Bill 20 purports to give teachers full bargaining rights, but in fact, it merely makes teachers subject to all the limitations of Bill 19. In addition — and that's what I was saying earlier — whatever was given with one hand is taken away with the other by Bill 19. In fact, there's double jeopardy. When you overlap the two bills, when you move them like two acetate overlays and superimpose one on the other, you find that the teachers are often in double jeopardy. In addition, several aspects of Bill 20 appear to limit the scope of bargaining. For example, section 72 prevents any contractual provision which would regulate "the selection and appointment of teachers, the courses of study, the program of studies...." Members on this side of the House are not afraid to acknowledge that teachers have something to contribute to curriculum development and what really should be done to make a quality public instruction system in this province. We're not afraid to give them a voice in that matter. Yet you preclude them from that in this statute, in those provisions. You really disallow their involvement, and you try to make them sort of servile.

Mr. Speaker, there are many negative aspects about this bill that I would like to elucidate. But I would like to reiterate once more that over the last few years our education system has suffered. Everyone publicly acknowledges that. I know that people in the great riding of Mackenzie during the last election campaign.... As various members were canvassing, they knew that if they endorsed the quality of education and what was happening in our classrooms.... Restraint in the school system, cutbacks and layoffs, lack of counsellors and inadequate library facilities were an issue, and every member of this House knows that.

HON. MR. REID: How did they vote?

MR. G. HANSON: That is precisely my point, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

[ Page 887 ]

MR. G. HANSON: No, but you're addressing your attack....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member and the Minister of Tourism would stop their debate and if we could get back to the hoist motion, I think the House would appreciate it.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the advisability of moving this bill six months hence... It would give the government an opportunity to reflect on what the real issue is and on the real mandate given by the people of this province to redress the inequities in our school system. That was the issue in the campaign, not slapping the teachers and trying to destroy some voice for education in the province.

It's more out of sadness than anger that we have to move this hoist amendment and ask the government to come to its senses and hoist the motion for six months, to gather its thoughts and to refer the matter to a select committee. We heard during the election campaign that the committee system of the House would work. None of them is working; none of them is functioning.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, they are.

MR. G. HANSON: Public Accounts hasn't even been convened yet. We've been here since March 9.

MRS. GRAN: The Chairman's on your side of the House.

MR. G. HANSON: You've got members on the liquor committee, and you should change your composition of members so the Public Accounts Committee could meet.

This bill should be referred to a standing committee on education to allow MLAs of both parties, and the independent member, to make representation to that committee about what the real needs are and to defer this political attack on the education system, on the working conditions of teachers and on the classroom circumstances that affect every student.

This bill doesn't just attack teachers; this bill attacks children and the quality of instruction and the ambiance and environment within the classroom. We ask this government to hoist this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd also like to thank the previous speaker for the amount of work that he did in preparing his speech, putting information together and bringing that information to the attention of the government. A very optimistically presented speech, because I don't think the government was even listening to the information that was presented,

I think the government has made up its mind that this hoist motion will be defeated and that we're just going through the process of speaking to no real purpose in this House The government has made up its mind and has stated publicly that this bill is going forward, that they will only accept cosmetic changes to the bill and that, really, the time that a lot of good members have put into preparing their debates and preparing and researching information.... The government is telling us that that time and that effort — well remunerated, I might say, by the taxpayers of British Columbia — are being wasted on their behalf.

So it's with no real pleasure, I guess, that I rise to take my place in speaking on this hoist motion. As I say, it's not a usual motion, Mr. Speaker, that's presented to the Legislature. In 15 years' experience in this House, motions such as these have only been moved possibly 12 or 13 times. They've been moved with good intent on the part of the official opposition, with the intent of giving the government the opportunity of standing back a little bit from a bill that they've presented, taking a more careful look, and determining just what the reaction is from people out there; how valid the negative reactions are, and how the bill might be changed, in its substance as well as cosmetically, so that we can present a much higher quality of legislation in this House, legislation that can be universally supported, and legislation that operates in the best interests of the people that we're elected here to serve; that is, the electors of the province, and first and foremost, that group that the previous speaker drew the government's attention to: the young people, the students and the pupils in our public school system.

I've been connected with the system over the years, Mr. Speaker, both as a teacher and as a school trustee. It's a system that I'm very proud of; a system that, under the British North America Act and the constitution of Canada, has been made one of the primary responsibilities of provincial governments. It's one of the most important functions that was granted to provincial governments under our constitution. I'm very concerned about the attitude that this government and the political party that forms this government seem to have about the public school system in the province; probably the same kind of approach that they take to the debate that's going on and to the Legislative Assembly itself.

I just noted in the news this morning, Mr. Speaker, that the government has had one of the protesters on the lawn hauled off in handcuffs, because he didn't follow the kind of protest that the government has decided was going to be legitimate protest. Mr. Speaker, the issue isn't whether you can set up tents. The issue is, should a government license protest against the government — outside of South Africa?

It makes me ashamed, Mr. Speaker, of the government that we have here today, of the kind of attitude that is being demonstrated on the lawns of the parliament buildings, which is the same kind of attitude that is being demonstrated by the government in response to this hoist motion in the Legislative Assembly today.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has made a remark that I find offensive, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker didn't hear it, but if the member is offended, I would ask the Minister of Education if he would withdraw.

[ Page 888 ]

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister made a statement that this side always supported lawbreakers, which is offensive.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the point of order, the minister referred to a position taken by a party and wasn't making any specific reference to an individual member. That is not what.... The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) indicated that the comment had been made about, the opposition benches. Normally, if a remark has not been made with specific reference to one member, then withdrawal is not called for.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the precise wording that I heard was: "You always support lawbreakers," and he was pointing to and directing that at the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there seems to be some confusion in this matter. I would ask the minister if he would withdraw.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was tempering that remark to what the member was saying, that the government shouldn't act against somebody who was breaking a law, so that was my conclusion; but if that offends the member to take what he is saying at face value, then I withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it seems that whenever legislation is brought forward that is fundamentally an attack on any group in the province, whether it be an attack on workers, or an attack on the teachers, or whether an attack directly or indirectly on the education system in this province. When people fight back with the only means they have, and when they're boxed into a comer so that the only means they have ends up being questionable as to its legality, then the government always switches the issue towards blind obedience to the law.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those who have studied the history of this institution, the institution of parliament, will tell you that every single right that this parliament has — every democratic right, whether it be the power of the purse, or the abilities and the powers of the office of the Speaker, or the powers of the members as a whole.... Every single one of those powers, rights and privileges attached to a democratic parliament was won at the cost of the blood of someone who took it upon himself, or himself along with a group, to violate the laws as they stood and to change this world to a better world. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to people like Robert Gourlay, and as a school principal you should recall that example, where that man was sentenced to death for seditious libel for saying nasty things about the government of the day. As a result of actions of people like Mr. Gourlay, we have the power of the purse in this assembly today — as a result of the fact that he ignored a bad law.

We do not believe that democracy is based on blind obedience to bad law. That's another system that we're talking about, a system that prevailed in western Europe back in the 1930s.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get back to the bill. I hope to do that this afternoon.

Mr. Skelly moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.