[ Page 915 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statements

Constitutional conference. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 915

Mr. Rose

B.C. food products. Hon. Mr. Michael –– 916

Mr. Rose

Private Members' Statements

Government purchasing of services. Mr. R. Fraser –– 917

Mr. Clark

Volunteers. Ms. A. Hagen –– 919

Ms. Campbell

Abuse of children. Mrs. Gran –– 920

Mr. Cashore

Access to services. Mrs. Boone –– 922

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Crandall –– 924

Mr. Sihota –– 926

Mr. Rabbitt –– 929

Mr. Clark –– 931

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. STUPICH: On behalf of the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), may I ask the members to join with me in welcoming a couple of constituents of ours, Mrs. Randi Kocher and Kevin Kocher.

MR. MERCIER: In the members' gallery are supporters from my constituency. Paul Keenleyside is the secretary of the Burnaby-Edmonds Social Credit association, and with him is Ralph Jahs. In the precinct today are Ed Parker and Raymond Maaske. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like to introduce three great people from the great riding of Richmond. First of all, a member of the Social Credit riding association executive, Mrs. Marilyn Roberts, her friend Susan Dodd and her daughter Jennifer Dodd. Please make them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: This morning it is a great pleasure for me to have as guests in the House Kim Leakey, who is an alderman from Courtenay, her husband Ed and his brothers Roy and Wayne Leakey. Would you please help me bid them welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, would you welcome in the House today the MacKenzie family: Karr and Mary Jane from Vancouver-Point Grey.

Ministerial Statements

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a few hours ago, and several thousands of miles away, I had the privilege and the honour to represent British Columbia at an event t which will be remembered by future Canadians as the day on which Canada truly became a united country. That event -the constitutional conference at Meech Lake - produced an agreement in principle that will bring our sister province of t Quebec into the constitutional fold. Not only will Quebec become part of the Canadian family, but this historic agreement reshapes and changes the nature of the relationship and the responsibilities of our national and provincial governments in a manner that bodes well for our collective future.

British Columbia and all of the provinces have been offered new rights, powers and responsibilities in the areas of immigration, appointments to the Supreme Court, federal spending, and a range of changes and amendments that will result in the Senate and other national institutions becoming truly representative of the nature of Canada. It has been the fashion over the years, particularly in relation to the debates and discussions which have surrounded constitutional issues, to categorize and classify the participants - the provincial governments and the national government - as either winners or losers, heroes or villains. Regional differences and regional requirements overshadowed and clouded our real goal: the urgent need for us as Canadians to once and for all resolve this question of our respective roles and place within our Canadian society.

At times those differences seemed beyond solution, and the prospect loomed of a deepening sense of alienation in some parts of our country. Mr. Speaker, today we can as Canadians begin to put those days of doubt and rancour behind us, because this conference produced no losers; instead, Canada is a winner.

The Meech Lake agreement has produced a formula that will bring us closer together as members of a united country in which all share a renewed sense of equality and national purpose. The discussions that resulted in this historic agreement were long and detailed. What made the difference -and what made this conference a success - was the fact that from the time we sat down together around the table, our discussions were conducted in a spirit of cooperation and compromise that never wavered. It proved to me, and to my fellow Premiers and the Prime Minister, that when men of good will demonstrate their willingness not just to talk but to listen, not just to argue but to agree and understand one another. that no issue is too difficult to resolve. There will be those who will describe the Meech Lake accord as another example of the great Canadian art of compromise. I have no quarrel with those words. Rather, I view them as a compliment that should be directed to the Prime Minister and all of the other participants.

Let me close by saying that I believe the Meech Lake accord marks a new chapter in our history and a new beginning that will allow Canada to grow, prosper and take its rightful place on the world stage as a nation, in the finest and best sense of the word.

MR. ROSE: I think all of us can join in the congratulations to the Premiers and the Prime Minister over this day, marking a very important historic occasion. As one who was part of the original committee on the patriation of the constitution, I can recall how difficult it was even to have our constitution dislodged from what was regarded then as its permanent home in Britain and brought over to Canada some I 10 years after we formed an independent nation. So that wasn't easy either. We saw a spectacle of reluctant Premiers at hat time. We recall the failure of the British Columbia conference because Quebec at that time didn't agree to the patriation of the constitution without certain kinds of rights. We recall the court cases and the challenges to bringing home he constitution and the Charter of Rights. Those were all very, very difficult struggles.

[10:15]

1 can recall many special meetings that we had in my own caucus in Ottawa. I won't give the details of those, but there was a great deal of heavy breathing during those times. The action taken by the Prime Minister of the day was very controversial: to go it alone without the cooperation of the Premiers, and the attempts throughout those months and months and months to agree on rights for women and for natives. Those things are ongoing. We haven't solved those yet, but we have made, I think, a remarkable step forward over the last few days.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that at least one-third of our country, after staying out since 1982, is now back as part of Canada. That makes us all feel good. The very important part of our country that makes us distinct and different from any other nation in the world has become a contributing and full member. I'm pleased with the progress that was made, and I

[ Page 916 ]

think it's an important step, as the Premier said, on our way to a greater and unified Canada. So I'm pleased about that. I don't think that we weaken our federal state by allowing its parts to have certain powers, such as powers to appoint people to the Senate - or elect people to the Senate, if that's what it's going to be. As far as I'm concerned, the way it is now I would rather have it not frozen; I would rather have it abolished. But that is a personal opinion. If it can be made to work as an upper chamber as it does in the United States, the nation to our south, then I would find it acceptable.

If the new accord goes a long way to reduce the alienation in various regions of the country so they don't become cores or centres for separation, then the work has been remarkable. So may I offer my congratulations to the Premier of this province, the Prime Minister and all the rest of the Premiers for doing good work on this occasion. I look forward to the principle becoming a reality, perhaps a year from now.

B.C. FOOD PRODUCTS

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I am delighted today to be able to make a ministerial statement to this House concerning the very real success this government has achieved in promoting the sale and consumption of B.C. food products.

All hon. members are aware of my personal concern, voiced in this chamber on occasion, that wherever possible, where price and quality compare favourably, B.C. products should be our first choice.

Over recent months, much work has been done to reinforce the attitude of "B.C. first" in areas over which I have responsibility, chief among them being the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I am pleased to be able to report to this House that in the most recent batch of catering contracts awarded by the corporation, which becomes effective today, 94 percent of the purchases were made from B.C. companies. The total value of these catering contracts was $1.3 million. Only 6 percent of that went to non-B.C. companies, and of that $1.3 million more than $300, 000 represented first-time import replacement for B.C. companies; that is, B.C. companies are beating out-of-province competition more and more. Fully 94 percent of the money spent in our most recent contracts stayed in British Columbia, providing employment for men and women in our fruit-processing industries and in some cases spurring companies to develop whole new product lines to meet the demands of the millions of people who each year travel aboard B.C. ferries. That market is formidable, Mr. Speaker. For example, during Expo year B.C. ferries carried 15.5 million passengers.

As for the details of the "B.C. first" purchasing policy, I cite the example of the cod sea nuggets now going into production at B.C. Packers under the Rupert brand label. These morsels of cod are an entirely new product line for Rupert brands, developed at the request of B.C. ferries. Such seafood nuggets are a popular item aboard our vessels, but until now the product has come from Atlantic Canada. Now Rupert brand has presented us with an excellent product, and has justifiably been awarded a six-month contract with a value of $70, 000 to supply the fleet. The benefits to British Columbia are obvious. There will be more employment for B.C. fisheries workers, a work force that has always had to contend with the seasonal, on-call nature of their industry. In future the company will have the opportunity to sell this product within and outside B.C., meeting the competition head on.

I also point to the example of chicken strips. Century Poultry Products of British Columbia, despite competition from eight other companies, has achieved orders from B.C. Ferries with a value in excess of $700, 000 over a 12-month period. This represents 100 percent of the total consumption of this product aboard vessels of the fleet. For Century, this means sales to B.C. Ferries of more than $2, 000 per day. That's a lot of jobs for B.C. workers. Like Rupert brand, Century won the contract because their submission offered the best combination of price and quality. They were given no head start.

Boned and rolled ham, a $42, 000 contract, has been shifted from an Ontario company to Fletcher's Fine Foods of B.C. As with the chicken strips and the seafood nuggets, the award was based on the best combination of quality and price.

Chicken noodle soup: Eagle Flight Catering of Vancouver has been awarded a $22, 000 contract. This is a shift from an eastern Canadian company.

Import replacement is a slow process, one that requires competitive pricing and excellent products from the private sector and a commitment from the public sector to use its resources to make the process work.

Mr. Speaker, all of those ingredients are present in British Columbia today. I know all members will join me today in congratulating our food-processing industry and the food services branch of B.C. Ferries for taking up the challenge. We will all benefit from their success.

MR. ROSE: This seems to be my day, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the minister for his statement, and also for giving the opposition an advance copy of his statement yesterday afternoon so we could make the appropriate response. I realize that it was impossible for the Premier to do that today with the statement on the constitution; nevertheless, I think it is a wonderful practice. In his announcement on B.C. noodle soup, I would like to tell him that he was using his noodle. We appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, each year we have the annual unfurling of the "buy B.C." policy, so it’s one of our favourite announcements. We look forward to it each year, because we know it is going to come about again, and perhaps even again. I like what the minister is doing. I think it is a very sensible policy, but there are a couple of caveats.

First of all, I would invite other ministers to follow his very progressive example, because we produce only 55 percent of the food that is consumed in British Columbia. It seems to me that we could do a great deal more than that. It would be of great assistance to our agriculture industry, which sometimes is in rather difficult crisis positions. That is not the case in all commodities, but it certainly is in some of them.

We can replace a lot of the material and food products that we import, but a "buy B.C." policy flies right in the face of the Mulroney proposal for free trade. It seems to me that if you are going to have a policy that favours the domestic producer and importers as well, or at least agrees that they will not, through tariff barriers or no tariff barriers, be shut out of your market . . It doesn't seem to me that you can have it both ways.

That is a real conundrum for British Columbia and Canada, because we sit right next to a huge market. Yes, we would love to penetrate that market, as the Premier said, but we want to make sure that that market doesn't penetrate us. That's a very difficult problem for us, and I don't think we

[ Page 917 ]

should minimize it. I think the taxpayers of B.C., in their institutions such as prisons, school cafeterias and hospitals, should follow the minister's lead in terms of the food consumed there; but remember - and we know - that you can't have it both ways. I believe that when we're building highways such as the Coquihalla, B.C. contractors should have some preference, especially at times of high unemployment. I believe that the Bank of British Columbia, which was established by our late premier, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, should have remained a British Columbia institution. But it didn't; its purchase went offshore, and we regret that.

So I would like to commend the minister for his action. I'd like to see the whole thing widened, but I flag the dangers of rushing headlong into some bilateral trade arrangement that yes, may provide us with certain kinds of advantages, but that also jeopardizes some of our very important industries, such as food production.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to welcome to the precincts of this Legislative Assembly the Mayor of the municipality of Delta, who I believe is sitting in the gallery today -right behind me, in fact. It's with great pleasure that I introduce Mayor Burnett, who has served for 15 years on behalf of the constituents of Delta. Please welcome Mayor Burnett.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CAMPBELL: Some moments ago I introduced, in your gallery, the MacKenzie family from Vancouver-Point Grey. They were no doubt surprised to hear added to their family an unknown member by the name of Mary Jane and the exclusion of somebody who is in fact in their family. Would the House join me in welcoming the real MacKenzie family, Karr, Margaret and Mary Lou MacKenzie, the family of my great friend, Glen MacKenzie. Karr MacKenzie has been a principal in the Vancouver school system for 16 years. Please welcome them.

Private Members' Statements

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING OF SERVICES

MR. R. FRASER: When I chose this topic last week, I did not know that the Minister of Highways and Transportation was going to make a statement. But it does fit in nicely, and I intend to expand on that, because his statement concerned mainly the purchasing of products. I want to concentrate on the purchasing of services, and I want to show you and all those in the gallery just how effective this can be for all British Columbians; indeed, for all of the social services that we fund through our taxation. There are enormous benefits. I want to commend the government for stressing "buy B.C." - but not at the exclusion, as the opposition House Leader says, of competition, because we are a trading nation that must buy and sell across our borders, and must continue to do that in order to survive.

1 want to quote an article from the Globe and Mail of some weeks ago, where it says:---TheSNC Group of Montreal expects to win a hydro engineering and construction management contract in India that will lead them to a contract that will generate 5300 million.---That means that this engineering company is enormous in size and capacity. When we look at the size of engineering companies in British Columbia compared to the size of engineering companies in Quebec -and 1 presume this applies to other consulting agencies as well - we see that Montreal gets an enormous share of overseas contracts, and you have to wonder why. Well, 1 think it's quite easy, and it goes back three, or maybe more, decades.

1 want to concentrate on hydro, because 1 want to use that as an example. In the case of B. C. Hydro, all those years ago after the war, when we got into the big construction phase and big construction booms, they decided to do most of their work in-house. They built up a large and very effective engineering in-house service, and it worked very well. It was an empire. Of course it was an empire, and it worked very well. Then, when B.C. Hydro got out of the construction phase, this department was slowly but surely dismantled because the engineers were not needed, and they went elsewhere.

[10:30]

There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with changing careers, moving from one community or one province to the other. But the contrast between what we did and what Quebec did is really significant, and has led Quebec into enormous opportunities for overseas consulting work. For example, it was the policy of Hydro-Quebec and the Quebec government to build up a large consulting practice in the province by awarding engineering service contracts to their consulting firms. That may sound like a very simple distinction to make, but they now have engineering companies in Quebec with staffs of 5, 000 or 6, 000 people. Their office buildings are 40 storeys and higher. Their annual billings are half a billion dollars. What happened when Hydro-Quebec got out of the construction phase is that these consulting companies were in place, and were now consulting overseas and bringing money from overseas into their head offices, into Quebec, into their tax coffers and therefore into service out in the community.

We have, for example, coming out of the CIDA contracts - in which, incidentally, B. C. does quite well . . . . Of the $1 billion that CIDA spends every year . . . . Because the Hydro-Quebec policy was so strong, in building up a consulting practice as well as having in-house government services, we now have the circumstance where out of the billion dollars of CIDA money going overseas, $564 million goes to Quebec consulting companies. In other words, just over 53 percent of the consulting contracts for CIDA go to the consulting people in one province, because they had this enormous growth in their private sector consulting firms because of the purchasing policy of the government.

1 want to commend the ministers and the government and the Premier, and all of the people on this side and on the other side, to think about how that works and about what good we can do. When 1 phoned the Consulting Engineers of B.C. to get some information about the size of these contracts and their significance, 1 found that my old friend Art Kube was in talking with them to find out just how this was working, because he's now a federal employee working on things like this. He too is finding out how much value we can add to the

[ Page 918 ]

province by strengthening a service that we can export: clean, renewable talent, which can work for us.

It's so good in many other ways. If we can export engineering talent from British Columbia - or from Canada, for that matter; but I'd like to strengthen our part here - and then sell British Columbia or Canadian products overseas, we may get the initial market and the additional market and the replacement market and a new market, and may keep all of our people working in factories here, on production lines, in engineering companies and legal firms, and all of those things. We can really make this purchasing policy create employment opportunities that go well beyond the scope of government buying.

So I commend the minister for talking about product and the purchase of product, but I also want to push the government, or lead the government, or convince the government, or convey to the government, to the idea that the purchasing of services can create phenomenal opportunities for British Columbians long after the government dollars are spent. That was the policy I was trying to provide for the government, and that's what I would like the government to do. I would encourage them to pursue the policy of using purchasing power to create jobs, not just with products but with services.

MR. CLARK: It's a bit of a privilege to respond to a member who is so experienced in members' statements, but I'm a bit surprised at this statement by this member, given that this side of the House has always supported a purchasing policy using the purchasing power of government to create jobs in British Columbia. It's the government across the way . . . . I just have a quote here: " Socreds Dump 'Protectionist' Purchasing Practice. Price preference was protectionist and the Social Credit government has 'a strong free trade orientation."' It goes against the grain. They don't believe in price preference for B.C. producers; this side does. Price preference for B.C. producers is to use B.C. taxpayers' money to create B.C. jobs.

In addition . . . .

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: That's the Times-Colonist, March 30, 1985.

1 want to talk a little bit about using the power of government, because there's a tremendous potential, but there are other potentials in British Columbia. I wonder if the members opposite know that in this province we import 50 percent of our sawmill equipment and 75 percent of our mining equipment. We own the trees, we own the mines in this province, and yet we allow large corporations to run them, and they buy their equipment from their subsidiaries in the United States or elsewhere. And B.C. products that are price-competitive -proven price-competitive - in sawmill and mining equipment are shut out by large multinationals and those who control the resource in this province, even though the public owns it.

That's the direction we should be moving in this province: creatively using our strengths - our natural resources that we own - to extract more jobs and more value added and backward and forward linkages from our resource base. We should be moving toward a creative purchasing policy for this province, both in terms of the private sector and of the public sector. The province has been announcing year after year after year a "buy B.C." policy, and they've never done it.

Some very modest steps using cod from the riding of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) - a modest step, but at least it's a step.

What about municipal? There are a billion dollars annually in this province in municipal public expenditures. In my riding of Vancouver East they buy fire hydrants from Terminal City Iron Works. Do you think that all municipalities in this province buy from our foundry in British Columbia? No, they don't. They buy from Texas and elsewhere. What's the provincial government leadership with respect to buying and procuring B.C. goods for these kinds of resources, to keep our people working? The federal government doesn't buy their share of goods. The tax dollars raised in this province aren't returned to this province.

Again, with respect to . . . .

MRS. GRAN: Why?

MR. CLARK: Because of the government that you guys elected, the conservative government that all of you work for. Not because of ours.

We've got a tremendous potential in this province to creatively use the resources that we own as government and the purchasing power of government to create jobs, and this government has done nothing. In fact, it has rolled back the very modest attempt at a 10 percent preference for B.C. producers.

So I thank the member for his statement. I hope he listens and I hope that they actually do something with respect to purchasing in this province.

MR. R. FRASER: I thank the member opposite for revealing all the secret information from his party, and particularly the one about restrictive trade practices. That is exactly what this province does not need. What we're talking about - at least from my point of view, and presumably from the government's, because I hear it from time to time - is making . . . . [Laughter. I

Well, you wouldn't want to hear it too often, would you?

What you want to create is the opportunity for trade, through government purchasing power: making corporations - products - accessible to other nations. That's what I talked about with Quebec. The Hydro-Quebec purchasing policy has created these enonrious engineering companies -and that's just in one sector - who now can export their talent. They did not do it by restricting trade. They certainly have not had a problem with their suppliers providing goods and services to the province of Quebec. They didn't restrict the purchasing of products, and nor should we. We are a trading nation; we are a trading province, so we shouldn't cut out imports. What we should do is create a bigger opportunity for export. That's what we can do with the trading policy; that's what we can do with the purchasing policy: not restrict, but enhance. That's the policy I want this government to pursue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members and Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce on behalf of

[ Page 919 ]

the Speaker and to have us welcome to the assembly this morning Ken and Sybil Archibald from Gossip Island.

VOLUNTEERS

MS. A. HAGEN: My choice of topic today is appropriate because we are at the end of Volunteer Week, which we all celebrated earlier this week with joint statements from the members.

I think everyone in the province has an image of a volunteer. It's nurtured in our value system from the time we're very young people: the Candystriper who loves her uniform and who works regularly in the hospital, the neighbour boy who cuts the lawn of a senior who needs some help to stay in her home, the college student who seeks some intergenerational contact with an older person and visits regularly.

Fifteen percent of the people in our country participate actively and with reporting in volunteer work, and I am sure there are many who do it more informally.

Who is a volunteer? A volunteer is a person who chooses to contribute to the quality or life in his or her community through unpaid work. An equally important question is, why do people volunteer? The Vancouver volunteer bureau, one of the most active in the province, has a well-honed answer to this question. They say volunteer work is a satisfying form of unpaid work that provides people with opportunities to enhance communication within their community, to strengthen personal relationships and to reinforce the importance of personal action. So volunteers choose to volunteer, and they don't get paid.

What is the relationship between volunteerism and state? Let me make two points. First, the state cannot mandate volunteer work or the terms under which volunteer work will be undertaken. Secondly, the state cannot impose an expectation on the volunteer sector that volunteers will be or should be responsible for essential social services.

In the rest of my comments today, I will particularly emphasize the first point: that the state cannot mandate volunteer work in policy or in practice. In discussing this issue, I will examine the proposed policy of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) who, I am sorry to see, is again not in the House today, although I did note him here earlier this morning.

In its guidelines on eligibility for student loans, this ministry requires a student to undertake either full-time work, full-time study or full-time volunteer work to be eligible for a student loan at its maximum level. Should this student be among the 20 percent of students who, in midsummer of 1986, could not find summer work, he or she is required to do volunteer work full-time as a condition of eligibility for a student loan in the succeeding fall. The state is mandating volunteer work, a policy very much at odds with the very nature of unpaid voluntary work by choice. Perhaps even more significant to this student financial aid package is the stipulation that to be eligible for a student loan, the young person unable to find paid work must perform full-time volunteer work. The concept of full-time volunteer work is even more fundamentally at odds with the principle and nature of volunteerism.

For the past 15 years, I've been active in every facet of volunteer work. I know it from a philosophical, a policy, an administrative and a participatory perspective. From my experience, I cannot produce an instance of a policy or practice that imposes a penalty on a person who does not volunteer or that operates on the assumption that unpaid volunteer work is full-time. Voluntary agencies and voluntary coordinating centres have, in fact, clear policies that ensure that unpaid volunteer workers are not replacement people for paid employees. Volunteer agencies will not permit volunteers to perform the work of paid staff or to have their unpaid work exploited. If a voluntary agency is requesting a full-time volunteer worker, they are counselled by volunteer coordinators to reconsider their expectations of the volunteer.

As a society, we encourage and celebrate volunteer commitment, as we have this week - caring, energy and creativity freely given in time and skill in communities. A state policy that mandates volunteer work - that states it shall be full-time and makes full-time volunteer work a condition of an education benefit - is a policy bereft of any understanding of the very nature of volunteer work. Such a policy is totally at odds with the philosophy and principles of volunteerism. If this particular policy I'm citing as an example of the Advanced Education and Job Training ministry is to be implemented, the state will be embarking on an initiative that will ill serve students and will discredit the ministry proposing such a policy and place it at odds with our very important volunteer sector.

[10:45]

The Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, in cooperation with this government, has an option, an option that would combine the elements of good work and social service and the opportunity for students to cam their way. Job creation dollars would enable students to work full-time. They would enable social service agencies to develop summer jobs for essential summer social services, with the appropriate support from this government. The wages earned by students would assist them in financing their education, and paid work would leave students the option of participating in voluntary activities by choice as well.

To return to the two premises on which my comments are based today, may 1 restate them. The state cannot mandate volunteer work or the terms under which volunteer work will be undertaken, and it cannot impose an expectation that volunteers will or should be responsible for essential social services.

Let me add that 1 see one further danger in this particular policy: employers may see an opportunity to propose that students work as volunteers rather than in paid employment. Such an initiative, 1 have heard already from students, would disillusion them, both about the nature of work and the nature of volunteerism, hardly a basis . . .

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that her time is completed.

MS.A.HAGEN: . . . to enter young adulthood.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on the member's topic of volunteerism. I'd like to focus mostly on the second point, which she didn't elaborate on, but which is of vital importance in this society: the relationship between volunteerism and the level of state-funded social services in society.

We often hear as a criticism of volunteerism that it detracts from the state's performing its responsibility in providing paid and publicly funded services. When we adopt an ideology that says that all public services must be paid for by the state, we contribute to creating an expectation which

[ Page 920 ]

ultimately we will not be able to afford to fulfill. I am particularly concerned about this because of the potential of my t own generation - the baby boom - to put unbearable c strains upon the public and upon the need for public services t when we begin to reach retirement age in this society. So I think the relationship between volunteer work and paid public services is an extremely important one and one that has to be looked at in some detail.

Volunteer work provides the opportunity for non-professionals to provide service in society. I think in particular of an interview I heard the other day on the radio of a worker on the youth crisis line. This is the kind of work that can only be performed for short periods of time. This particular person worked for four hours a week. Yet the service provided was absolutely vital, and I think was provided in a fresher and more sensitive way because the person didn't spend all her life dealing with this kind of crisis.

There are many who argue for the professionalism of all helping services, but I think it's really important to include in those who provide helping services in our society those people who are very strongly motivated by a philosophy, be it a religious or a secular one. This is not to say that professionals are not motivated by the highest motives of caring or that they do not have a philosophical commitment to their jobs, but the very professionalism of their job requires them to be philosophically neutral in many senses.

It is extremely interesting that today is the kickoff day for the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal, and it is particularly timely in view of this debate. In the words of the former Prime Minister of Canada, the late Arthur Meighen, the Salvation Army is a religious denomination with a social conscience. It's hard to envision the kinds of services the Salvation Army performs being performed by any other group. They are living out a religious commitment, which many of us may not share but which we admire. The loss to society from that type of social services - that kind of helping - would be extremely profound, and the suggestion that the services performed by the Salvation Army should be professionalized is an extremely short-sighted one.

People have a need to feel useful and important in our society. They have a need to contribute to their communities.

MR. WILLIAMS: Lady Bountiful.

MS. CAMPBELL: I regret that the hon. member regards this as a kind of Lady Bountiful approach. I regard it as a need for people to feel meaningful and important in society, which increasingly compartmentalizes our work.

If we professionalize all of the helping services, we face three problems: the inability to pay for all of the help that's needed in society, and it is a never-ending demand; the stifling of innovation in creating new ways of helping by excluding those who are not permanently employed in the helping professions from contributing to them; and the denial of the opportunity to people who do not work in the helping professions to share their sense of humanity.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed appropriate that our society this week has been recognizing the volunteers who work in so many different areas. They are absolutely essential. It would be a great denial of the need of people to be part of the human community to do anything but support that movement.

MS. A. HAGEN: There is no doubt in my mind - and I'm sure there's no doubt in the mind of the hon. member from Point Grey - that volunteer services will continue to thrive; it's in the nature of human beings to be helping and caring in our society. What I think we're discussing here today are the relationships that exist between volunteerism and the state, and in my last few minutes 1 would like to comment a little bit more about those relationships, first of all to restate the premise that it is not the responsibility of the volunteer sector to provide essential social services. There are so many services that could be provided that we will never be without a need for volunteers. We will never be without a need for those people to provide leadership. The role of government is clearly to take a responsibility for those essential services. It is also the role of government not to exploit volunteers. In the past number of years in this province we have seen, 1 think, a despicable and dangerous trend to exploit volunteers, and 1 want to highlight that danger today and ask us to pause and take a look at what our relationship should be with that very important sector in our society. The example 1 used is in fact an example of a formalized policy that would be, 1 am convinced, exploitive of volunteers and of the people who are most vulnerable: our young people.

Let's look a little more extensively at the role of government, and the role it has failed to fill in many essential services. The very Salvation Army that is at this time embarked on its annual appeal was turned down recently in its request to provide an essential service for alcohol and drug abusers, which we all know is one of the most underserviced areas in this province of ours, and one which costs us untold tax dollars because we fail to provide those services. The volunteer sector is valiantly looking at ways and means to fill that gap. If we look at the role of government in the cutbacks that have occurred, they have in fact cut back those agencies that enable volunteers. They have cut back and kneecapped the organizations that would, in our communities, make accessible the kinds of opportunities that the member for Point Grey noted: opportunities that people choose out of aspirations, out of the choice to try something that they feel they have talents for, where they're not necessarily professionally involved. In all of these areas the role of the state is to identify and to support social services, and to recognize that it has an essential part to play in cooperating with the community so that state and volunteers may work together.

ABUSE OF CHILDREN

MRS. GRAN: The subject I've chosen today is non-partisan, and 1 think it's something we can all agree on. It's not a lighthearted subject; it's one that actually is quite depressing, but it's something that 1 feel very strongly about: the love and compassion that 1, as a mother, a woman and a human being, feel for children. It's that feeling, and not my religious beliefs, that forms my opposition to abortion on demand. I'm not going to talk about abortion, though; I'm going to talk about children and the voice, the rights, that they don't have in our society. They don't vote, they don't form a force, so all the problems that they endure are really ignored, and the problems are growing at a very great rate.

The abuse of children is far greater than at any other time in our history, and I'm very concerned about the physical, sexual and mental abuse that our children are subjected to. Children in all countries, but in Canada and the United States .... 1 cannot accept that child abuse should happen in this country; we're not a Third World country. There's no reason for anyone to go hungry in this country; there's no

[ Page 921 ]

reason for anyone to be subjected to abuse. I think we have not cared enough about the little people in our society. I believe that women in positions of leadership - and I say that to all of us in this room - should be the voice for those children and not for our own selfish interests.

I think we should be talking about children. The abuses on children, particularly sexual, are perpetrated in the main by men, and it is difficult to talk about in a room where there are men and women, but it is something that we have to address. It is happening in our society more and more, and I urge the hon. female members in this chamber to start caring more about the children and a little bit less about their own self-interest.

I feel also very strongly that sexual abuse on children has a great deal to do with pornography. That brings us to someone's rights infringing on someone else's freedom, the freedom for a child to grow up in a healthy, loving environment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see one of our committees deal with pornography and just do some research on how it really does affect our society and not be particularly concerned about whether someone has the right to their certain kind of pornography or not.

I also believe that children that have been abused should be identified in our schools, and that they should be treated, and that their attackers should be treated. Most of the people abusing children are known to the children. The RCMP have excellent programs to alert children to strangers, but there are no programs to alert children to the dangers that exist in their own homes.

Today, there is a new threat to children. To my knowledge, there are no children in Canada with AIDS. But may I share with the members in this House a couple of small articles that some of you may have missed on AIDS. In the Vancouver Sun a few weeks ago, a small article:

"Children with AIDS face being abandoned by their own families, according to the surgeon general of the United States. . . . the U.S. public health service estimates 3, 000 children will have the disease by 1991 'and virtually all will die.' Because of the stigma of AIDS, children with the disease have fewer foster homes available to them and also 'suffer abandonment by the mother and society . . . . . AIDS children 'must be nurtured, helped to grow and develop, allowed to interact with peers, attend school and encouraged to participate in all activities of childhood despite shortened lives."'

[11:00]

The next article I read coming home on the ferry Monday night, and I must say that I was reduced to tears in public reading it. It is entitled: "Fighting AIDS, the Quiet Way." It suggests that people open their hearts and their homes. The hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has spoken about volunteerism, and that is exactly what this is coming to.

The article says:

"Voices of ignorance are always the loudest: parents threatening to pull kids out of school if a child with AIDS is allowed in, families and friends shunning AIDS victims, hospital workers refusing to touch AIDS patients entrusted to their care. But theirs are not the only voices. A few people are responding to the plague with compassion instead of fear. On a mountaintop in northern California, a Roman Catholic monastery called Starcross has opened its doors to infants with AIDS so the babies will have a chance 'to feel the leaves and see the sun, ' in the words of one of the monks . . . . In Boston, volunteers spend as much as 20 hours a week ministering to the stricken. AIDS has brought forth heroes, people working in the shadow of death."

One of the foster mothers that they managed to find commented: "I wanted to help this little child to feel loved and not to feel set apart. I wanted him to be happy."

I feel that we must act now to set up special foster homes for AIDS victims. I don't believe that AIDS victims, children or adults, should be placed in institutions. They should be in a volunteer situation with funding from the government, looked after by people who are doing it because they care. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Langley for her very thoughtful comments that are obviously based on a compassionate spirit, and also to acknowledge that the tone of her remarks was such that while there would be some recommendation forthcoming to government that could be seen coming through those remarks, there was also a comment that it would be well for all of us to hear as citizens to hear that we should call on one another to function on the basis of the highest principles of compassion and understanding, whatever they may be. I think we do get into some philosophical disagreement around the idea of, for instance, setting up a facility, whether or not it would be staffed by volunteers, and just how that sort of thing would be carried out. But I think that the hon. member is right on when she suggests that one of our legislative select standing committees should be empowered to begin to deal with some of the very serious issues that have been raised.

I do feel, however, that I have to make some comments that are of a partisan nature, in terms of a discussion that has gone on within the Legislature, and point out that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has stated that the superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children. I believe that there really is a need for a change in the mindset and philosophy of the cabinet of this government, at least, and I would really encourage members such as the one who has just spoken to try to influence that part of the government, so that it would recognize its responsibility.

The very unjust availability of our total services within British Columbia shows a very uneven way of applying availability to abortion. We would have to recognize that recently a 14-year-old child was denied this, even though there was expert opinion supporting the desire of her and her family to have access to this for reasons of health. I feel that it needs to be said here, Mr. Speaker, that I could have argued, I believe very effectively, that the superintendent of child welfare could have been required to intervene in such an instance.

I believe that the comments of the hon. member underline the need for the government to follow through on a request that we have made: that is, that there be an independent child advocate in this province who is looking out for the needs of children, because too often children lack the kind of support and understanding they need. When we consider that child abuse teams and child support workers have been eliminated by the previous Social Credit government, when we hear the

[ Page 922 ]

hon. members state that often men in our society are tragically involved in some of these most upsetting situations . . . . Surely these men and the families they are involved in require the very best of professional counselling to help them come to terms with and deal with the very tragic results of some of the things that are happening in their lives. Surely the fundamental point the member is making - that we need to recognize the importance and value of the lives of the children who are part of our society - means that we have to try to find a new mindset that enables us, as government and opposition, to really focus on the value of these young people and to find ways that we can care about them and be responsible for them.

Since the hon. member did mention the issue of abortion at the beginning of her comments, I would like to say that I have a very helpful monograph that has been in the American Journal of Theology and Philosophy. It is entitled "Religious Perspectives for Choice on Abortion, " and it's presented by Dr. Marjorie Maguire of Catholics for a Free Choice. I think this is a helpful document, and I think it should be in libraries alongside other information that is becoming readily available, so that as we deal with some of the difficult ethical issues that confront us in our society today, we are able to hear from those who have put a great deal of time into both sides of some of these difficult issues.

MRS. GRAN: I feel very badly that the member chose to talk about the statement made by the minister during his estimates. The minister answered a question. It was a technical answer to a technical question, that the superintendent was not an advocate for children. That's not to say that we don't need or want an advocate for children, but that particular person that you were asking the question about . . . . So I want to just make that point.

I'd also like to make the point that the current Minister of Social Services and Housing is probably one of the most compassionate ministers that I've seen in this Legislature in the last ten years. I feel very strongly that he's doing an excellent job. For ten years I have dealt with these people, and I feel very strongly that this man is doing a good job. I also feel very badly that the member chose this time to criticize the minister, but that's the member's prerogative.

Now that you've brought up abortion - and I did mention it, to clarify that I'm not a religious zealot, as many of us have been referred to . . . .

MR. CASHORE: Not by me.

MRS. GRAN: No, not by you, because you're a religious individual yourself.

What I'm saying is that I care about children, and I view unborn children as children, and it makes it very difficult for me to accept abortion on demand. I have never said, and I would never say, that women should not have that choice.

MR. HUBERS: If I may ask the House for leave for an t introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HUBERTS: In our gallery to your left, Mr. Speaker, there are grade 11 students from Claremont school in my constituency, and I would like the House to make them feel welcome here.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: We have with us some students from Fraser Valley Christian High, from Surrey. There are 40 students with us, with two teachers, Mr. Hank Van Huizen and Miss Alice Laarman. They're on a social studies assignment. In particular, I'd like to single out one of the students, our youngest daughter, Heather, who has not been introduced in the House before. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the entire group. Please join me in welcoming them.

ACCESS TO SERVICES

MRS. BOONE: It gives me pleasure to rise today to talk to you about something that I feel very strongly about. Originally I was going to talk about access to services in the north, but in speaking to many people, I've discovered that this is a problem throughout many areas such as the Kootenays and the Cariboo, so I'm calling it just plain access to services and hope that other people will relate to it. I'm sure that members from Dawson Creek and other areas will find things that I am saying today relate to their areas, and I'm hoping that we can find some common ground so that we can work to solve some of our problems.

Basically my comments will rest around three areas: health, education and social services. The first one I'll deal with is health. We have a particular problem in our area -and I understand that this is a problem in many different areas - having to do with staff recruitment and retention and training of staff in our regional hospitals.

We have an extreme problem trying to provide enough physiotherapists to keep our hospital staffed properly, along with plastic surgeons and any kind of medical specialists. We have difficulty in recruiting them, and then often they don't stay very long after they come. If we manage to keep them three years, we figure we've got them for life, but often they don't stay around that time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There are other occasions when we just do not have any services, period - such things as a cancer clinic. Families are tom apart if they have to take their people down to Vancouver for any kind of cancer treatment. I can give you a personal example of this, of friends of mine who had a young girl. She died when she was seven, but up until then they were back and forth to Vancouver on numerous occasions, about once a month, every six months for a while, and then finally the girl died. She was down there for an extremely long time, about one month, with her mother being pulled away from the rest of her family and down there with her. It's a financial and emotional hardship on the people, and those are the types of things that people in the remote areas have to put up with.

[11:15]

Now I want to point something out. We have a sort of two tiered system as well. When I talk about remote and I go out o places in Mackenzie or to Fort St. James, they say: "You don't know what remote is." Those in Prince George, who have a regional centre, have some services; those in the outlying areas or smaller areas have literally no services. In addition to getting themselves to Prince George, Prince

[ Page 923 ]

Rupert, Kamloops or wherever the regional centre may be, frequently they then have to get themselves down to Vancouver. So they are really in a bad situation.

We have a situation in the health units as well. The health units, as you know, are located throughout all the communities. We have regional health units, and again they have problems in recruiting and retaining physiotherapists, audiologists, speech pathologists, dental hygienists, psychiatrists, psychologists - just about any type of professional that you can name. And often when they are recruited - and these are government employees in the health units - it is necessary for us to get these people from the U.S. or the U.K., or sometimes just other provinces. They stay for about two years, because that's the period that they have to stay in order to get their traveling expenses paid, and then they leave; and then we're back in the old merry-go-round again of finding more people to take over. It's a situation that has existed for many years in any area outside the lower mainland, and people find difficulty in dealing with it.

In the education field it's not quite as bad. We have difficulty attracting specialists. In the public schools we have difficulty attracting music teachers and counsellors - any kind of specialist. Again, they are the people that we have a tremendous problem in attracting. We do have regional colleges that are decentralized to an extent, and they are providing a good service to the north and to the other areas of the province. We really appreciate having them there. But they can go so much further, and that's what 1 would like to see.

1 believe that we should be putting universities in a regional area. 1 would like to see a northern university -located in Prince George, of course. There are a number of different reasons for that. We have the lowest number of students going to post-secondary education. We have a tremendous distance that people have to travel. People are removed from their homes and families in order to keep up with their university education. We are not able to continue our education unless we go down south. It's a problem. We desperately need to have a university there.

A university could answer many of our problems. 1 see a university as being able to provide us with the personnel that we need in our area; that is, with regard to our specialists. If we had a university, aside from the economic advantages that it would bring to the area, we would have access for students to such things as physiotherapy and nursing. We do have nursing already, but we need an extension of those things. 1 really see it as being a double-barrelled area: we could add to our whole economy and provide our social needs at the same time.

Social services. 1 see I've got the green light, so I'm going to have to move quickly on this one here. What we want in our social services is just our fair share of support services. Basically, we're having a real problem. In the areas of adolescent psychiatric care, mental health and any number of those levels, we have problems acquiring people.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a feeling of deja vu, Mr. Speaker. This is not unlike the election campaign, which 1 really enjoyed with the member opposite - not particularly the results, but 1 did enjoy the campaign, as we debated these issues in the central interior.

At the outset, 1 would have to say that 1 agree with the member. I'm sure that any member from outside of the lower mainland will take the case that government must recognize the accessibility of services, must recognize that those of us away from the main population base do have needs and desires and wishes as well. However, for my brief time in commenting this morning, I think it's wise to bring to the House government initiatives that have been put in place to allow for the decentralization of services and tell you how these will affect Prince George North and Prince George South and other outlying areas.

At the outset, I can advise members of the House that the concern of staff recruitment, training and retention is a concern of cabinet. As a cabinet we have asked staff in the various social services ministries, and other line ministries as well, to present to cabinet some information that could allow us to improve our own government retention in these areas; and that, I can assure the Legislative Assembly, will be forthcoming as soon as we develop these positions. But government has recognized that retainment and recruitment are problems.

In the area of para-professionals, particularly physios, speech pathologists and those people who are such assistance to the practice of medicine and delivery of social and medical services, I can tell you that the government has also acted responsibly during the social services policy tour in Prince George in January. We agreed, in response to a lack of physios, that we would by order-in-council amend the physio act to some degree, encourage the federal government to allow for the ease of immigration for recruited English physiotherapist to our Prince George Regional Hospital, and that was done. Regrettably, the federal government hasn't been so forthcoming, and we still have a problem there. But further to that, it must be noted and must be on the record that the Ministry of Health a year ago put in a health care scholarship program which will allow residents of Prince George and the north or rural areas to attend the various training programs such as physio, audiology, nursing, dental hygiene, dental assisting and what have you, and for every year they attend the school they will receive a certain grant, and then they are obligated to carry out those services and their employment in the rural area, depending on the number of years that they've had that grant. We haven't seen that one in place yet, because these people have yet to graduate, but I'm sure the long-term impact on areas such as mine will be beneficial.

Let me just close. The government is recognizing every day that services must be decentralized and programs must be increased in our regional colleges. I was pleased to announce early in December that the College of New Caledonia would be given $1.3 million for a dental hygiene program, and I'm sure other areas of need as they arrive in the education field -areas of need as they are seen by residents of our area - will be addressed by the government. Further, Mr. Speaker, in February we were pleased to announce a joint funding agreement with the federal government injecting $2.8 million into the Centre for Advanced Resource Technology at the College of New Caledonia.

So although I agree with the intent of what the member for Prince George North has said - and I think that's a concern that would be shared by all members who represent rural or semi-rural areas in the province - I'm quite proud of the government record to date. I look for continued improvement, but I believe we have nothing to be embarrassed about at this point. Really, the changes that I've seen in my eight years as a member of the Legislative Assembly for Prince George South have been remarkable, and I've indicated that the former government and this government certainly have decentralization of services to the rural parts of our country

[ Page 924 ]

foremost in their minds, in their philosophy and in their spending priorities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) . . . . Oh, no, we can't . . . .

MR. MILLER: This is a three-minute ....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, we can't do that. The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). It's standing order 42. Hon. members might like to just take a look at standing order 42 sometime; it'll give you the complete details on this.

MRS. BOONE: I thank the member for Prince George South for his comments there, and I admit that there are some things that are taking place, and I'm pleased to see those things. But there's a lot more that we can and should be working at.

One of the things that we're really missing - 1 just got into it - was our support services to our children in the mental health and psychiatric areas. It doesn't matter where you go. When I was in Kamloops I heard the same thing: basically, that our children are falling through the cracks, that there aren't safety nets out there for them, that there aren't support services, and that we don't have the services there to help them out. When I talk to people in the social services field in my home town, I hear them talk about trying to get their fair share of support services for their social workers. We do have social workers who are very good and doing their jobs very well, but there's not the support out there for them. When they put a child into care and you've got this child , what do you then do with the child if there's nothing there to help out - no support systems there, no crisis intervention, none of those counselling services in the mental health and psychiatric areas? Then that child is just left in limbo, and that's what's happening to many of the children in the outlying areas.

I'm pleased to see that the Prince George hospital board is advocating and putting as a top priority a child and adolescent psychiatric unit. It's something that we really need and something that we've been pushing for, for a long time. The entire community realizes that we're in a serious situation, and with teenage suicide on the rise the way it is, it is something that we just can't afford to ignore and neglect at this time. We must make sure that there are the services out there for our children.

The support services in the family line are also not there. Crisis intervention, counselling, day care - all of those things - they just aren't there. And as I stated previously, we have a two-tiered system: there are some things that we have in the larger centres, but there are other things in the areas such as Vanderhoof, Valemount - those smaller centres . . . . There is nothing there.

I can give you an example. In Mackenzie we have a child psychiatrist who comes up there once a month - and that is done via the school system. For any child in a desperate situation, you can tell that that is not going to be enough intervention to help that child out at all.

I see my time is up. I could go on for hours on this, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your time.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: With us today are two students from the riding of Yale-Lillooet. They come from the community of Merritt. Their parents, who are friends of mine and teachers in my community, are visiting Victoria. In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, we have Rory Teiffel, who goes to Nicola Valley Junior Secondary, and Sheena Teiffel, who goes to Collettville Elementary. I would ask that the House give them a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd just like the House to acknowledge that in the gallery visiting us today is a good friend of my family, Mohinder Doman. Would the House welcome her.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20. Adjourning debate was the member for Columbia River.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. CRANDALL: I'm very glad this morning to get back to second reading debate on Bill 20. 1 believe the hoist motion achieved very little, except to delay things. While I've said that, I also want to salute the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), even though he's not here, for having persevered throughout most of his allotted two hours. His performance was certainly a valiant one. I can understand him being exhausted when he was finished, as he appeared to be.

[11:30]

1 was also thrilled to hear, in the opposition critic's statement yesterday, that teachers' unions across Canada are watching what's happening in B.C. I think it's interesting that so very many times - and I haven't been in this House very long, but I've already mentioned this before - British Columbia leads the way in Canada. The opposition critic yesterday mentioned and read several telexes - which did indeed help to fill his two hours, or whatever time he spent - from other parts of the country, and each one of those, I suggest, was a salute to British Columbia. In so many cases, other provinces in Canada have watched British Columbia introduce legislation and then have introduced it in their own provinces. Of course, I point especially to the good management legislation that was introduced in 1983 by the previous government, which has now been introduced in legislatures and parliaments across the country.

MR. SIHOTA: What did Alberta do with the College of Teachers?

MR. CRANDALL: My point is that British Columbia leads the way. We do things first, set a good example for the rest of Canada and they follow us. So I'm sure that Alberta, being a good free enterprise province . . . .

[ Page 925 ]

MR. BLENCOE: How many provinces followed your restraint program?

MR. CRANDALL: Many provinces did. The province of Alberta, even though it's a good free enterprise, good-management province, and was the birthplace of several members now in this House, especially those on the free enterprise side, and even though we have a deficit this year of $850 million, our neighbours to the east have a deficit for this particular year that is eight times ours. So I'm sure that they wish they'd introduced good management in '83 as soon as we did, or even sooner.

In any event, with Bill 20 1 expect we will blaze the trail again in Canada, and I'm delighted that the opposition critic yesterday underlined that fact in a better way than I'm even doing now, because he presented telexes indicative of the interest that this legislation is creating across Canada. It also reminds me of another issue that the previous government went ahead on, and that was Expo 86. At the beginning, Expo 86 didn't receive provincewide favour, but when it was over, we looked at the bandwagon and saw many familiar faces. 1 believe we'll see that happen here as well.

On to the spirit of Bill 20. One of the major items in this bill is, of course, the College of Teachers, which 1 think is an excellent idea. We need to recognize that this legislation was not brought forward for little reason. This legislation was brought forward for good and significant reasons - and, 1 would suggest, for reasons that have been talked about by the public across this province for many years. The other professional bodies, of course, have similar colleges, and 1 think we'll find that it makes good sense to separate professional issues from union issues. 1 believe the points of certification, professional development and discipline, which are now going to be handled by the college, are very separate issues from union issues and should be handled in a different manner. The idea of having a College of Teachers puts all of the professional issues within that body, and I believe that it will create a new era of professional recognition for teachers across this province.

I've said before that we have a very high . . . and that by far the greatest percentage of our teachers in this province are excellent teachers. That has been the case for several years and will continue to be the case. Since we have had good teachers in the past, we will continue to have them in the future, and this College of Teachers will provide some additional recognition, I'm sure.

Some may say that the BCTF was already doing this function. I'm not convinced of that. 1 believe that these functions needed an extra emphasis, which they will get now in the College of Teachers. The point has been raised in some circles that the BCTF was already disciplining its teachers. 1 want you to know that's not the perception across this province. It's not the perception, at least, that that job was being done well. That job will be done in a much better manner in the future by the College of Teachers. The public doesn't understand why the small percentage of teachers who are not doing a good job remain in our system. They also don't understand why a teacher who is not competent can move from district to district and stay in the system in the province. I'm convinced that this College of Teachers is a good proposal. It's good legislation, and I'm anxious to see it go ahead.

MR. BLENCOE: Did you do it to the lawyers, the doctors, the dentists?

MR. CRANDALL: The member opposite mentions lawyers. I think it's interesting to notice that, while the member opposite mentions lawyers, in the last few weeks in this fair city that the member opposite represents, we have seen some action on discipline within that profession. I would suggest that similar kinds of things will happen in the College of Teachers, in a better way than they happened in the BCTF in the past. I would suggest that this job will be done better in the future, and I look forward to seeing this College of Teachers in place. The BCTF may be unhappy with it, but I'm sure that if their services are as valued as they think they are, they won't have any problem having their organization represent their people across the province, which is their right under the legislation that's before this House.

I also want to mention that I agree with Bill 20 in its provision for providing separate recognition for principals, vice-principals and people who are in a management role. This is a very important provision, I believe. A large number of the principals and vice-principals in this province have an organization now and have had one in the past, and that organization has indicated a desire to be handled separately from teachers. I believe that's important; it is going to happen in the future. It's interesting that very few other employee unions have requested management people in their union. I don't know of any union that has called for having management and foremen people in their unions. So here we have a situation where the management people within the school district will not be in the same bargaining unit as the teachers, and that's as it should be. They are management, and every other industry excludes management.

We've also had some discussion about teachers not being protected. I feel that the teachers in this province will be protected under Bills 19 and 20. There is provision for due process. It's unthinkable to think that we're going to propose and pass legislation that would provide for the wholesale dismissal of teachers. I mentioned earlier that the teachers in our province are of excellent quality. There's adequate legislation in these bills to protect good teachers and to make sure that they stay in British Columbia. I therefore support Bill 20. 1 would ask that those in the teaching profession study it carefully. I would also ask that the public study it carefully. I would ask that they listen not only to the BCTF, not only to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I would ask the public to study it carefully, and if they do, I believe they will see the merits of having Bill 20 pass.

I spent last Monday in my riding. The people in my riding have not sent me one single letter objecting to Bill 20. They have not made one single phone call objecting to Bill 20. Outside of an orchestrated visit where three teachers came and talked to us, I've heard from only two teachers in my riding. Neither of those teachers was saying freeze Bill 20; they were asking specifics, questions of detail. One of those two teachers was in school last Tuesday. So I ask the teaching profession and the public in this province to study Bill 20 carefully, and I'm sure we'll have far more support for Bill 20 than we've had in the past.

I also would like the media to study Bill 20 carefully.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not here.

[ Page 926 ]

MR. CRANDALL: Once again we have no media people. The only media person in the Legislature right now is the one who's on his feet. 1 would ask the media to study Bill 20 carefully, not to report only the hue and cry. 1 would ask them to report more carefully the meat and potatoes of Bill 20. 1 would ask them to present the specifies of what it's going to do. 1 would ask them to present the positive things, as some of the editorial writers are now starting to do. We're seeing a good measure of editorial and columnist support for Bill 20.

Last but not least, 1 would ask Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to study Bill 20 very carefully. If they do, I'm very sure they'll be happy. Just as they jumped on the Expo 86 bandwagon, and as we're hearing very little from them about restraint, about good management, I'm sure that sooner or later they'll find the ladder to climb on and support this Bill 20. Before too long we'll hear very little from the opposition suggesting that Bill 20 is not good. They'll look back and say: "This is the way it always should have been." 1 look forward to that day when, as with Expo 86, we can look back and say: "It was truly a wonderful event." We'll be able to say, "This is positive legislation, " especially as other provinces across Canada, as they've done before, start doing the kinds of things that British Columbia is now doing.

I'm very happy to support Bill 20. I'm happy to be a member of the British Columbia Legislature, where we don't wait for other provinces in Canada to do things. We're happy to lead the way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As this lively debate on Bill 20 continues, the Chair recognizes the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

[11:45]

MR. SIHOTA: It's always a joy to speak after the member for Columbia River. 1 don't get that opportunity too often ' although I've often heard him, and taken part in some other activities in this House while he speaks. Indeed it's a pleasure to speak after him.

Mr. Speaker, today 1 was going to ask one question at the outset. I'll do it, and then I'm going to make a comment and hopefully get back to the question that I'm going to raise. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is: what does Bill 20 do for education?

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nothing.

MR. SIHOTA: Some of my colleagues are already guessing the answer, but I'll titillate them with the answer a little bit later on.

Before 1 get into that issue and that debate, 1 want to respond to a couple of the points that the previous speaker raised. He pointed out that . . . .

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: He's in a rush, I see. He's in a rush to go back to Columbia River and talk to those two teachers. But let me tell him what a business person from my riding was saying the other day, because the member was saying that the rest of the country is watching what's happening in this province, what we're doing with teachers, and that we are trail-blazers on the matter of education policy in this province.

The fact of the matter is that you're right: they are watching British Columbia. They're not watching it with any sense of joy. I think it's somewhat contorted to cite the telegrams that have been coming in, because the telegrams are telegrams of condemnation. They're condemning what's happening in British Columbia, not praising. It's regrettable that the member for Columbia River - who is now otherwise occupied - has not had the opportunity to take a look at the content of those letters and see what the Canadian Federation of Teachers is saying, and what the teachers from every other province in this country are saying. Those are not telegrams of support, Mr. Speaker; those are telegrams of condemnation. I don't see how the member for Columbia River could possibly cite those letters as being supportive of what the government is doing. If that's the best evidence that the member for Columbia River has, it's clear that the reputation British Columbia is realizing from Bill 20 is in sad shape.

MR. CRANDALL: The point is, they're watching British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: The member is right. They're watching British Columbia all right, and they're shaking their heads.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's have a little bit of decorum in here. It's nice to see all hon. members enjoying themselves so much, but the member for Columbia River has had his chance to speak, and we hear him still speaking. It applies equally to the opposite side of the House. Maybe the member speaking enjoys being heckled by his own people; if that's the case, the Chair is quite prepared to let it go on. We also know it's Friday morning, hon. members, and that one o'clock is not too far away. But let's bring a little bit of decorum back to the House.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call this week from a businessman in Esquimalt. This makes me think about the comment the member for Columbia River made. He had just come back from Ontario, and he said: " What is it about British Columbia? You go to Ontario; there's development, there's expansion. You go to Manitoba; great levels of economic activity there. And you come back home and you pick up the newspaper and we're back to good old confrontation in British Columbia." Is that the type of reputation the member for Columbia River takes pride in? 1 don't. I don't think that there's any need for us to take pride in the chaos and confrontation and infighting that's going on in this province.

The member for Columbia River says: "Everybody criticized Expo, and they jumped on the bandwagon." Before he leaves, Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for Columbia River to take a minute or two to drop in at the Fraser Institute and find out what the Fraser Institute has to say about Expo now, and see whether it is indeed still on the bandwagon.

In any event, the question really is: what does Bill 20 do about education? What does it really do to solve the issues in education? We're all well aware of the fact that some time ago there was a task force called "Let's Talk About Schools, " which went around the province and invited input from parents, teachers and other constituent groups in the education sphere. Combined with that study there was a Gallup poll

[ Page 927 ]

on the matter of education, and the reports of that Gallup poll , and of course the recommendations of the task force, are contained in a number of booklets, one of which 1 have here with me today.

When they looked at the results of the Gallup poll, a couple of things became apparent. First of all, one in ten individuals in the province of British Columbia felt that education was the most important political issue in this province. 1 think the number one issue, of course, that we're all aware of is unemployment. The Gallup poll that was done in conjunction with the "Let's Talk About Schoolwork' study also said that 50 percent of the people interviewed said that the quality of education in the province of British Columbia has declined in the last five years.

Now my question is: first of all, what does Bill 20 do about addressing the number one concern among the 10 percent of the people who responded to that Gallup poll, and what does Bill 20 do about upgrading the quality of education which 50 percent of the people answering the Gallup survey said had declined in the last five years? What does it do?

MR. LOENEN: Wait for the royal commission.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the member opposite says: "Wait for the royal commission." 1 agree 100 percent. 1 think we should wait. 1 think that this legislation should be put aside until such time as that royal commission is reported, until such time as it has dealt with the matter of teachers and all of the issues that are raised by Bill 20 and the issues that flow from "Let's Talk About Schools." So I'm glad to see that insight and those good ideas flowing from the member opposite, and 1 would hope that the member for Richmond would continue to offer those kinds of ideas, because that's indeed what we should be talking about during the course of this debate. Nowhere in the Gallup poll was there a finding that said that people in this province wanted a college. They don't want that; they want to improve the quality of education which they said had in their view over the last five years decreased in this province. Of the individuals who responded during the course of that Gallup poll, 60 percent said they wanted increased funding for education. Once again, 1 ask the question: what does Bill 20 do about that issue? Nothing.

The point is that Bill 20 is not attacking the fundamental or, as 1 put it, the real issues in education. All Bill 20 is doing is deflecting debate from the real issues in education and pitting parent against teacher, teacher against government, opposition against government. So much for the spirit of cooperation; so much for an end to confrontation. It's interesting; 1 made a note of it earlier on, when the Premier was speaking on the matter of the constitutional discussions that were taking place last night, and said it was amazing what could be achieved when people work within a spirit of cooperation and compromise. It's too bad that that same philosophy and attitude is not taken when one considers Bill 20.

1 want to come back to the theme about what Bill 20 does for education, but before 1 do 1 want to talk a little bit about the way in which Bill 20 touches upon the teachers, the educators, the administrators and, of course, the parents within one of the school districts in my riding. My riding falls, in part, within the Greater Victoria School Board regime and in part within the Sooke School District. 1 want to talk a little bit about the way in which it has impacted upon the Sooke School District since the legislation has been brought down.

MR. PETERSON: Don't forget about the students.

MR. SIHOTA: The second member for Langley says don't forget about the students, and I won't. I'll certainly talk about the students, because all of this, at the end of the day, impacts upon students. The point Fm trying to make here is that Bill 20 does absolutely nothing to address the concerns that students have. It does absolutely nothing to deal with matters of class size. It does nothing to deal with matters of services to students. It does nothing with respect to specialty programs designed for students. The bill is totally void of any type of direct assistance at the end of the day for the real problems that students are facing within the school system.

So if the member for Langley wants to raise the issue, I'm more than pleased to deal with it dead on, because Bill 20 doesn't. It totally misses the bull's-eye, does nothing to attack the real issues in education, and invites, after five years of ongoing confrontation and chaos within the school system, another set, another round - round six - of confrontation and chaos in the school system. I think all of us, as citizens of this province, had thought that we had put an end to that approach. We had the "Let's Talk About Schools" study, the Royal Commission on Education. We had turned the comer and had begun to put away confrontation and chaos in the schools. We had turned the comer and put away this whole pitting of teachers against students, students against teachers, and government against teachers, students and parents. We had put all of that away, Mr. Speaker, through the royal commission, through "Let's Talk About Schools, " and were getting on the right track in terms of dealing with the basic problems in education. But no. What have we done? We've fallen right back into that abyss of chaos and confrontation. We've now entered round six.

I haven't heard what the member had to say in his speech, if he has spoken to date on second reading, but I'd like to hear his thesis on what it is that Bill 20 does to attack the real issues in education - recognizing, of course, that member after member in this Legislature has said, as the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) just did a minute ago, that the teachers in this province are well trained, are good; everyone agrees that the teachers are high-quality teachers. Recognizing that point, I ask: what does Bill 20 do? Because it talks about colleges and professional development and discipline. But if they're all good, if they're all great, then clearly there are other issues in education that ought to be paramount, not the issues that are raised by Bill 20. What ought to be paramount is addressing the needs of children within that school system, not attacking the teachers.

In any event, before I went off on that tangent, the point that I was going to raise was how this legislation is beginning now to affect the teachers in the Sooke School District, and I'm sure in other districts. But in the Sooke School District, we've always . . . . I must say that I haven't served on a school board, nor am I by profession a teacher, but my understanding of what's been going on in that school district has been that the administrators in that district have always been part of the association. They've served on all sorts of committees in the school district. In fact, one administrator is chairperson of the scholarship committee in the Sooke School District. Others, who are now involved in the administration, built up the local school teachers' association over the years. They're the ones who are responsible for its growth and development. Of course, now, under this legislation, they're going to be gone.

[ Page 928 ]

Despite the fact that historically we've had this very complimentary, cooperative dialogue and working relationship between administrators and teachers in the association in our district, the administrators have also been unfettered in their ability to write reports, to criticize and to evaluate and make comments about the various teachers in the system. They haven't felt that their role and position in the association limits or handicaps in any way their ability to deal with teachers. But now they're going to be gone.

They see the distinction that's being made under Bill 20 as being arbitrary. I say that because that's what they're telling me. I say that because this is supposedly a government that says it listens. If it listens, at least to the administrators in the school district that I happen to represent, they are saying that the distinctions being made by this legislation are arbitrary; so much so that the administrators have passed a motion -management, as the members opposite now call them because of this new industrial relations context that they're trying to inject into the school system under Bill 20 - that says: (a) they wish to remain as part and parcel of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation; and (b) that this government should delay its passage of this legislation, Bill 20.

[12:00]

It's interesting that one of the individuals in that school district gave me a call yesterday around 5:30 and passed on a note to me. He indicated in the course of that note that when the current Minister of Education was speaking last year to a group of teachers at the University of Victoria, when the issue arose, as I understand it, of principals remaining in the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, the minister stated that he saw no reason to pull principals out of the BCTF, and that he did not feel that membership in the BCTF stopped principals from doing their job, as he saw it. He was speaking at that time to a group of teachers at the University of Victoria, as a part of his speech to the Phi Delta Kappa group.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Teachers.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of vulnerability under this legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Professional choice.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister talks about choice. I think it's somewhat ironic that on the one hand the government says over and over again that they are to have choice when it comes to belonging to their federation or the group that represents them, but they are to have no choice when it comes to joining the college - and of course that is compulsory. I think there's a little bit of irony in that.

I want to talk - because the minister is here - about that sense of vulnerability. Whether it's real or apparent I don't think is the issue. I would suspect that the minister would think that the teachers have no reason to worry because of the provisions in Bill 20, whereas the teachers are saying that they have. Whether that concern is real or apparent, the fact of the matter is that there is a sense of vulnerability among the teachers. It's a sense of vulnerability expressed in these terms, when they say: "If I go to my board and make submissions, and complain about class size; if I go to the board and complain about services, or the lack thereof, within my school district; if I go to the board and make submissions about specialty programs that ought to be offered, is that going to be held against me? Is that going to be utilized when one considers the reasons upon which teachers can be terminated? Should I curtail the comments that I'm going to be making to my board, in light of the expanded powers of termination or discipline provided under the legislation?"

As I said earlier, there is a sense of vulnerability among the teaching profession. The minister says it ought not to be real. That may be fine in itself, except the teachers don't believe that. They don't have the faith in legislation, and they don't know what the intentions are under the legislation. You don't allay those fears by ramming this legislation through. You allay those fears by trying to develop a relationship of trust between the teachers' organizations, in particular the BCTF, and the ministry itself. One of the best ways of allaying those fears is either (a) withdrawing this legislation, which ought to be the case; or (b) dealing with teachers to bring about substantive, not cosmetic, changes to the legislation.

When you begin to think about that sense of vulnerability within the schools, Mr. Speaker, then of course you begin to move into the next concern, which all of us should share: if the teachers are uncomfortable in their setting, if they feel threatened within their working environment, if they feel that they themselves may be in jeopardy with respect to their future, if they see little or no security . . . . That was reflected before this legislation came out. There was a study in 1986 which looked at teacher morale. Two-thirds of the teachers interviewed in this province during the course of that study said that if there was a feasible alternative, they would leave their jobs. There is a sense already there of disenchantment with their working conditions.

It's a small step, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that teachers' working conditions are the kids' learning conditions. When you begin to look at it that way, clearly the learning environment that children are part and parcel of is also going to be affected, if it hasn't already been; and I'll get to that in a minute or two.

The fact of the matter is that when you begin to look at the legislation, when you begin to look at the vulnerability, and when you begin to consider that the legislation does not deal with the real issues in education, the one conclusion that one can arrive at is that the government does not care about children. If it cared about kids, it would withdraw this legislation. If it cared about kids, it would begin to deal with the real issues in education, with class size, and with appropriate funding in education. If it cared about kids, it would make sure that kids had access to field trips and computers and textbooks. If it cared about kids, it would make sure that there was an adequate lunch program in schools. That's where we ought to be going. We ought to be caring about kids, not about creating confrontation between teachers and government.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

We know that this government, and particularly the Premier, has been on a one-man mission to attack the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. One only has to go through the various things that the Premier has had to say over the years about teachers, about the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. I won't offer those quotes here. I'll leave it to my good friend, the member for Vancouver East, to embellish

[ Page 929 ]

upon that. But they will go into the record, because I think it's imperative that their track record be cleared. It's clear that the Premier is interested in creating the very type of confrontation that he said he didn't want to create in this province, the very type of confrontation that he has already managed to create in this case. That's not demonstrating caring for kids. So we witness the type of activities that we've seen in the last week or so: children walking out of school, children protesting on the steps of the Legislature.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did you mention teachers?

MR. SIHOTA: Teachers as well. But who created that, Mr. Minister? Bill 20 created that. Bill 20 was the trigger to the confrontation. It was Bill 20 that invited this type of a situation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did you read their AGM newsletter?

MR. SIHOTA: I've read a lot of things, as I'm sure the minister has. 1 read the AGM newsletter, and 1 understand what the teachers want.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They were going to do this anyway.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says the teachers were going to walk out in any event. 1 will say this: they may have said it, but it was the legislation that made them do it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: "They made me do it."

MR. SIHOTA: The fact is that this legislation was an open invitation to the type of chaos and confrontation that we've gotten, and the invitation can be withdrawn at any time.

Sorry, Madam Speaker, 1 thought you were going to make a comment, but it appears that your powers are so great that simply moving that microphone silences the House.

Let's go back to the bill. In my view, the president of the Sooke Teachers' Association made a very interesting point the other day when he was looking at the disciplinary powers within the legislation and the ability under the legislation for the College of Teachers to discipline or to terminate a teacher's employment.

Ron Warder, who happens to be the president of the teachers' association, raised what 1 think . . . . Mr. Warder is a very reasonable chap. 1 have known Mr. Warder for a number of years. He actually sought the nomination in my riding for my party. He was also an alderman in Esquimalt and now is president of the teachers' association and has a wealth of experience. He said to imagine for a moment that we were to create in this province a college of 20 politicians, and that any five of those politicians may make a complaint about a member of the Legislature. Any three members of the Legislature could then adjudicate on that complaint and decide, for reasons I'm going to get into in a minute, to declare the seat of the member vacant, and for a by-election to be held.

MR. R. FRASER: That's not right.

MR. SERWA: If the member doesn't agree, it goes to the whole committee.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, if the member didn't agree, then of course it would go to the whole committee of five.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

MR. SIHOTA: The point is simply that the deci sion .... You're probably quite correct in saying that the decision could then be made by the committee, but on what basis would the committee make that decision in the case of a politician or a teacher' * ' They could decide to terminate in the case of a teacher or - to further this example - they could cause a by-election for reasons of mental incapacity, immorality, professional incompetence, unprofessional conduct.

Fm sure a number of members in this House have comments to make about the mental capacity of others, but the point is that that's the basis upon which people could be dismissed.

None of us would like that, whether it's a committee of three, five or 20; and on the other hand, no one therefore should like that when it comes to teachers.

MR. LOENEN: We get dismissed for less than that some of us ought to.

MR. SIHOTA: As I try to wrap up, Madam Speaker ....

[12:15]

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I've only got a few minutes left, but there's a galaxy of comments flowing from the other side that I would like to respond to.

The point is simply this: this legislation does not attack the real issues in education. This legislation is indicative of the fact that this government does not care about the environment of students in the education system. This legislation is proof positive of the fact that there is a mission to pick a fight with the teachers; to back off totally from the argument that we don't need any more confrontation. It's a search-and destroy mission to undermine the BCTF, to undermine the system that we've established in education over the last 50 years and to ignore the needs in education. If the will was there to deal with the real issues in education, this legislation would never have been introduced - if the government wanted to deal with the real issues in education and cared about the children in the education system.

MR. RABBlTT: I rise in support of Bill 20. Since coming to the House I've been listening and learning, and this morning, listening to the remarks of the last member to speak, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew .... He said that the government was not caring about kids. He gestured to his colleagues from Rupert and Van East, and to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), for applause. He got the applause, he got the kafuffle, and he got the laughter. I don't think it's a joke. I've been developing some views and opinions, and in speaking today I'm drawing upon some of my opinions as to the different approach that we on the government side are taking in this debate, as compared to those members speaking for the opposition. I've determined

[ Page 930 ]

that the difference is caused by a difference of philosophy and of perspective. Perspective is the old story about whether this glass here is half full or half empty.

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: It's got a little ice in it.

I believe that the greatest barrier the BCTF and the opposition are having trouble accepting is that of change. They are afraid of change and the unknown. But change can be good. Let us look at the requests that were made by the BCTF and teachers prior to this legislation being drafted. We all received a brief outlining the position of teachers in our province. I have a covering letter that came with this, and I would like to just take a moment and go over part of it. The letter was delivered by a constituent of mine who is the head of the BCTF in our community, and it starts:

"It's Unanimous. Labour Minister Lyall Hanson and a couple of his caucus colleagues were treated this week to the strange spectacle of employers and employees agreeing almost totally on what needs to be done to improve the collective bargaining climate.

"Elsie McMurphy and Eric Buckley, president of the B.C School Trustees' Association, presented complementary briefs to Hanson's Vancouver hearing. The briefs agreed that teachers and school boards should have the normal bargaining procedures available to most other groups."

That they got.

"The scope of teacher-board bargaining should go beyond salaries and bonuses and include 'all other benefits and working conditions . . . ."'

They also got that.

"Local bargaining should be preserved."

I believe that's also included.

"The CSP should be eliminated."

This legislation will do that.

"Teachers should no longer be excluded from the Labour Code."

It will do that.

"Teachers should have the right to strike; trustees want the right to lock out."

That too has been included.

Presently, the BCTF represents all teachers. I'm not willing to stand here and challenge percentage-wise how many they actually represent, because if they represent 50 percent plus one, then as far as I'm, concerned they speak for that body. But now under this legislation teachers will have a choice. They can continue to stay in the BCTF organization, with association status, or they can join a union of their choice, but the choice is theirs.

I think we all must remember that with the rights of union status comes the responsibility of union status. That responsibility includes the means for the teachers to organize themselves as a union and also to gain the mandate that they should have to represent a group as a union. When they have that, then they have the right to bargain as a union.

Another area of concern is the principals and vice-principals opting out or being taken out of the bargaining unit. In normal union-management relations, are the plant managers or assistants included in the bargaining unit? Of course not. Principals and vice-principals will, though, have the option of putting their own organization together. They will have representation in an organized form to meet their needs and take them forward to the ministry.

The question has been raised: is it good or bad to establish a College of Teachers? I would like to bring to the attention of this House a resolution passed in 1966 at the NDP convention which approved exactly that: a B.C. College of Teachers. I would ask you: is that still your policy? Regardless, under present conditions the idea is still a good one. It creates a bargaining body separate from the regulatory body, and that is necessary.

Teachers will determine their own destiny. They can remain in the association, or opt out into another association or, as I said earlier, a union of their choice.

Our present form of government is termed responsible government. We are elected to make decisions, and we try to make good decisions. We are not a government of consensus . . .

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: . . . but we are a government of consultation and we are a government of listening, hon. member.

I've been listening, too. We heard from the labour critic of the opposition. Listen to this: it is an offence to this Legislature if negotiations are going on that will change the principles of the bill. Well, 1 have never heard our minister stand up and change one principle in the bill, but he has gone out and he is consulting. The labour critic also said that the talks were a sham. It's a sad commentary when we think that this is what you supposedly have been asking, that we sit down and talk to these people, and then you call the talks a sham.

There has also been mention from the opposition education critic, and he was accusing us of promoting ideas that the government is opposed to the BCTF and we were trying to undermine them. I would like to think that we are all on the same team, trying to do something better in this House, to create a better sense of communication with teachers, a better level of legislation, which will bring about an atmosphere where we can carry on, where we are going to set a format, and where, when the royal commission findings come out, we will be able to go forward and implement them and put together a complete package.

We have also been accused, hon. member, of a hidden agenda. 1 would like to see the hidden agenda, because let me tell you, as a back-bencher over here, it would be very interesting to see. 1 think the facts are, hon. members of the opposition, that there is no hidden agenda.

Both government and opposition want fair legislation; 1 think that is a fair assumption. But to make it work, Bills 19 and 20 have to go forward together in tandem. But let's look at past legislation just briefly, labour legislation since 1960 - that is when 1 came into the labour union movement -just in a quick review. Between 1960 and 1973, there were five amendments and five bills. We all know that Bill King brought in Bill 11 and the Labour Code of British Columbia in 1973. Since that time we have had 15 bills amending it.

The original School Act was brought in in 1872. It was changed several times. A new act came in again in 1922 and in 1958. In total, we have had 82 bills regarding education; 82 times legislators in this assembly have tried to better our system of education in the province.

MR. LOENEN: Bill 20 will be the last.

MR. RABBITT: No, 1 don't agree with that, hon. member. No legislation is perfect, and next year, if we find that there are some areas that have to be improved, this government will have the backbone and the fortitude to make those changes.

[ Page 931 ]

Change can be brought about through legislation, and this is where we must go to work. This is our job. We are the legislators; we are the ones who are assigned the job of coming into this House, debating the bill, bringing it forward and building that format for the future. And I suggest, hon. members: let's pull together, get on with the job and pass second reading of Bill 20.

[12:30]

MR. CLARK: Well, I'll be brief I want to begin by commending the Minister of Education - it's not the thrust of my speech, but I'll begin by commending him - for making three positive changes to the legislation, I understand, last night. One of them - but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim victory - dealt directly with the comments of my remarks and removed about three or four minutes from my speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

MR. CLARK: I'll say it again anyway, but I'll have to moderate it because he has moved in some measure to reduce the management role of principals in the classroom. There are some other suggestions that I'll make later on in the debate, probably on Monday.

I really think that this bill doesn't deal with the real problems of education, and I don't think it was intended to. As the last speaker said: "We're not a government of consensus."

MR. BLENCOE: Right on.

MR. CLARK: That's very, very clear, Mr. Member. The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) made a comment which was also telling, and that was that the real reason we're here today is because of a few people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation. That's the real reason for this legislation. When I heard that, I thought, "That's the first time I've heard it publicly stated that that's the real reason for us being here, " so I researched what the Premier had to say when he was Minister of Education. I really wanted to see whether there really was a hidden agenda or whether it was clear. And it's clear as a bell.

What did he say? On the Webster show, in 1982 when he was Minister of Education, he said: "The BCTF will do anything to embarrass us. It's not the majority of teachers. They're being bamboozled and they're being bullied by some people in ivory towers in Vancouver. It's simply so much mere posturing by the BCTF . . . ... On CKWX he said: "The difficulty is, it's tough to communicate with parents; it's tough to communicate with schoolteachers. We're all getting the BCTF . . . reasons and ... [they're] making all sorts of political noises. No matter what I say, they pick it apart . . . ... Then later in Delta at the Socred nominating convention he said: "All the flak and all the hollering and all the screaming is coming from the . . . BCTF And he went on. He said in a speech to the chamber of commerce here in the fair city of Victoria in 1983, as Minister of Education: "We're having to fight . . . the big machine, the people in their ivory towers" - there's that word again- "on Burrard Street in Vancouver, " Later in the same year: "I can't deal with that union, for lack of a better word ... on Burrard Street, headed up by Larry Kuehn and his group, who really see this as a challenge . . . ."

MR. BLENCOE: Search and destroy.

MR. CLARK: Consistently. Search and destroy; that's the position.

And then he said finally - and this is the telling remark: "I really don't wish a fight with the teachers. I think the problem is with the B.C. Teachers' Federation." That's the agenda of the government. The first member for Langley made it clear. The last speaker made it clear that they're not interested in consensus. They're not interested in negotiating or dealing with the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They're interested in destroying the B.C. Teachers' Federation. That's the agenda here.

MR. MILLER: Is that the principle of the bill?

MR. CLARK: That's the principle of the bill. It has nothing to do with education. It's very, very clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CLARK: I'm getting heckling from the other side of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: What's our House Leader doing over there?

MR. CLARK: The Premier's attitude toward the BCTF is crystal clear. It's not hidden at all. It really has to do with destroying what they see as an irritant to the government, a thorn in the side of the Social Credit government.

Let's face it, it's teachers and principals who have been speaking up on behalf of education and children in this province. It's teachers and principals who have talked to me consistently about problems of hungry children in my riding and throughout the province. That's the people who have been speaking up for education and for children in this province. This legislation quite clearly and consciously eliminates certain rights and privileges of teachers - and particularly of principals - to speak up on the side of education and the side of children.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Name one right.

MR. CLARK: I'll name a right. The second member for Kamloops made the point.

Principals, under this legislation, will have individual contractual relationships with school boards. They won't be protected by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They won't be protected by a trade union. They will have individual contracts with their employers. Clearly they won't speak up on hungry children if it embarrasses their employer. Principal after principal told me. when I phoned and asked them about hungry children: "Don't phone me if Bill 20 passes, because I can't speak out."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think there are other options. I've said this to the minister, and I commend him for clearly moving in some measure to reduce the divisiveness and disruptiveness in this legislation. The minister announced last night that one section of the duties of principals and vice-principals would be removed. I think that's a very positive step. But it doesn't deal

[ Page 932 ]

with a very important question: that individual principals will have individual contracts with school boards. I urge him to consider that, because they need protection, whether it's in their own association or union - whether it is affiliated somehow with the B.C. Teachers' Federation, or some other mechanism that doesn't leave them . . . . As it says here in the act, they can be discharged by resolution of the board , passed by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members. The board may also reassign an administrative officer to a different position or a different school at any time, giving seven days' notice. I think that puts principals in this province in a very precarious position. It means that their individual allegiance is to the school board. The school board can move them around or dismiss them by resolution. They have no collective rights as a group.

I hope the minister is listening and can move in some measure to resolve that. I personally think that there are a number of ways in which that can be accomplished. One is by allowing them to continue to be members of the trade union or association if they choose. Another would be an association or union of principals and vice-principals, administrative officers, essentially affiliated with the 1ICTF in some way, as some other unions have done in the past. There are a number of ways it could be accomplished, and 1 hope the minister is listening on that.

With that, 1 think I'll move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:39 p.m.