[ Page 933 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Constitutional conference. Mr. Harcourt –– 933

Municipal election procedures. Mr. Blencoe –– 934

Section 88 credits under Forest Act. Mr. Kempf 934

Softwood surtax and stumpage. Mr. Kempf –– 934

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Clark –– 935

Mr. R. Fraser –– 937

Mr. Miller –– 940

Mrs. Gran –– 944

Mr. Cashore –– 945

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 948

Mrs. Boone –– 949

Mr. Long –– 952

Ms. A. Hagen –– 953

Mr. Ree –– 956

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Young Socreds had their convention here in Victoria, and it was a great success. I'm sure it was enjoyed by all 200-plus who attended. Today we have the pleasure of seeing in the Legislature a number of those members, and I would like to read out their names and have the House recognize them: Dave Janis, the newly elected president for the B.C. Young Socreds; Michael Riddell, David Mutka, John Linde, Tina Moseley, Holly Thompson, Julie Pickard, Kelly Reichert, Trisha Stammer, Jennifer Jones, Dawn Hanson, Penny Wilkes, Ben Levi, Erren Anderson, Darlene Stewart and Donna Bohle. I would ask the House to welcome these Young Socreds to the Legislature today.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are four fine young people from the Central Fraser Valley, and they're also here for the Socred convention. We have David Van Daventer; Alderman Ross Siemens, director; Janice White, treasurer; Howard Huizing, director. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: We have some visitors from Kitimat who'll be visiting the House a little later. The Rev. L. Sather of Kitimat Christian School is in the precincts today with ten of his students, ranging from grade 4 to grade 10, and several chaperons. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier about the Meech Lake accord. As we know, it raises some very complicated constitutional issues. I'd like to know if you would agree to refer the accord to an all-party committee to develop the guidelines as to how the province should deal with such matters as opting out of social programs, Senate reform and judicial appointments.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That is one of future policy, although I perhaps don't mind making some commitment in this respect.

But before that, based upon the question given me, I should possibly provide, by way of letter to the Leader of the Opposition and all others, an explanation of the accord. Because there's no opportunity in the accord, for example, to allow a province to opt out of a program and then have the compensation for the cost of that particular program instead. This would apply only to new programs. So it's only if there's a new program — and a province can provide a program which accomplishes much the same thing provincially — that the money can be granted in lieu of. There's no opting out. I want to emphasize that, because I believe some fear that there might be a way for a province to opt out of a health care or social program, and that's not the case.

Secondly, with respect to Senate reform, this will be a matter of discussion for future meetings. There's no particular agreement except to say that it will be addressed in as many meetings as may be required to resolve the problem of how people throughout Canada view the Senate and its role. So that will be one for future meetings, the first meeting to be held within a year. There will be as many meetings as may be required, not less than one each year, to deal with that question.

The third thing, with respect to the matter of appointing judges to the Supreme Court, is still a matter for the Prime Minister and the federal government. Only the province, if there's a vacancy from a particular province.... Of course, we're well aware that most of the appointments are from eastern Canada; we have only one from British Columbia at present representing the whole of western Canada. When that appointment comes due, we can provide the Prime Minister with a list of people qualified in the eyes of the province for that particular task, and the list will be considered by the Prime Minister.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker. If I could put it in another way, will the Legislature have an opportunity to peruse this or to express its opinions on any of these matters before they are taken to these particular conferences or discussions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the requirement before the constitution is changed to accommodate that which was agreed to in principle at Meech Lake.... Before the constitution can be changed, we will need to have a resolution from each of the Legislatures in Canada as well as from Parliament. So there will be ample opportunity for debate in the Legislature on the whole of the accord as we know it today and as it may be once it's written up by the people who are presently involved in drafting the appropriate wording. But I agree that, perhaps prior to that, we should involve members of both sides of the House in looking in detail at the accord and at how it is we can all contribute to it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the matter of the accord making the entrenchment of meaningful aboriginal rights quite unlikely or remote. Given the disappointment of the aboriginal people over this, has the Premier decided to recommend that there be ongoing attention at first ministers' conferences to the question of aboriginal rights that is hopefully equal to that given to economic matters?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can say that there was some discussion on that particular point at Meech Lake. I think there was an expression of general disappointment about the fact that so little progress was made on the whole question of aboriginal rights, but it was also agreed that perhaps the parties involved then weren't as well prepared as they might have been. Certainly we as a province can take a lesson from that and hopefully begin preparing some alternatives that we see to be part of the solution. It is up to the Prime Minister to call another meeting. It's within his jurisdiction, and he has the authority to call a meeting whenever he thinks the parties are sufficiently prepared to discuss it again. So it will be at the call of the Prime Minister, and he has indicated that this in fact could happen, but no particulars in that regard.

[ Page 934 ]

MUNICIPAL ELECTION PROCEDURES

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Late last week cabinet passed an order-in-council changing the election or voting procedures for municipal government at the last minute, and we were in the middle of by-elections in this province. As a result, in Delta there was total confusion about the election procedures. My question to the minister is: can the minister explain whether this latest mistake is just another carrying on of government incompetence, or did the government intend to change the rules in midstream?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is out of order, but the minister can answer the second part.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one of the statements. There was no massive confusion in the Delta election. The successful candidate won by in excess of 1,300 votes, so there was no problem. But I can assure the member that members of my staff were in touch promptly with the administration at the district of Delta to ensure that there would be no confusion, and everything went very well.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, it appears that there are a number of members of this government asleep at the switch, and there are a number of switches with no minister at them at all. This latest regulatory boo-boo and the continuing mistakes by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) about bills.... They don't know what's in the legislation, and they've stated that quite clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could the member get to his question?

MR. BLENCOE: The question to the Premier is: given that there is a growing concern about the confidence and the competency of his government, what action has the Premier taken to tighten up controls on cabinet decisions, as well as on the drafting of regulations and legislation, so that people can feel that this government is in control of the affairs of the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of traveling to the beautiful Okanagan over the weekend, and I met with a number of people there, and I think perhaps the member for Victoria is a little confused in that what he is seeing is good, open government in British Columbia, where we are prepared to review things as people provide us with the necessary input as we would expect it.

The people everywhere, regardless of whether it's Penticton where I visited over the weekend, are not only enthused about the direction of government, but that's exactly what they want — good, open government. What he sees to be a matter of a minister reviewing legislation.... We're saying that if there's a need to respond to the many petitions that arrive from time to time and to the discussion that takes place democratically in the House, we as an open government are prepared to do so. That's what we're proud of, and that's what we intend to carry on with.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary for the Premier. The boosterism, the no substance to the fine language, won't convince the people of British Columbia. You are making mistakes, Mr. Premier.

I ask my question again: what steps are you taking to rebuild the confidence of the people of British Columbia that your government is competent and is not asleep at the switch in terms of dealing with the people's issues? These are mistakes that have to be cleared up, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again I want to point out to the member for Victoria that he should really view things fairly and consider the fact that his candidate in Delta got whomped by a free-enterpriser. That's not a mistake on the part of the minister; that's a sign that the people in Delta were so happy with the type of government they're getting that they elected a member and gave him a 50 percent majority over the socialists.

The fact that a minister is prepared to consider a change to the bill is not, as the member would suggest, a matter of mistakes being made; it's a matter of our government being responsive to input from people and also to input that could and will, hopefully, come from the opposition.

SECTION 88 CREDITS UNDER FOREST ACT

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Forests and Lands. Last week, when questioned in this House about section 88 of the Forest Act, the minister said that "the licensee sees no interest on the capital he has laid out on behalf of the people of British Columbia." There are $105.73 million earmarked in this fiscal year alone for section 88 credits, and the minister suggests they should get interest on top of that. Has the minister decided, in view of his admitting that there are abuses of section 88, to do away with section 88 of the Forest Act in order that the multinational forest companies not only pay their own way in British Columbia, but perhaps even put a little money in provincial coffers, so that the Minister of Finance might balance his budget?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's tough to sort out the questions — if there's one there. Somewhere in the statement was an allusion to section 88 and whether it was a giveaway to multinationals, I believe. Section 88 is a portion of the Forest Act that provides for payment, through credit notes, for capital improvements to the assets of British Columbia that are approved by the B.C. Forest Service in due process.

SOFTWOOD SURTAX AND STUMPAGE

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite aware of what section 88 is.

A new question to the same minister. Will the 15 percent tax on softwood lumber now being collected by Ottawa on lumber sold from British Columbia to the United States be considered a cost of production, and that to be deducted from stumpage payable to the province, as is possible under the present stumpage appraisal system?

HON. MR. PARKER: No.

[ Page 935 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Vancouver East adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Twenty-two minutes.

MR. CLARK: I want to begin, as I left off, by really dealing with the purpose of Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act. The purpose is really not to do with the problems of education, or with education at all; it's really, I think, a thinly disguised attack on the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I will just quote again from three different members of the government to confirm that. The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) said that the reason we are here today is because of a few members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation; that it's got nothing to do with education. Then the member for Yale Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) said on Friday — and this was very clear — that this government is not a government of consensus. We know that now, very clearly.

MR. RABBITT: Half-truth.

MR. CLARK: That's what you said, Mr. Member; you know that. You can't erase it when it goes in Hansard. This is not a government of consensus. It's very clear.

The real agenda, I submit, was stated years ago by the former Minister of Education, who now happens to be the Premier. He said: "I really don't wish a fight with the teachers. I think the problem is with the B.C. Teachers' Federation." The Premier's attitude towards the BCTF is crystal clear: that this bill has nothing to do with improving the quality of education in the province; it has everything to do with destroying the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It has been an irritant to the government, a thorn in the side of Social Credit governments historically. Teachers and principals have spoken out consistently against the mismanagement and systematic destruction of education in this province. The quality has been going down. They have been speaking out, and that's why the government brought in this bill.

I submit that the Premier wants to do now what he wasn't able to do as Minister of Education. That's the real agenda. What other explanation is there? The BCTF didn't ask for a professional college separate and distinct from a union. Nurses, lawyers and all other professional groups worked with government on legislation that affected them. I think many members have met recently, as we have on this side of the House, with the dentists. The dental college has been working very closely with the government over a number of years. I believe there's a bill before the House — or there will be — amending the dental surgeons act in this province, the college. They've been working very closely with that professional group to make changes that that group has asked for, not that are imposed by government. Very clearly, that's the pattern in this province with all professional groups, except for the teachers.

[2:30]

I don't think there's any other explanation for why this bill was brought in, except a specific desire on the part of government to destroy the B.C. Teachers' Federation and to impose some other kind of structure that they think will make it desirable. The B.C. school trustees never asked for this. They never asked for a professional college, separate and distinct from the existing organization. No one asked for the college. I suspect it came from the mind of the Premier, and it harks back to the days when, as Minister of Education, he was frustrated by the outspokenness of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I want to talk a little bit about the removal of principals and vice-principals from the organization that collectively represents teachers in the province. The principals don't want what's in this act either, and I'll get to that in a minute. I've already discussed that in the House. You can't impose a factory or an industrial shop mentality on the school system. It doesn't work that way in schools. Schools work collegially and collectively. Effective schools are run on a collegial model.

I want to read to the members from a newsletter called What's New in Education, published by the Ministry of Education. I apologize for the rather lengthy quote. Under the heading "Ministry's New Network Shares Teaching Tips," it says:

"Educators throughout British Columbia are talking to one another more than ever before, sharing their experiences and expertise so that the whole province may benefit. One catalyst for all of this communication is the Ministry of Education's program effectiveness branch. Assistant director Rick Mark says the branch operates on the assumption that the key site for change in education is in the school.

That's a line worth noting, I think.

"That's why the branch has concentrated on building a school improvement network of more than 1,200 educators throughout the province. They share their own expertise and take advantage of other teachers' successes. For example, says Mark, a teacher in Fort Nelson may have tried a project that turned into an educational hit in that district. When network teachers in Richmond hear about it through the branch newsletter, they might invite that teacher to come to their district to demonstrate.

"The branch also encourages teachers to explore new methods by funding school improvement projects. Most of the projects involve teachers in developing more effective instructional practices. For example, teachers in an interior district got together to focus on elementary science teaching. It was an ideal vehicle to generate constructive suggestions."

Here's the line, flowing from the previous dialogue: "Research shows that better schools are the result when teachers and administrators work together as a unit toward common goals."

Imagine that, in the ministry's own newsletter! But what does this bill do? It doesn't promote the working together of administrators and teachers. It does the opposite: it tries to impose a factory or industrial shop setting within each individual school.

I see the member for Vancouver South is here. Today he gets to follow me, rather than as on Friday — I followed him. I look forward to his remarks, his scintillating debate.

Removing principals from the bargaining unit is simply not conducive to the school environment, and that's recognized by this ministry's newsletter. Again, it's an ideological move on the part of government. It really has nothing to do

[ Page 936 ]

with education; again, it has to do with weakening the existing teachers' organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Let's look at why principals have been chosen in this province. They've been chosen because they are effective, good teachers, with a deep commitment to education. That's why they've been chosen as principal teachers, not as something separate and distinct. In many cases, especially in northern educational districts, principals work in the classroom. They teach 70, 80, 90 percent of the time. This legislation removes them, and it attempts to impose a kind of managerial function on them.

I just want to quote — because I think it was stated very eloquently — the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who discussed the nature of work for principals; and I concur with this. She said:

"The nature of their work is with teachers and with children. They are not managers, in the sense of being paper-pushers. They are people who are hands-on in dealing with the goals of the school; with how teachers will collectively and collegially achieve educational goals; with how to work with students, to evaluate those students, to ensure that they're getting the very best education possible. There is no question that the kinds of skills they bring to that involve cooperation, goal-sharing, working with the community."

The principals are in fact the representatives for the ministry with the public. They work collectively with teachers, to enhance the school environment. As the ministry's newsletter stated, they work together. That's where the most effective schools are — not by working separately, not by imposing a management or industrial relations or factory model on each individual school within a system. It doesn't make sense, and I don't think it's going to work, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Aside from the problems of removing principals and administrators within each school, and how that affects each school, I'd like to speak very briefly on behalf of those principals themselves. This bill, as currently amended . . . . There are some noises from the minister that there may be some changes. But as it currently reads, it really leaves the principals high and dry. Section 120.1 of the act says that each individual principal is hired on an individual contract. They don't have any collective rights. They're individually hired by each school board, and he or she can be "discharged by resolution of the board passed by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members." Further, "a board may reassign an administrative officer to a different position or to a different school at any time by giving at least seven days' notice in writing of the reassignment of the administrative officer." 

So the principal now works individually in each school, has an individual contract with the school board. And even the vice-principals work individually. They have no collective fights. This act specifically says they can be discharged by a resolution of the board. It specifically says that they have no right to appeal for reinstatement. There is no adjudicative body within the act. It specifically says that principals — not just principals, but vice-principals or directors of instruction — can be moved with seven days' notice to any school anywhere. They have no collective rights. Clearly the role of the principal as principal teacher should still be covered by the same rights that teachers have to organize collectively to protect themselves. But even in the event that they're not given the same right as teachers are given, there are other models which could be utilized. They could have an association of principals and vice-principals affiliated with the BCTF yet separate and distinct, with collective contracts so that they can negotiate collectively to protect themselves from the board, and that they have a collective appeal mechanism in place so that they can't be dismissed without the right to appeal.

I don't want to belabour this, but I'll just mention again that when I phoned the principals in Vancouver East with regard to the survey as to whether or not there were hungry children in the schools, they said to me repeatedly: "Don't phone me if Bill 20 passes." Because quite clearly they would be in jeopardy then. They're not free to speak out on controversial issues if they're on individual contracts with the board.

Similarly, with respect to AIDS and other controversial issues, where there is a clear difference of opinion in the educational community with this government — and there are many differences of opinion with professionals involved in education, and with respect to this government's position on education — the principals will essentially be hamstrung from speaking out because of that tenuous individual relationship with each school board. I think it makes a lot of sense for these sections of the act to be amended to allow principals to form an association with collective bargaining rights, or at least a collective contract across the province, or to make them again a part of this teachers' union or other organization that arises as a result of Bill 20.

I want to commend the Minister of Education. We haven't seen any evidence of it, but he's indicated that section 121(d), which I think is one of the most offensive sections of the act . . . . It says: "assist the board as required in formulating proposals for collective bargaining and where required assist the board in collective bargaining." That section of the act, which really puts the principal at odds, in a direct adversarial relationship, with the teachers in that school, I gather is about to be amended or removed. I think that's a good step.

But there are other sections of the act that clearly still constitute that kind of direct division of responsibilities, or adversarial division, within the school system that I don't think is conducive to a good learning environment. In fact, I've talked to a number of teachers since this act has been brought in for second reading, and many of them suggested to me, time and time again, where they've had principals that take their role not as one of collegiality . . . . This is not common, but from time to time principals have attempted to act not as equal with teachers, but as a management situation, as an attempt to remove themselves from the teachers, and what happened was that the morale of the school went down. There was tremendous tension on the school system, within each individual school there was friction, and that translates into a poor educational experience. I think, as the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) said, teachers' working conditions are children's learning conditions. There's no question in my mind that that kind of attitude or atmosphere within the school system is not conducive to a good learning experience.

[2:45]

It's hard to overestimate the role that principals play in the school system right now, especially in smaller schools, where we have principals and vice-principals teaching a great

[ Page 937 ]

deal of time and teaching and working with the other teachers. If you foist that industrial model on them and they become management, then it's going to have a tremendous impact on the tone of the school. I really don't think that that's conducive to learning, and once again reiterates the kind of thrust that is the real reason behind this act. The real goal is to destroy the B.C. Teachers' Federation, to balkanize their organization, to divide and conquer — as the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has said — to remove principals from the union and to make that kind of adversarial role within the system to disrupt it, rather than to deal with the question of quality of education in the school system.

We have a royal commission about to hold hearings. It makes all the sense in the world to delay the implementation of this very disruptive bill until the royal commission has heard evidence on the future of education in this province. All of the things that we talk about that are desired by the education community, by parents and by others within the school system should become a part of the discussion that takes place around the royal commission. To prejudge the results of the royal commission, to bring in really dramatic changes to the way in which we conduct business . . . . Clearly there's no consensus around the changes, although the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) has already said that that party is not a party of consensus. Assuming that consensus is desirable, it makes sense to have that consensus arise out of in-depth discussion by parents, teachers, educators and the public around the royal commission. Clearly that's a role for the royal commissioner. It doesn't make any sense at all, if you're looking at quality of education as a goal in this province, to bring about changes this dramatic before the royal commission holds hearings. It was ironic that the first ad outlining the public hearing process for the royal commission was placed in the newspapers the very day that this bill was brought in for second reading.

Education clearly is something that in other countries and other jurisdictions in Canada and North America requires thorough discussion by all parties concerned. To bring in this kind of legislation now really is counterproductive. When you see polls about teachers and the role of teachers and those kinds of things, it's amazing the influence the government has in terms of moving public opinion on the role and perception of the public education system in the various jurisdictions. If you look across Canada, you see other jurisdictions that are constantly extolling the virtues of their public education system, advertising for people around the world to come to that province because of the quality of their public education system — and you think of our neighbours to the south in California — and have spent millions of dollars advertising; they're very proud of their public education system in that province and that's how they attract investment. You do polls in California and those other jurisdictions in Canada, and you find that people say that they think the public education system is a good one.

But in this province, where we've got constant attacks by the government on educators, constant attacks on the public education system, it has an influence that goes beyond these walls here, infecting public opinion with respect to the quality of our public education system. Our public education system in this province stands up to anyone, in spite of the cuts, and if we would say that more often, if we would say that we have good-quality teachers in this province, then not only would morale among teachers be better, but the quality itself would improve even more. Instead we get a negative approach to educators, and this bill really disrupts the system even more.

It's the kind of thing that we shouldn't see in this province. We should have a constant and significant attitude of government that promotes public education, that doesn't rip it down, that doesn't divide and conquer, that doesn't destroy and attack teachers — which I think is the real agenda of this legislation.

I'll end with that note, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of the first member for Vancouver South, who gets a chance to follow me, as I got a chance to follow him on Friday.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I get up and join all of you in this debate with great enthusiasm, for I see this bill is a rather interesting combination of opportunity: a little imperfection here and there, a little advertising hype, hysteria....

For me, of course, having read the bill, the key word here is "opportunity," a chance for the teachers to really be in an organization that they control and have it totally professional, as do the lawyers, engineers, doctors and others who have been given the same opportunity years and years ago and who now would be quite upset, if not totally hostile and angry, if we took away the right of those groups to run their own self legislative acts. The teachers will have the same opportunity.

We will talk a little about the imperfections later, from my point of view, and it may interest you to know that I think there are some changes that could be made. However, instead of us making them here — because they're not all that significant — I would like to think we'll throw the changes into the hands of the college, who will then come back to the Legislative Assembly with recommendations that we can adopt. So we will look for more input from that point of view, and when we talk about . . . .

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Sure, we'll have a royal commission; we'll add a lot of things.

One of the things I really enjoy when you read things about what's happening out there . . . . An article by Trevor Lautens says: "A teachers' strike, even for a day, would be a disaster in a province already demoralized and disillusioned. The precious trust that exists between teacher, child and parent would vanish in cynicism." Wow! That's awful junk, Mr. Speaker. You and I both know that if doctors can strike and everybody else in the world can strike, teachers should have the capacity to do that if they want. That's what we're talking about: giving teachers the right to organize into a collective bargaining unit if they want.

Talk about hysteria! I think we have to give the Oscar for hysteria to the head of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Elsie McMurphy, who almost single-handedly has changed Murphy's Law into McMurphy's Law — incredible. The initials of the B.C. Teachers' Federation Executive almost sound like they're going to be transferred to "Better Cause Tremendous Fuss and Excitement," because that's what she's done. But there's not much substance there. What they could have done . . . . The classic example: an illegal strike to protest legislation that will give the teachers the right to strike. If that isn't unbelievable, I've never heard of it.

[ Page 938 ]

So they had what they called a study session, but what did they do? They didn't study. The BCTF went on and on; the executive went on and on. It was unbelievable. They had a real chance to lead their members through the legislation and to tell them how it was going to work, but they didn't do it.

Now the conclusion you have to reach, Mr. Speaker, is that if you had an opportunity to discuss anything with a group as big as that, you would think you would take the chance to actually read the legislation and discuss what was going to happen, but I didn't see or hear any of that. All I heard was "rip it up," "hoist it," "get rid of it," "it's all bad." It isn't all bad. It's 99 percent good, according to me.

MR. CLARK: You weren't there.

MR. R. FRASER: If you're going to heckle, you've got to speak up.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Oh, you've got to be there.

Finally the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt), Mr. Speaker: I always like to read what he says and watch what he does, because he is a master of coming on board later on. He's done it before; he'll do it again. And I read his presentation on this legislation, which incidentally spoke of nothing that was contained in the legislation. It was complaining about this and that and whatever else the bill did not do, which the bill was not intended to do in the first place. But I thought the real obfuscation, the beauty of it all, was when he said: "We heard about this royal commission. I heard it raised — the royal commission — the prosecutor . . . ." The opposition leader said: "You send out a prosecutor to prosecute the education system." And then to make it even more beautiful he added: "It's bad enough that it's a lawyer" — well, what do you know! I have more faith in lawyers than he does, and he is one — "but to send a prosecutor is atrocious." Can you stand it? Talk about going around the comer, talk about trying to hide the darn thing. He'll be on side soon, Mr. Speaker. As soon as he finds out that the public likes it and that the teachers like it, he'll be on side just like he was with Expo, just like he was with rapid transit. It's just going to be swell. I can't wait to see him come on side, because he will, and when he does come on side it will be when the college comes to the assembly and says: "We would like some changes." Then he's going to be on side, and that will be great. I'll look forward to that, because . . . .

MR. JONES: When is that going to happen?

MR. R. FRASER: I look at his speech and I think: I know he's already on side. You don't know it, but I know it. He's on side. That speech there says it for sure.

There are a couple of things I think we should talk about in the legislation itself, and I want to do that at some length — perhaps not long enough for all of you over there to really understand. We're going to talk about some of the sections, but not in too much detail here, because we'll go clause by clause later on. On page 4 where it says that if you fail to elect a member the board can appoint one, I don't really think we should do that. I think the teachers should run and get elected and be there, and if there's no member, hold another election. I don't understand the appointment of people like that. And certainly when it comes to item 16 where it says that the council shall elect their chairman, I really think that the chairman should run for the job on a provincewide basis. But that's not all that important; you can do that after the fact; certainly you can. And then it says the registrar has to be a member of the college. Well, do you have to have a manager as a member? Is that really important? I think that that can be discussed at length, and we can do that. I think they should have a couple more vice-chairmen. Instead of having one they should have two, because you never know — somebody might get moved or want to move or whatever it is. So I think you should have more elected control coming up from the ground — up from the membership in the teachers' college — on its own, doing its own thing and doing it right, and I would certainly propose that the council consider many of those things.

Now we get into a couple of things here which I think I will go into in a little bit more length, actually. I'll miss some of those. I'll let that one go by. But one of the things I'm quite curious about is the discipline committee and its actions and membership in that committee. I speak with some authority on the subject, because I am a member of a self-regulating body which has a discipline committee, or had a discipline committee, and so I want to give you my thoughts on that for your consideration. One of the things is that I don't think the committee should be called the discipline committee at all. I think the discipline committee should be changed and be called the investigations committee, because we seem to do things according to title, and if it's called the investigations committee and information is sent to the investigations committee and then sent to the council for action, that seems to me to make much more sense.

MR. JONES: The minister is not listening.

MR. R. FRASER: He can read. You have to listen.

I think we should change it to the investigations committee, because then it becomes more impartial. Most groups do that, and it's important....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, it's important to get some of these little items up here, because I want you to know that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Secondly, I don't think that any member of the council should sit on that committee. I don't think that anybody here would like to believe that a council member would be prejudiced in advance of a hearing, and so I think that should be changed, and I would certainly recommend that. So there are a few little things in there that I'm sure the college members themselves will come up with, and I'm sure that they'll want to do that.

But the key thing again — as I say to my friends opposite who I know will want to support me — they can't do it publicly. I understand that — you know, party lines and all those things. I am sure they will want to leave any of these administrative changes and smaller changes in the hands of the teachers themselves when the legislation is passed. Apart from that, I think one of the key things we want to consider is that the executive of the teachers' federation has done an

[ Page 939 ]

abysmally poor job when it comes to looking after the interests of the children, and there can be no doubt about that. There simply can be no doubt about it.

[3:00]

MR. JONES: What does that mean?

MR. R. FRASER: When there were teachers charged or some members charged with serious offences, the BCTF did nothing to discover those or to turn up those people, which they should have done. They had to know. I don't mind the teachers' group having an insurance policy, if you want to talk about defending, but there was almost nothing done, I think, when it came to looking after the internal operation. I think having a teachers' group doing it themselves in a completely professional circumstance will make a great deal of difference. There will be no doubt about that.

MR. JONES: What's the employer's job? What's the school board supposed to do?

MR. R. FRASER: The question from my friend opposite is: what is the school board supposed to do? In my profession, and I would think in most other professions, when you hear something that is untoward and you're not sure whether it's right or wrong, it seems to me that without prejudicing the event you could say to your investigations committee: "Really, we should look at this. I've heard something. What is happening out there?" I think the membership has a role among itself to make sure that if there is a bad apple in the barrel, that apple is thrown away instead of infecting the rest of the barrel, and most professional groups do that.

One other thing I would do with that investigations committee is that I would certainly want to have on that committee a member who was not a teacher and was not associated with any other act of self-regulation. To be quite clear about it, I would not want to see an engineer on that investigation committee with the teachers; I don't want to see a lawyer or a doctor or anybody else. I want to see someone who is completely unrelated. The reason you want to do that, and the reason I've been advocating that for years with my own professional association — which is now going to happen — is that if you're doing a good job, and you presume that you are, then you want to make absolutely certain that there is somebody on that board who is not a member of the group, so that you can send a message to the public that, indeed, "we are so sure what we're doing is correct that we're willing to have an 'outsider' on this very, very sensitive committee." It's very important to do that, and I would appeal to the members of the college board to make that change in the legislation when it comes under their control.

I would suggest that the minister would do a couple of other things as well. I note in the act that he has taken it upon himself to give himself the opportunity to appoint the first council, with reference to and input from the BCTF. In fact, it would be my persuasion that the very first board should be an elected board. I would hope that he would make that change, for I'm certain that teachers can do that. I hope that he will do that. Certainly if we can run an election to elect people to this chamber in 28 days, I have no doubt that teachers can elect their own council in several months. So I don't have any difficulty with that.

MR. RABBITT: Good stuff.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, it is good stuff, and that's the key to the debate from this side of the Legislative Assembly. We're not just wasting time; we're putting it out there, talking to teachers and students. Certainly one of the more amazing comments I heard was that one of my colleagues received a phone call from a teacher, who said: "I've been told by the executive of the B. C . Teachers' Federation to phone you and complain about the legislation, but in fact I think it's great."

That's going to happen more and more, in fact, because I think most teachers do like it. Certainly there have been a few letters to the editor that say: "I am a teacher" — or I was a teacher, or I have kids in schools — "and I can hardly believe that the executive of the teachers' federation is doing the things that we're doing." Talk about causing problems! It's unbelievable, suggesting to teachers that they shouldn't read the letter from the minister to the children, which presumes that the kids have no ability to think, reason or . . . .

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, you know, kids are brighter than that. I think that the B.C. Teachers' Federation executive should recognize that. Now here's the problem. You see, when the students took a day off in protest of the work-to-rule thing which was imposed on the teachers by the federation executive, it was kind of interesting. I understand that the students are going to be disciplined for taking the day off. I will watch with great interest to see what the boards do with the teachers who took the day off. I want to make it very clear that I don't want us to do anything about that, because the teachers are not employed by us. This body just funds the school boards. I want to see what the school boards do. I wonder what they would do with their own money if they had employees who didn't show up. We'll see what they do; whether they give the teachers a salary or not will be very, very interesting, because that will tell us a lot about what we think about condoning actions that aren't right.

Goodness, I can't imagine that any teacher in this province who is seriously opposed to the legislation would not only not take time in the study session to really think about it and study it and have different points of view — have a debate on it, if you wish — but would also not think about the children in the schools, would work to rule, deny or suggest that they deny graduation, ruin trips that were planned months in advance, and stop all support for extracurricular activity. No executive should have done that. I presume the teachers were frightened by the BCTF and did some of those things. I cannot believe that that would be condoned. It is unimaginable.

MR. JONES: What is the evidence?

MR. R. FRASER: Well, the evidence is certainly in the paper, Mr. Member, and you certainly know it is true.

MR. JONES: It's not true.

MR. R. FRASER; I know you are looking a little upset. You're flushing a bit because you are embarrassed to support actions that you know are not right, and you are fighting legislation that you know is correct. It is incredible . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Supporting the unsupportable.

[ Page 940 ]

MR. R. FRASER: Right. Goodness gracious, the time you are spending on this thing when you know it is right. Take a cue from the Leader of the Opposition — your own leader — who in his entire speech said absolutely nothing about the bill, which is in fact saying by default that he supports it. He talked about the Law Society recommending changes to the House. So what? The College of Teachers can make recommendations for changes to the legislation when they get it. So let's give it to them. Let's let them have the legislation. Let's give it to them now so that they can look at it, study it, have the election and get started.

MR. JONES: You don't like teachers.

MR. R. FRASER: The member opposite suggests to me that I don't like teachers. Now if that isn't the craziest heckling I have ever heard. I happen to have four young children in school, who incidentally are very bright, who do very well.

MR. MILLER: They don't take after their father.

MR. R. FRASER: They took after their father.

MS. CAMPBELL: It's proof of environment.

MR. R. FRASER: Thank you, my friend.

I've spent a lot of time talking to teachers and principals and students, whether they are in grade school or secondary or university or college. Education happens to be a favourite subject of mine, and I intend to watch to make sure that the teachers are given the credit they deserve, because they do. It is the executive of the federation that is causing the problem. The teachers themselves are great, and I know hundreds of them.

MR. JONES: They're just stupid — they vote for these things and don't think about it.

MR. R. FRASER: The member opposite talks about elections that were held from time to time. I don't think you want me to look at the numbers very hard, because they don't prove your point; they prove mine. That is the key to all this good stuff.

I wonder if we shouldn't put teachers on an incentive plan so that they could make a little more salary every now and then. I think it would be sort of a neat idea to say to a teacher: "You are particularly good. I think that you deserve a little extra money because you are so effective as a teacher. You can teach large groups or small groups of kids who have learning problems." Maybe we should get into that a little bit. Certainly CSP has been eliminated for teachers. In fact, we've taken increments out of CSP calculations for the benefit of teachers. And guess what? If an increment is not a salary increase, I don't know what is, because it means you get more money. So it must mean something.

We've done all kinds of things to prove over and over again the support for teachers that comes from the government side of the House — certainly from me and definitely from the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell). The others I am not sure about at all.

Mr. Speaker, I know this legislation is philosophically correct, in spite of the fact that I don't agree with every single item myself. We are going for improving the opportunity for teachers to be totally professional, at least in one organization, and to bargain collectively in another, if they wish. That is a correct separation of power and authority. To ask a principal to be a manager, which is what he is anyway, makes sense.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Big schools? There's one just inside your riding and just outside mine. Killarney is the name of the school. I think there are about 3,000 students. It's a big school.

To suggest that the principal shouldn't be a manager is not realistic. It doesn't make any sense. Managers can do such good work and can make such a difference. Some people can teach; some people can be principals. I'm not even really certain whether the principal of a large school actually has to be a teacher.

MR. CLARK: What about a principal in a small elementary school?

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, that is called hands-on management. That's when the teacher gets out and not only runs the school, but teaches as well to keep himself right up to date with the opportunities that are there. What a great experience anyway, to go into a classroom day after day and see all those bright, shiny faces, and to turn them all on. I mean, it has to do something for you.

Teaching must be one of the most exciting jobs in the world. No wonder they get a reward. They get a great reward. Thanks to the government on this side of the House, those teachers have a shot at something truly extraordinary. We have a system in British Columbia that's almost second to none, if not second to none. We've got a shot at doing great things right here. We will lead the country with this legislation. That great minister over there in the comer will be doing what amounts to historic legislation on behalf of the children, the parents and the province, and I will be supporting this legislation.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave of the House to make some special introductions?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House, in the gallery today, Alderman Judi Lowe of the village of Clinton, and Roland Stanke, president of the Clinton and District Chamber of Commerce. I know the House will join me in welcoming them.

MR. MILLER: I see my colleagues are deserting me, but I would hope that some of the members on the government side will stick around to listen to what I have to say today.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Well, I always try to add to the debate, Mr. Minister of Education, and I hope you listen to what I have to say.

I admitted, I suppose, my own shortcomings in terms of not being someone who comes out of the school system, of not having a deep awareness of all of the elements involved in

[ Page 941 ]

the education system, in teaching our young people. I guess the bias I have is that of a parent. It's kind of interesting. I've seen a lot of changes in our system in my few years on this planet. When I was very young I attended a one-room schoolhouse on northern Vancouver Island. I never thought much of it at the time. We went to school every day and did what we were told, more or less. But I became aware that . . . . It didn't happen to me, but to an uncle of mine, who, on moving down to the lower mainland some years later, was put back a grade or a grade and a half because of the inadequacies of the system that existed at that time.

We've got to talk about the system. This bill purports to make some major changes. Ostensibly it deals only with teachers, but nonetheless it does affect the entire education system. In looking at what has happened over the last few years, we see some pretty major disruptions in that system. For example, we've had, I believe, six ministers of education in the last seven years. I'm not citing this to fault the current Minister of Education, who I believe is as honourable as anybody who has had that job, and as sincere in his desire to do a good job. But it seems to me that the environment that has been created is coming into this chamber to haunt us in terms of the debate on this legislation, as well as to affect what's happening outside with regard to the teachers and their reaction to this.

[3:15]

You know, if you had a private company — and I hear that example cited fairly often — that you wanted to run in an efficient manner and wanted to make a profit and do all of those nice things, it seems to me you'd have a pretty disrupted company if you changed the general manager once a year. I'm sure the employees would feel that they didn't know who was in control; that they didn't know the guiding philosophy — the management philosophy. I'm sure you would have a company that did not perform very well. So certainly, in terms of the kind of reaction we're getting in the community, that has to be a major factor.

I also think that must put a fair amount of pressure on the current minister. He must be acutely aware of this six-year or seven-year history of changing ministers, of confrontation, disruption, and all the other negative things that have happened in our education system in British Columbia. To compound matters, it's not bad enough that we've had this successive change of ministers; we've also had, according to the information I've received, about 16 studies or revisions in budgeting and finance formulas since the introduction of the first restraint program in 1982.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Six of you have made the same statement.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister may be listening after six of us. Maybe some more of us will talk about the same statement.

Nonetheless, the same point is applicable when it comes to dealing with this bill in terms of the kind of reaction we're seeing out there in the community.

The member for Vancouver South, who just spoke, talked about a system of bringing in incentive pay for good teachers. I think there may be some difficulty in terms of identifying good teachers. Surely what most teachers want in this province is a stable environment in which they can get down and do the job, which I believe most of them want to do, and that's to try to be as effective as they can, in terms of teaching the children that they have in their charge. Certainly it's my belief that that's even more difficult in our society than it was when I was a youngster. There's been a tremendous change in our society, and not necessarily for the better in terms of children being able to absorb some of that information. Nonetheless, given the kind of turbulent history we've had in recent years, it's quite understandable why the teachers are concerned about the implications of Bill 20. As I said the other day, you can't really divorce Bill 20 from Bill 19, because the impact is just as great in terms of one of the major requests that the teachers made. The government is now saying: "We've given them what they want." I'll touch on that a little bit later.

The debate at this point is supposed to be a debate in principle about the legislation. It strikes me that one of the principles of the bill is that there are no principles; they've been excluded by the bill. That certainly is . . . .

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I hope you're taking notes.

That has certainly led to some of the reaction we've seen among the teaching fraternity with regard to Bill 20. I suppose it's somewhat difficult when I stand to talk about the principle of the bill, and I hark back to some of the other legislation that has been introduced in this House, and the manner in which it has been introduced. There seems to be a kind of history of flawed legislation reaching the floor of this House for debate, or else the person presenting it is not fully informed about the implications of some of the clauses in that legislation. Let's go back to the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) last week. It was supposed to deal with one thing and now we find it deals with another. We have a bill about expropriation that the Attorney-General (Hon. B. R. Smith) introduced. I see where a ministry spokesman now says that a major omission in the bill was simply . . . there's a technical defect in the bill and will be corrected.

We go on. Bill 19 had a number of clauses that were unexplainable. Even the Premier was at a loss to explain what a particular clause meant or, indeed, why that particular clause found its way into the legislation. Despite repeated requests from some people with regard to the proposed tax on home purchases, and the government's consistent statement that there would be no change, I understand the Premier made a statement on the weekend to the effect that maybe they're considering turning it around and applying it in an entirely different manner.

So when you get these kinds of changes subsequent to the introduction of legislation, and when you get the admission that we're getting from government that in many instances they were not informed, it becomes a bit more difficult to really understand what the principle of the bill is; and, secondly, how to debate that.

I've done a fair amount of reading, as I suppose most members have, in terms of Bill 20. You do for any legislation that you're required to stand up and debate. You try to amass a certain number of facts in terms of what is happening in other jurisdictions, and come up with possible suggestions about what we could do in our own jurisdiction to make things work a little better. I've already stated that it was my opinion that there was no need to rush in with this kind of legislation; that it would have been far preferable to adopt the federal position, which really is the introduction of a White

[ Page 942 ]

Paper; and taking a considerable amount of time, through the use of parliamentary committees, to give this kind of legislation a more thorough airing in the community. In the long term, even though that process may be somewhat slower, the results, I believe, would be far more satisfying, in terms of arriving at the kind of consensus that everybody could live with. I don't think that we are naive on this side of the House to suggest that. I realize that not everything that you come down with as government is going to be acceptable to the people who are affected by it, but certainly you have a responsibility to have as wide-ranging a discussion as possible before you bring something into law.

In terms of education, because there are some varying opinions out there today . . . . In fact, I read an article on the plane coming down from Prince Rupert this morning that suggested that schools should be privatized. That's not something I would agree with.

I note that the American Governors, in dealing with the question of education at a major meeting, have come forward with some points that I think should be applicable in terms of the legislation we bring in in this province, and the atmosphere we want to create with regard to the relationship, if you like, between teachers and the public and teachers and the government. The Governors recognized that education is a serious issue and one that people are struggling with. They dealt with seven broad questions at their meeting, and two of the questions are important. Why not pay teachers more for teaching well? And what can be done to attract, train and reward excellent schoolteachers? It seems to me that if there is some question in our society about the effectiveness of the school system . . . . Certainly that point has been raised in relation to Bill 20 as one of the reasons why the bill is brought down — the separation of the professional development and the union function, the function that primarily consists of negotiating for its members in terms of wages and such-like. 

These are the kinds of question that should be more thoroughly examined before we simply come in with a bill that has as its intent, may people believe, the dismantling of the B.C. Teachers' Federation because, as numerous members of the Social Credit Party have pointed out, they are an irritant. In fact, the Premier reiterated that on his radio program. You couldn't help but come to the conclusion that the bill has been brought in because of the politics of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

In any event, I'll just quote briefly from this article in the BCSTA Report about the Governors' conference:

"New Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean says not enough attention has been given to what motivates people to teach. 'If we want to attract able teachers — and to keep the ones we have — we have to respond to what they care about,' their cares including the intrinsic rewards of teaching and the professional environment of the school. His task force on teaching calls for 'a new compact' between teachers and the public. The public must offer a professional teaching environment: reasonable salaries, a real voice in decisions, and a chance to define professional performance standards and evaluation methods, just as any other professional group would."

So other jurisdictions are also grappling with the whole problem — I don't know if I should characterize it as a problem, but the whole system of education. How could we make it better, and how can we give the people in that system a better and more meaningful role in what they do?

Now the minister quoted from an article the other day while he was speaking on Bill 20 — an article that appeared in the Times-Colonist on April 29, by Christopher Hodgkinson and Jim Cutt. There are a couple of quotes in there that he didn't mention that are applicable to the debate that's taking place in this chamber. I'll just do that for him, since he neglected to do that. One of these gentlemen is a professor of education administration and the other a professor of public administration at the University of Victoria. Speaking about the BCTF, which has really been maligned by many of the speakers both inside and outside of this House, they go on to talk about the benefits that it has been to its members and to the people in the education system. They say: " . . . and it has done much to benefit the children and youth of this province and to safeguard and advance their education." 

Now if the minister wants to quote some aspects of the article that tend to support his position, he should also be prepared to look at those aspects of the article that tend to support the position being advanced by the B.C. Teachers' Federation and others.

Anyway, going on the premise that I've tried to raise today in dealing with this bill, the article goes on talking about the leadership of the BCTF and their reaction to the legislation:

"One possible explanation is simple paranoia. Paranoia deriving from misperceptions about Realpolitik. Thus: contemporary politics demands proof of its leaders by the macho test of defeating opposition, particularly where this opposition is in the economic arena and is perceived as being a threat to the party in power. The test of political leadership can therefore take the form of union-busting: proof positive of the willingness to wield power in the name of the people. So, early in his career, President Reagan established himself by defeating the air traffic controllers, and Mrs. Thatcher much more heroically overcame the Marxist-led National Union of Miners.

"In B.C. we now have a charismatic leader as Premier, who might, just might, have similar motivation for breaking up the BCTF, an organization not without its own history of big-P political intervention."

Perhaps the article is prophetic in getting at the principle, if you like, of this bill, because the real intent of this legislation is an issue that has been raised over and over again.

Just to further support my contention that there is a better way of approaching this type of legislation, I quote from a paper put out by the Pacific Group for Policy Alternatives. They talk about a different way of approaching this kind of legislation:

"If there really was an intention to seriously consider the issues, a bipartisan legislative committee would surely have been the appropriate vehicle. This has long been the practice of successive federal governments. Of course, including opposition representatives would allow them the opportunity of influencing the committee report or even issuing a minority report."

I think that the interests of this House and of groups affected by legislation are much better served taking that kind of approach than what we are doing now. As we debate, the minister has already indicated that some fairly major amendments to the legislation may be coming down. I think it

[ Page 943 ]

preferable that we take a much longer approach to bringing this in.

[3:30]

[Mr. Pehon in the chair.]

On the weekend, as I try to do most weekends, I went back to my constituency. I met with a woman who is a school trustee and a very caring and intelligent person, one who would not simply take positions because she is on one side or the other, but because she genuinely feels that . . . . She arrives at positions through intelligence, through listening and through reading. She spoke to a group in Prince Rupert, and I want to quote a few excerpts. She has a deep concern, and I think that if you had been there in person, you could understand it better. Maybe I won't do justice to her words. Nonetheless, she does have some good things to say about what is happening right now with the reaction this bill is sparking throughout the community:

"I speak to you as a person with a known bias, but also with an ever-present awareness that I was elected as an educational custodian of the children of Prince Rupert. I do not feel comfortable when schools are illegally shut down, and I know there are teachers who feel the same.

"In dealing specifically with the legislation, and tying in Bill 19" — as I have tried to do in terms of this debate, because I think it is a fundamental part of Bill 20 — "You must gather around you copies of the School Act (which will be changed we know not how) the old Labour Code, Bill 19, Bill 20 and the early retirement act. I am not suggesting that all parts of all bills are bad. I am saying that interpreting them can be very confusing — as you flip your way back and forth from suggested amendment to original legislation. I don't know whether this confusion was planned, but you can't deny the confusion."

That is someone who has probably got more than an ordinary ability to read and takes the time to read. Yet given the melding of Bills 19 and 20, she says there is some difficulty in appreciating what the intent is or what these bills will really do.

Going on, she says:

"Bill 19 pretends to offer you all you ever wanted, the right to strike. I suspect you have been offered a berth on a sinking ship. Bill 19 has added a new dimension to an old dilemma. You may have wanted a berth on the old Code; the new one may be a different story.

"When you put this legislation in the context of free trade, privatization and so-called individual rights, a pattern emerges which doesn't bode well for wages and working conditions. There seems to be a concerted effort being made to erode many of the hard-won benefits that have been fought for over the years; and instead of attempting to raise the standards of those less fortunate, there may be an attempt to reduce everybody to the lowest common denominator."

Finally she says — and I think this is a pretty good statement:

"My personal bias is that I don't trust government" — whichever government it is. "Blind trust is dangerous, no matter what government you are dealing with. I believe we have an obligation to be alert and critical when necessary, not from a personal or selfish perspective, but for the good of all."

I think that there is perhaps a bit of a siege mentality in some respects from the government with regard to Bill 20, in that many of the sincere efforts by people in the community, in terms of their fears about the legislation, the impact it might have and the divisiveness it is causing out there . . . . They feel that they don't really have an ear, that they are not being listened to. I think that in some respects some members on the opposite side have said things that really justify that kind of feeling.

A few more quotes before I relinquish my spot. I'll quote from the Province editorial — I believe it was Friday. They talk about the thing in much the same manner that I've talked about it:

"But the time has really come for Premier Bill Vander Zalm and the BCTF to cool things at least until the exam and graduation period is over. That would require statesmanship on both sides.

"Vander Zalm introduced the bill, perhaps impulsively, at the worst possible time in the school year and he must have known the BCTF would react strongly. He has not helped with his hollow threats to punish teachers who walked out."

So again, there's further evidence that the atmosphere has been created in part by the government, and that it's simply not a knee-jerk reaction from a group that's politically opposed to them.

In any event, I dug through an old file. I had participated to some extent some years back in the "Let's Talk About Schools" process. I thought the process was flawed, although any time there's an opportunity to go out and make a presentation on an area that's of some importance to this province, I think people should take it.

Nonetheless, I think it has been shown that that was a wasted process. But in digging through some of my material, I came across an article written by a teacher in Prince Rupert who is not a member of the New Democratic Party; in fact, he's a member of the Liberal Party, and he's one of my favourite political opponents in Prince Rupert. He is a man who cares deeply about the system, has traveled somewhat, and was an exchange teacher in Australia, and he talks about the impact of the turbulence or the divisiveness in the education system on the north.

I won't get into that too much, but he makes a couple of suggestions with regard to the atmosphere in this province — that relationship I talked about earlier between teachers and the public and the government — and he really talks about the need to retain experienced teachers. At that time there was a bit of a brain drain going on, and other jurisdictions that had fallen behind were up in British Columbia snapping up teachers; I understand that that still may be a problem. He said in his article: "In order to retain experienced teachers and make room for young teachers who will be badly needed in three or four years, the B.C. school system should" — and then he goes on to make a number of suggestions, but lastly he says — "begin a public relations campaign to improve teacher community– government relations. The gain here would be obvious, as it would create a more stable work and learning environment." Again, I quote that because it backs up the contention I have that we can approach this question in a much better way than we have to date.

Now just briefly on Bill 19; again, they can't be separated. As the woman whom I quoted said: "You've been

[ Page 944 ]

offered a berth on a ship, but perhaps it's sinking." It seems to me that Bill 19 really does continue CSP. It boxes the teachers in under that clause in Bill 19, and I think that the problem that has existed for some time will simply continue to exist in British Columbia for many years. It's really my serious belief, not so much from a partisan point of view but from the point of view of someone who has throughout his political life tried to arrive at accommodations that work for the people involved, that we can surely do a much better job of bringing in legislation, particularly legislation that is radical and that may have as its intent the elimination of an organization simply because they've been active in the political process.

So, Mr. Minister, I don't know if that's enlightened you at all in terms of some people's feelings on Bill 19, but those are the kinds of feelings that I'm picking up in my community in talking to people. So I offer them in the hopes that the government will take them seriously.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 20 today. I would like to say a few things about my previous comments on the BCTF, which I have listened to played back to me for the last week. I want to thank the opposition members for the compliment of paying attention to me when I am talking. It is difficult sometimes to get your thoughts across, and it is even more difficult when you do get them across accurately to have them played back twisted. My feeling, as I went through the week listening to member after member twist my words, was that when I was able to stand up and defend myself, I would do the same thing to them. But two wrongs don't make a right, so I have decided to continue on with my normal way of trying to help solve a problem instead of creating another one.

I would like to also just mention the atmosphere in the Legislature. I am a rookie member, and I have been around the Legislature for a long time, and the atmosphere in the Legislature is considerably different. It is pleasant to be here. I have very warm feelings toward most of the members in the opposition and, in fact, a lot of them are a credit to the communities that have sent them here. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), for example: I have nothing but respect for that member. I thank him for the kind things that he said about me last week.

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) said that I had lost credibility in his eyes, and it made me feel bad. I have to admit that. I felt very badly when he said that. I think it was something he felt he had to say politically, and again that member twisted my words to suit his purpose. But I have to say to that member, who isn't here, that I respect him for filling in two hours as well as he did in this debate. I hope, as we go through this session, that I will gain my credibility back with that member.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), I thought, put forward the most rational arguments — which may be a surprise to some people in here. His comments were worth listening to. He too twisted my words about the B.C. Teachers' Federation, but he did a good job, and he put the opposition's position forward in a very good manner, I thought.

Mr. Speaker, I want to re-emphasize my feelings about politics in the classroom. I don't care if it be socialist, Marxist, communist or Social Credit, politics have no place in a classroom. Teachers are there to teach certain subjects, and I don't believe they are there to influence our children in any political way. My comment about the B.C. Teachers' Federation was simply about the federation members who had risen to power and who have only that in their mind: power. It makes no difference to those people what happens in the classroom, what the quality of education is, or in fact what happens to the teachers who are used as pawns. That is why I made those comments about the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It had nothing to do with whether I like or dislike teachers. Everyone likes teachers.

Last night in my constituency, Fort Langley had a benefit concert for Rick Hansen. The hand-bell choir from one of our local secondary schools was to perform there. They were there, even though those teachers have been directed by the BCTF executive not to participate in those kinds of activities. I can imagine how difficult it was for that teacher to make that decision to go with his students to that benefit concert and then suffer the consequences later. I would ask the opposition members to think about the difficulties that many of our professional teachers have had over the years trying to deal with the political situation within the BCTF.

[3:45]

I might also add that this situation did not just occur after Bill 20. This has been going on for a long time. It wasn't created by Bill 20. The Minister of Education did not start this problem. Teachers have been told what to do by the B.C. Teachers' Federation executive for some time, and through intimidation some of them have and some of them haven't. It has caused a great deal of confusion in schools.

I believe that Bill 20 gives teachers the right to be professionals. It gives them the choice to decide for themselves whether they want to be trade unionists or whether they want to be professionals. Local associations will individually, under Bill 20, make those decisions. I think that is one of the most important aspects of Bill 20. All districts differ. The province is different; the regions are different. I am sure there will be districts where teachers will choose to have unions, just as there'll be districts where teachers will choose to have associations; that's what democracy is all about. I can't understand the opposition to Bill 20 by the members opposite, who I know believe very strongly in democracy. I believe that after Bill 20 is passed, the threats will disappear in the classrooms, and confrontation will indeed be lessened or ended. I would also like to point out to the opposition that class size can be negotiated. I think that's a big revelation about how this government feels about the teaching profession. Size, as many opposition members have said, makes the environment of a class, and teachers will now have the right to negotiate those class sizes. If the Ministry of Education has not been correct in the past, that's going to be rectified at the local level, school district by school district, the way it should be.

I think the separation of union activities and professional development is also desirable. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Negotiating for salaries and benefits and class size is one thing; professional development of individuals is entirely another, and that part of Bill 20 is going to bring a great deal of professionalism into the classroom — in fact, more than there is at this particular time.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the relationship between students, parents and the classroom. The classroom is an extension of the home, in my view, and as we all know, there are many homes that today are having difficulties: broken homes, homes where one or both of the parents are unemployed. There is no end to the difficulties that many people in our society suffer. The children spend more than half of their

[ Page 945 ]

day in the classroom five days a week. That means that the teacher is a pretty important person in their lives, and we have to look after that teacher. We have to make sure that teachers are happy, that they're well paid — as well paid as the public purse can afford to pay them. I think it's also our job to make sure that they aren't intimidated, and that is what Bill 20 is about.

I've been accused of saying that the only reason we're dealing with Bill 20 is because we want to kneecap the BCTF. That's not true. The BCTF is a factor, but the teachers are the biggest factor, and whether they're happy or not makes a difference to whether our children are happy or not. Teachers have a lot of responsibility. They have a lot of things to deal with in a classroom, and I think some of us forget sometimes that they have their own personal problems to deal with at the same time, just like all of us do. So I want to assure the members opposite that this government does care about teachers. We care about students; we care about the taxpayers; and yes, we even care about the members of the opposition. I hope that the remainder of the debate on Bill 20 will be constructive, the criticism will be well founded, and a spirit of cooperation will continue in this Legislature.

I'd like to ask all members to work hard in their constituencies explaining the government's position and the opposition's position, but let's not pour more oil on the fire. Let's help everyone work their problems out for the betterment of the education system, the families and the children that it serves, and yes, the teachers. This is not a time for grandstanding. It's not a time for political points. It's a time for working together and seeing a bill go through the Legislature, with amendments if they're needed. The Premier indicated today that this government is not afraid to admit there might be something in a bill which shouldn't be there, that it can be interpreted in a different way. So I ask the opposition: don't twist words. Use your own words. This is a democracy, and each one of us has a right to our own opinions, and we all have them; there's no question about that.

I'd like to encourage teachers also to put their students first. Regardless of the marching orders that are issued by the BCTF executive, I would ask those teachers to stay in their classrooms and to continue with their professional activities like the professionals we all know they are.

MR. CASHORE: It's indeed lovely to hear the hordes of people on my side of the House pounding their desks in support.

I speak in opposition to Bill 20. I would just like to comment to the hon. first member for Langley that when we talk about people grandstanding in this House, or when we talk about people twisting words, I realize that we're indulging in a kind of comment that all of us indulge in when we are wanting to find some way to respond to what has been said. That's not something that any side of this House has a patent on. But we do need to recognize that the words in Hansard are the words in Hansard, and being used in speeches, they do receive a particular interpretation given from a particular perspective. I think that's appropriate. It's one of the ways in which lively debate has been carried on for many centuries and many generations. I feel a little bit as though it's not all that helpful to be lectured on such items when the lecturer is indicating that the fault is primarily on this side of the House. Fault is something that all of us are quite capable of, and I certainly would like to acknowledge that capability within myself. Sometimes when we are speaking from our own perspectives, we do say things that others find inappropriate. I guess the real learning is when we can find the inappropriateness that really is within ourselves. I think that's a difficult thing for us to do when we are involved in lively debate.

When I spoke on the hoist motion, I tried to make a few points that I felt were relevant to the debate on the principle of the bill. I pointed out that several school boards, boards made up of people of all political parties, had asked that the government withdraw Bill 20. These requests have formally been made, and I understand that letters have been sent to the minister, making such requests.

I also made the point that there has been inadequate consultation in terms of the kind of consultation that results in influencing the nature of the legislation, rather than consultation in the sense of hearing a number of briefs but not really acting on them.

I referred to the fact that all of us, no matter what our station and responsibility in life, be it as members of this Legislature, be it as Minister of Education, be it as people who work in any walk of life, share responsibility for education. That being the case, and recognizing the principle that the medium is the message, the nature with which such legislation is presented does become an example to our young people, an example which says to them something about the values and about the approach that we all espouse as we go about doing our job as legislators. Mr. Speaker, I tried to make the point that we have a responsibility to be straightforward in terms of the way we go about doing our task. Having introduced this legislation in a way that really is not a consultative process, when you really examine it carefully, is not a good example to our young people, and it is not putting forward the kinds of ideas that it is our responsibility to put forward.

I also outlined the recent history of the assault on education by the Social Credit government, going back for several years', but especially back to 1983, and pointed out that this has had a number of negative impacts on a number of people — teachers, students and other members of the public, who have responded in a very caring, responsible and supportive way. Yet the fact is that the policies that have been put forward have had the result of bruising teachers, of wounding students, and causing abrasions to the public. This has resulted in feelings of chaos, confusion, bitterness and disruption. And just to think back to the time when it actually got to the point that democratically elected school boards in this province were being fired is an indication of the climate of confrontation that has hindered and hurt education within this province, has had terrible impacts upon the quality of education. It would be very, very helpful, even at this time, to look at those impacts and to consider that there are better ways to go about trying to enhance education in this province than this continuation of confrontation.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, I think the point is — and it's a point that I wish to make in my comments today — that education needs a breather in this province. Education in this province needs an opportunity to get caught up, because of the impacts that have been so severely received over the past several years, especially going back to 1983. This is not a good time to be introducing yet another divisive and confrontational process that will have the effect — and I'm not saying it was intended this way — of causing further unease, further disruption and further negative impacts upon those that we keep saying we

[ Page 946 ]

are so concerned about: the children of our province, the people for whom the educational exercise is so important.

It's tremendously important — and we've heard this stated on both sides of the House — that the children really are the most important factor in this entire discussion. I really believe that the Minister of Education believes that. I believe that's something that all of us in some corner of our thinking, in some corner of our being, recognize as being tremendously important. But I think that we have to recognize that children in our society at this time are increasingly being found to be at risk. It is important to realize that we have a number of people in the school system, including teachers, who have seen, in their lives dedicated to the education of children, a kind of child advocacy which has been tremendously important.

We've seen this at a time when there has been a withdrawal of services for children in many sectors of the province, whereas within another ministry we would find the loss of family support workers, the loss of child care workers within the schools. We've seen, in the name of somebody's idea of restraint, the loss of services to children in this province. It has been, I think, a very impressive reality that teachers have continued, even in times when they were finding it difficult to fulfill their responsibilities because of inadequacies in terms of textbooks, supplies and the pupil-teacher ratio . . . . Even during those times of great impact, those teachers were doing everything they possibly could to look out for the well-being of their students. That's certainly a point that needs to be affirmed and a point which we have to recognize: that the children within our society have been supported.

We only have to open our eyes to realize that the reality of hungry children really is a reality which shows up in many segments of society and has been showing up in schools. Perhaps what we have seen is only the tip of the iceberg. We have to realize that, tragically, this is a society in which children, who should be getting support, counselling and treatment at a time when further problems can be prevented, end up not getting that support, counselling or treatment, and often end up in programs that are sponsored by the Attorney-General — custody programs — when it would have been far better if these children could have received the benefit of counselling and their parents could have received the benefit of support at a time when that was so desperately needed. So we see that children in our society are being impacted to too great an extent by the effects of somebody's idea of restraint.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

One of the things that I think is not helping the situation is the timing of the presentation of this legislation right now. I think that the timing right now, when we consider that the school year is coming to a close, when we consider that there did seem to be, following the election, some indication that there was a new reality of consultation in British Columbia and, indeed, a time when people would legitimately have new hope that . . . . This happening at this point in the school year, I know for a fact, is a very, very difficult thing for a great many people, and, again, perhaps the greatest impacts are upon the children.

Timing, because it isn't good timing in terms of the school year; timing, because it isn't good timing in the sense that there's no compelling urgency to force this legislation through right now. In view of the need for education to have a breather in this province, and also in view of the fact that things were working well within the education system, even given the impacts of the recession . . . .

There is really no argument I have heard that deals with a sense of urgency of time that says: it must be done now; this is when it must happen; we haven't got time for further consultation. It's a tremendous opportunity for the Minister of Education to take a new perspective on this legislation, to consider an opportunity for public dialogue and discussion and debate and treat it more as a White Paper, more as something that can then be looked at after the public discussion comes in and that can be used as a basis for the kind of redrafting and the type of legislation that would be more appropriate.

It's not good timing also in a sense of the government's stated plan to set up a Royal Commission on Education. This was an election promise, and one wonders what is left for the scope of the research and the deliberations of such a royal commission when such a major decision is in the process of being made. I really do wonder what this says to the person who has been given the task of heading that commission, about the kind of confidence the Minister of Education has in him and in the commissioners when such a major preemptive action is being taken.

I noted that a previous speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), quoted from a paper by the Pacific Group for Policy Alternatives. I would like to quote from that paper, but from a different part of it. On Bill 20 it says: "As a result of this exercise, progressive organizations such as the Pacific Group and trade unions must now question the value of devoting any effort to making submissions to future Socred traveling road shows." I think that is a matter for very serious consideration.

The tradition of people within our society getting together and making their submissions, doing their research, preparing their statements, bringing them forward and putting them on the table at some kind of hearing that is being made available by government — that very process is being questioned by the timing, by the way in which this legislation is being presented. I think that is a matter of public trust; it's a matter of dealing with the resources and the procedures we have for achieving some kind of consensus, and I think it's a tremendously important thing when we consider that people might actually say: "Well, why should I participate in a government process of being asked for information, when we realize that what we are doing in that exercise is really not having any effect at all."

I think we should be reminded, as other members have stated, that other professions have the choice with regard to the development of their own structures. The B.C. Teachers' Federation is an organization that has developed over 75 years, and it is quite a serious thing when one considers that by the stroke of legislation such an organization with such a history of service to this province might be dismantled in such a way. I think also we have to, given the principles of fairness, be asking about the fairness of what is implicit within the way the legislation is drafted. The cost of administration, by and large, would have to be borne by those people, again without them having any way of consulting about how that process would be carried out.

I would like now to turn to the subject of principals and vice-principals. I think that all of us who have attended schools, whether they were one-room schools or country schools that were somewhat larger or large urban schools, have all had the experience of knowing principals and vice-

[ Page 947 ]

principals as part of a very unique way we have of school administration within this country of Canada.

I wonder, as I make these comments, if different members of the House might reflect on their experiences of principals in schools, wherever they attended school, and ask themselves, on reflection, how they felt about that way of doing things; how they felt about the fact that there were principals and vice-principals who had their responsibility set up in that, granted, unique way within society. Do they feel that that was really bad news, or do they feel that there were some good things in that? I know that in my experience, thinking back to the principals and vice-principals of the school that I attended, some of them were better than others, sure, but it was a system that worked. It was a system in which you realized that there was somebody there who knew education. Thinking about that later, in adulthood, I guess it would have been a person who had an educational philosophy, a person trained in education, a person who loved the education enterprise, and a person who cared so dearly and so deeply for that that he or she was willing to put the kind of extra effort and enthusiasm into the administration of that process that was necessary.

One of the fundamental values that makes the system work — and it does work well today — is a value that we would call teamwork. One of the things of benefit to the children of this province is that teamwork operates within the school system, and part of the delicate balance that helps to produce that teamwork is the fact that the principals and the vice-principals within those settings have that dual role of administration and education. People have referred in this House to the industrial model. I think it would be tragic to see us change something so drastically, something that has functioned so well for such a long time, when there is really no valid, demonstrable reason for making such an extensive move. It really saddens me to think that that delicate balance, that teamwork, that very effective relationship within the teaching community, might be lost as a benefit for the people of this province, especially for our children. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if this were to be the case, if this particular aspect were to go ahead, we would need to ask ourselves, with regard to the relationship between principals and teachers within that teaching team, if it is not true that historically it has worked well, if we don't really think that it will result in a downgrading of services, and also: what does this kind of precipitate action, which seems to have no valid reason, teach our children?

[4:15]

This relationship has also been a relationship that has worked between the principal and the support staff. We need to ask ourselves, with regard to the secretarial staff and caretakers in schools, if it has not worked well historically, and if that will not result in the downgrading of services at that level of the educational institution. Again, what does that process say to our children?

Thirdly, we have to recall the relationship between principals and students, and recognize that very often, when students have been required to have the special attention of a principal because of something that has happened that is perhaps in the nature of a crisis within a school, it has been tremendously important for that student to be able to be ministered to by someone who has that teaching knowledge, that knowledge of the teaching profession, that educational philosophy and that kind of experience. I don't think there is any substitute for that kind of experience, in terms of the way in which administration would be handled within schools. The fact is that it has been working well; it should continue to work well. There is no need to take this type of measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to some comments that have been made as the debate has continued. I'd like to refer to comments of our Premier that were referred to in an article in the Province on April 29. The article states:

"He said yesterday's one-day walkout is the kind of thing the proposed Teaching Profession Act is designed to stop. 'If anyone had any doubts that we need the legislation, I think they're convinced,' said Vander Zalm" — pardon me, the Premier. "'With a good College of Teachers, this will not be a problem any longer.' An illegal strike would be considered 'unprofessional conduct' under the new act and leave teachers open to disciplinary action, he said."

I think this reveals something that underlies a real concern about this whole approach, this whole process and the attitude behind the process. The Premier uses the terms "illegal strike" and "unprofessional conduct." The Premier is a person whose words are taken much more seriously in many circumstances than the words of any people in the province, but those words belie the fact that he has prejudged what, by any standard of fairness, should be left to some other kind of judgment process. This shows that he has already looked at actions which might in some hypothetical future situation be actions that would need to be looked at. But he has already presented what would be his judgment on those actions, and I think . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a judgment.

MR. CASHORE: Well, it is a judgment, in terms of him having stated an opinion as a very influential person in this province, and I think that it's a very sad thing that such a comment would be made when one is arguing that this is going to be a fair process. That fairness has to be emphasized as a matter of very real concern in this situation. I think this demonstrates just how dangerous and destructive this legislation can be.

I would like to refer to the debate that was conducted in this House last Friday and to comment on some of the remarks made by the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall). I would like to say that I don't want to twist the remarks. These were remarks that were in the Blues. I don't have a copy of Hansard yet, so I'm going to read from the Blues. I would ask the Minister of Education if he finds reading from Hansard to be twisting it. I will be making my own comment and giving my own interpretation afterwards — and that's fair if you look upon that as twisting, just as I might look upon it as twisting when you make fair comment — but these are the words that are in Hansard. He states that . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: That's selective.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, it is selective; that is correct. That's a time-honoured process in these hallowed halls. It's selective.

The member for Columbia River stated: "...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." Then I'm skipping a few sentences here, and then

[ Page 948 ]

he goes on to say: "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." Well, I don't see how he can refer to that as good legislation in any way, shape or form, and I don't see what evidence he has been able to bring forward that would support that point. I think we have to ask that member, when he makes a statement like that, if he could possibly accompany it with some kind of evidence. When he's saying that B.C. leads the way, well, by whose standards? It seems to me that the result of that legislation was one of disruption, and that disruption resulted in the government having the "Let's Talk About School Work" program, which was not really an attempt to review education in good faith but was an attempt to deal with the massive public outcry throughout the province as the public sent a very clear message to this government that it was completely dissatisfied with the impacts on education that were being caused by government initiatives at that time.

Referring to the same speech, the member states: "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." Well, that's very interesting. I'm the first to recognize that Expo did receive considerable favour and that there were many things about it that were positive, but it wasn't all positive; we have to be fair and honest about that. But to compare Expo to education is to be comparing a party to one of the most important institutions in our society, and it's a totally inappropriate comparison. I think it's wrong. If you refer to Expo as a bandwagon, that's fair, but to by analogy make the implication that education is a matter of getting on board some kind of bandwagon is to indicate that there's a lacking in awareness of what the educational enterprise is really about. It's not about bread and circuses. Education is the future. We have a responsibility to put it up there in terms of its very important place within our society. It's the future of our children. Expo is over; the party's over; it's time to call it a day. But it's not a time to call it a day on education.

Reading further in the same speech, the hon. member stated:

"The point has been raised in some circles that the BCTF was already disciplining its teachers. I 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."

Mr. Speaker, that shows that that member does not know the basics of how the system works. I believe that has been in evidence in much of the comments by government members; that is, that responsibility is a responsibility of school boards. I think the member should read the School Act. I don't think it is fair for him to place that kind of blame on the BCTF; it's simply an unfair statement and incorrect. I think that he should take note of that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill 20 and to look at some of the things that have happened since the bill was introduced.

I must say in looking at what has happened that probably the most unfortunate decision made up until now, certainly in my view, is the decision of the hierarchy of the B.C. Teachers' Federation to request their members to work to rule. I think it is unfortunate, particularly in view of the fact that we in this province certainly recognize the tremendous job that teachers have done in our province in the area of public service.

I know in my community we have a tremendous number of teachers very active in the community and in public affairs, community affairs, coaching hockey teams, basketball teams, various sports functions and things of that nature. It is very unfortunate that the very powerful organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, would request their members to work to rule, which would mean putting in minimal service for the taxpayers and for the students within our system. I think it is regretful.

I can say in all sincerity that I have been involved in management and labour since I was a very young man. During my tenure in the trade union movement in the province, as a shop steward and on the plant committee and as a staff member for some six and a half years, never once in my lifetime did I ever ask to be or was I a part of a group who worked to rule.

I think it is a dastardly act to encourage a workforce to impede a system at the expense of our children in particular, Mr. Speaker, and work to rule. I think it borders on being cowardly to pick up a full paycheque and remain on full payroll and only put in the very basic minimum of service. I would appeal to the teachers throughout the province to ignore this request of the hierarchy of the BCTF. Go out and give it your best.

The school term is at a very crucial point. The middle of May is a very crucial time in working towards the final exams and graduation. I would appeal to the teachers throughout British Columbia to ignore this edict of the hierarchy of the BCTF. Go out there and give it your best effort between now and the end of June. Let's get on with the job of educating the children to the utmost of our ability. I might add that I am convinced that the teachers throughout the province will indeed cooperate with the system and the school boards and see that full graduation ceremonies are indeed held and do take place.

I suppose there are certain clauses that could be argued, but by and large, the bill does give the teachers and the Teachers' Federation precisely what they were asking for. Apparently the majority wanted the right to free collective bargaining; they have that. They wanted the right to strike, and they have that.

As far as the division of the jurisdiction of the BCTF into two groups, a trade union and a college, I would suggest that if the rank-and-file teachers throughout British Columbia so choose, in many instances the same people will be serving to represent them at the collective bargaining table as are serving them in the college. This could well take place, and it will be the democratic free choice of the members throughout British Columbia to make those types of decisions.

From my experience as a school board representative for my community for some five years — three years of those five as the chairman — I can say that I indeed hail and welcome the division of the college from the union in licensing and disciplining teachers throughout the province. I think it's the right way to go. I don't think the union should have the

[ Page 949 ]

right to lay ethics charges against their members. I believe that is properly the responsibility of, and a job for, the proposed college, and I support the minister 100 percent in what he's doing there. Members opposite have made reference to the fact that the government is controlling the structure. I suggest that if they look at many other areas — indeed, at the trade union movement in general — they will find that yes, the government does control the structure here, but it also controls the structure of many organizations and boards throughout the province.

[4:30]

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope to see the work-to-rule edict ignored. It's not the way to go. I don't think it's the manly way to approach these types of problems. If you're going to have a strike and a fight on the picket line, then go whole hog. One of my colleagues suggests that the "manly" remark is sexist; if anybody should take it that way, I would withdraw. Maybe it's a "peopley" situation, or "personly." Certainly this business of working to rule is outdated. It's not equitable. If management and labour want to have a fight, let's do it on the picket line, when the management group is being injured and the workers are losing their pay in full. I think that's where the fight should take place.

If there's going to be a fight in the future, do it on the picket line, but let's not continue this suggested work to rule. It sits very badly with me, and I can tell you that it sits badly with a lot of my constituents. I've had a lot of remarks from my constituents — parents in particular — about things that are going on in the classroom, school time that's being taken up by teachers lecturing the class about Bill 20. I suggest that the teachers would be well advised to do their politicking on their own time — at their meetings, off school time. The parents would be much happier if politics were left out of the schoolroom and the work-to-rule edict was removed. If there's to be a battle, have the battle out on the picket line; let's quit using children as pawns in the battle that's going on right now. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what society would be like if, every time a level of government — whether municipal, provincial or federal — did something we weren't happy with, if we all started to work to rule. It would be a wonderful country with everybody going at one-third their normal pace by working to rule. I can name no other organization in the province in the last ten years — and I would challenge anybody in this House to name one — other than the B.C. Teachers' Federation that has enacted this work to rule. I've got to tell you something else, Mr. Speaker: this work-to-rule nuisance that we've had to put up with in the education system in British Columbia is the only reason I'm supporting this bill and the teachers' right to strike. This work to rule has been so frustrating for trustees trying to educate the kids, trying to run school board affairs, that they've just given up and said: "Look, we'd rather have the right to strike and the right to lock out. Let's clear the deck once a year, rather than have to put up with this nuisance work-to-rule business on frequent occasions."

In conclusion, let's get on with the job. Let's complete second reading and get to committee. I would close by saying that I certainly support Bill 20. There are items in there that are long overdue, and I think it's going to be a wonderful piece of legislation for the province of B.C.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that in his debate on Bill 20, the minister speaking before me did not mention any aspects of the bill and merely used the time for a tirade against the BCTF and the teachers in this province. I would far sooner have heard something positive as to what he thought about the school system and what he thought about Bill 20 and the actual act and what happens in this bill.

We've got a desperate situation, and there is no doubt about that, as the children in this province are finding out right now. We had "Let's Talk About Schools" a couple of years ago, which went around the province and talked about the school system, talked about what they felt was wrong with the school system and what they felt should be in the school system and how they felt it could be improved. One of the things that came out of that talk — and I am quoting from "Let's Talk About Schools" — is this:

"Respondents have not called for a dramatic or radical restructuring of the present system. Rather, they have called for a number of adjustments to increase the effectiveness of schools and to make them more responsive to the communities around them . . . people who have participated in this discussion have emphasized the need for a more cooperative and collaborative approach to schooling."

That's what this government is failing to realize — that people want cooperation and collaboration on these things.

"Respondents also acknowledged that many groups and individuals have a legitimate role to play in framing school policies and directions, and have pointed to the need for a greater amount of consultation and better communication throughout the entire system. There is . . . a feeling on the part of some . . . that the provincial system could be enhanced by reducing the . . . fractiousness surrounding schooling that has sometimes divided British Columbians. More generally, there appears to be an attitude on the part of respondents that a consultative rather than a confrontational approach will bring about a more smoothly functioning provincial system."

That, I think, is what we should be striving towards: a lack of confrontation and more consultation. That's not what we are getting. It's all very well to say that we are talking to the teachers right now and that the minister is changing some of his points of view and that there may be some amendments coming to the act. The point is that this act was put forth without consultation. You may have consulted prior to the act, but nobody saw this act before you put it forth in the form it is in now. No White Paper was put out; nothing was sent out to the school system; nothing went out to the school boards to get their input as to what they felt were the problems and what they felt should be included or excluded. There may have been some consultation with a select few, and I am sure that we can find those select few at some point or other over in the Fraser Institute; however, the general population of the BCTF did not have consultation on this with the minister.

It's interesting, because the teachers are an easy target. That's why they get picked on and have been picked on for the past three or four years. People like to think that teachers work from nine to three, and they like to think that they get the summers off and they get the two weeks' holidays at Christmas and a week's holiday at Easter, and everything is fine and dandy, and they really don't have to work very many hours. They remember . . . . We all do this: we remember that poor teacher that we had or the one that wasn't very good or the one we didn't like — or the one that didn't like us, maybe. We all remember somebody back there that was not a

[ Page 950 ]

very good teacher. So we can relate to those things, and when people start to kick the teachers around a little bit, we say: "Yeah, right, I remember Mr. So-and-so. He did this to me when I was in school." But they don't remember the many good teachers that they had or the many good things that came about as a result of their schooling. So frequently you'll find that the teachers, as I say, are a very easy target because people think they're overpaid and underworked, they get too many holidays and they allow too much to happen in their classroom. Generally speaking, you can find many people saying those types of things. So it's an easy and popular thing to do.

However, teachers over the past few years, and the past few decades actually, have taken on tremendous jobs. They are now expected to do just about everything. They educate, they counsel, they even build social lives. You can see this right now with the students who are protesting because the teachers have removed themselves from extracurricular activities. I note with interest that the students out there did not protest and did not walk out when the teachers took one day off and they were out of their math and their social studies. There were no protests at that time. The protests came not when a student couldn't attend his math class, but when that student could not attend his basketball game or had his grad ceremonies in jeopardy. There was no move before that on behalf of the students.

So I think it's rather an interesting point that people are reacting so strongly now, and are saying that the teachers are acting against the best interests of the students and that they're not taking into consideration the students, when in effect what they're doing is things that are above and beyond their duty anyway. We've just heard from the other side ten minutes of calling down the teachers for not doing those things that their jobs do not ask them to do. I find that interesting, because I don't think you find too many other professional groups that do above and beyond the call of duty, and work into their evenings, afternoons and weekends, and then are called down by their political body when they fail to do those things.

I find that it's easy to turn the issue around against teachers too. I remember in '83 when the teachers were talking about class size and were saying that the class size was too high, that the reductions in funding for education were going to affect class size, and that when the classes got larger, the performance of students and the class situation were not good. However, people didn't accept that. What they were accused of at that time was that it was self-interest, that they were only there to save their own jobs, and that they just wanted fewer children to be bothered with and fewer children to teach. Nobody believed or accepted that teachers were concerned about students, that teachers were concerned about the quality of education in those classrooms.

We see this now too. In '83 we saw art courses and the arts all over the place being eliminated — drama, music; things were being slashed. At that time teachers were standing up and saying that these are necessities, that we need these things in our public school system to educate a well-rounded person, that human beings require the arts in their lives in order to function properly, that society needs the arts. At that time teachers were again accused of wanting to save their jobs, of wanting to spend more of the public's money and of not caring about their students. Now we see again — now that the extracurriculars, which include drama, art and all of these things, are in jeopardy — that the teachers are being accused of being self-centred and of not caring about their students.

It doesn't really matter what point of view the teachers take. I can assure you that the system and the society and the government in this province will turn it around to make the teachers look like they are self-centred, to make the teachers look like they are not concerned about the education. That has consistently happened, and it probably will continue to happen as long as this government is in power.

[4:45]

I used to teach. I taught in 1969, 1970, 1971 and I took some time off there because it just wasn't possible for me to teach at that time. Around 1977 I decided to go back into the system, and I thought I might try my hand at teaching again. I did some subbing, which a lot of people do when they get back into the system, and I'll tell you, at that time — this was after I had had some children — I found that I wasn't willing to donate myself entirely to the teaching profession, which is what I had to do in order to teach well. As a teacher I found that the education system totally took over my life; I lived it. I was there on Saturdays; I was there on Sundays; I marked papers all evening; I read novels from the kids. I couldn't do anything but think in terms of teaching. When I went to the beach, I was looking for art projects in terms of shells, rocks and what have you. When I was on holidays, I was taking pictures for social studies projects. I totally devoted my life to it, and when I went back to it I found that I wasn't willing to do that.

That's what many of the teaching population in this province are doing today. They devote their lives to their jobs. They are good teachers, they are sound teachers, and right now they are at the brink of something very disastrous. Because for most of them it is extremely distasteful to have to take job action. It is extremely distasteful for them to remove their services, and I can tell you that in many cases it's hurting them as much as it is the kids not to be able to participate in many of the extracurricular activities. Because they join in, and it becomes a part of their lives. They love to see those kids grow, they love to see them progress, and it's hurting them — it's hurting them a lot. It really upsets me when I think that people are saying that they're self-centred, that they're only concerned about their own issues.

There are a lot of things here that we are talking about, and that I keep hearing, that are wrong. We say that the BCSTA now has the right to strike.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not the BCSTA.

MRS. BOONE: Excuse me, not the BCSTA; the teachers have got the right to strike, the right to bargain — the BCSTA should have the right to strike, I think. But section 137.8 of Bill 19 says they don't:

"Where the commissioner considers that a dispute poses a threat to the economy of the province, or to the health, safety or welfare of its residents or to the provision of educational services in the province, the commissioner may do any or all of the following: (a) order a cooling-off period of 40 days during which no employee or trade union that is a party to the dispute shall strike and no employer who is party to the dispute shall lock out his employees, or during which an existing strike or lockout by a party to the dispute shall be suspended; (b) direct the chairman or a panel of the disputes resolution division to designate those

[ Page 951 ]

facilities, productions and services that the chairman or panel considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of residents or to the economy of the province or to the provision of educational services in the province."

Or they can even put it to a public interest inquiry board. These sections in Bill 19 virtually say that there is no right to strike for teachers. There is no right to strike as long as Bill 19 exists, and Bill 19 does exist — very much so. What you are saying publicly is that you have given the teachers everything they want, that they have got every single solitary thing they want, but they don't want it. "We've given them the right to strike." Well, you've taken it away, so there is no point in doing that whatsoever.

It also says that you have eliminated the compensation stabilization program.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam Member, I don't believe it is in order for you to discuss Bill 19 in conjunction with Bill 20.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, it has been the policy, since the two relate and dovetail with one another, to give, I think, rather liberal interpretations of that. I think if it's used to make a particular point, as part of an illustration, it might well be in order, or very close to it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the opposition House Leader for his cogent comments. Perhaps I'll offer the new members some advice in terms of how you can get close to it. One is not allowed to reflect on a previous vote. That's clear in our standing orders. Perhaps from time to time the House could accept reference to other matters that the member is concerned about. But a specific reference to a section of a previous bill is clearly out of order. I'm sure that in general conversation the member, and other new members, can find ways around that. That's all I wanted to say.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Considering the lack of experience that I have in the chair, I would like to say that I felt that one example with reference to Bill 19 was in context with the speech. When we went to the second example and again referred to Bill 19, I thought we were probably crowding it a bit.

MRS. BOONE: Bill 19 mentions that the compensation stabilization program has been eliminated. As I'm not allowed to mention this bill, I will say that it is not eliminated, and if anybody wants to talk to me afterwards, I'll tell you why.

MR. ROSE: And where.

MRS. BOONE: Right — and where: in a previous bill that I'm not allowed to mention in this House, even though it impacts this bill tremendously.

MR. ROSE: It comes after 18.

MRS. BOONE: Right.

The government sets its own budgets and determines the spending priorities. There's no collective bargaining when a bill such as . . . when the compensation stabilization program still exists and is able to determine what settlements will be.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

There are some parts . . . . This is actually right in the bill we're talking about; it's in Bill 20. Section 24 of that bill, which is a part that I find extremely dangerous . . . . I find it really dangerous legislation, and I think many people should find it dangerous legislation. There are two sections, actually. The first one is on the certification of members, and it says: "The council shall establish standards of fitness and qualifications for the admission and certification of persons as members of the college, and shall not admit a person to membership unless he meets those standards and satisfies the council that he is a person of good moral character and otherwise a fit and proper person to be granted membership."

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: I think that's sexist too. You're right. You should certainly know about that.

I find it incredible to think that any council, or any group or body, is going to determine whether a person is of such moral character that they can be granted membership. This is a very loose standard. I don't really understand what it means, other than the fact that it means that this council can deny membership in the college on the basis of anything. What's immoral to you and what's immoral to me may be completely different. So it's a very dangerous thing.

This dangerous level carries on into the termination part, part 7, section 58 (122.1):

"Where a notice of intention to terminate a contract of employment is given by a board under subsection (1)(b), the reasons for the termination required by that paragraph to be stated in the notice may include professional incompetency, unprofessional conduct, immorality, mental incapacity or any other cause which, in the opinion of the board, renders the teacher unsuitable for the position then held by him" — I notice, again, it's not "her" — "and the notice shall state that in the opinion of the board the teacher is, for the reasons so stated, unsuitable for continued teaching service in that position."

Madam Speaker, I find it incredible that we can put into legislation something that is going to legislate morality and legislate unprofessional conduct. Who determines unprofessional conduct? Is it based on the way somebody is dressed? Is it based on the friends you associate with? Is it based on your social activity? What is going to be basis for unprofessional conduct? What is going to be the basis for immorality? Who is going to determine what the immorality is there?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The teachers are.

MRS. BOONE: I do not find it possible that any teacher, or any person, any group or body, whether they are peers, have a right to determine what is moral and what is immoral. You must leave to your own imagination . . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 952 ]

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, what would have happened to the Socreds last year, had these rules applied to your cabinet.

Bishop Remi de Roo views unemployment, devaluation of human labour and increasing social inequities as immoral. I happen to agree with him. Would it be somebody that believes that that is immoral? Would it be somebody that believes that perhaps teachers who aren't married should not live together? Are you going to say that somebody who has an abortion is immoral? Who is going to say these things? Those are the types of things that you cannot put into legislation, because nobody has the same set of morals. We cannot in this Legislature — or any Legislature in Canada, I believe — legislate morality. Morality comes from society as a whole and cannot be legislated.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is no immorality?

MRS. BOONE: Plenty of immorality. You ought to know well about that.

There is also a section in there which indicates that a complaint by any five members may be the basis for a disciplinary action. Again, are we leading our teachers into a witch-hunt? Is this what we are going to be doing? Any five members who do not like you because you are different, because you march to a different tune from them, are going to be able to say that you are going to be put on record to have disciplinary action taken against you. That is not possible. We live in a society that accepts people on an individual basis. We cannot have five individual members from any one place placing obligations on anybody else for discipline.

We also say in here that the principals can be dismissed by a board at any time, with or without cause, with no right to appeal. This leads you to say: who, then, is going to speak out on behalf of the system? Who is going to speak out to defend the school system if a principal does not agree that something is right? If a principal feels that an action coming down from a board is wrong or that the direction the provincial government has taken is wrong, and he chooses to speak out about it, that principal can be dismissed without notice and without appeal.

Madam Speaker, I don't think anybody would believe that this is fair, or that this is democracy in action. We need to have our principals out there. In the places you have here, they will simply be managers, not necessarily educators, and they are going to be unable to voice their opinions regarding the system. All you have to do is look at the ministries now in existence within this government to find out the fear that is out there. When I as an opposition member go to a regional manager or go to a middle-management person in government, they are afraid to speak to me. They are afraid to tell me their problems, because they fear for their jobs. This is the type of situation that we would be in with the principals being able to be dismissed without cause and without notice of appeal. I don't think that's good for our system at all.

[5:00]

Members of the college are going to be subject to disciplinary measures, even after they've been through another section. This bill is not meant to do anything other than to stifle the system. It's meant to stop dissent. It's meant to stop teachers from speaking their minds. It's meant to stop principals from advocating on behalf of people. There is no reason for this bill whatsoever, other than to put a muzzle on the teachers and the system.

I find it interesting that professional development is the area that everybody seems to think is so lacking, yet when I was on the school board, we got most complaints about the number of days the teachers had off for professional development. Those days that the teachers got off, they always had thrown at them: "The teachers have another day off." Those days were actually added onto the teaching year at the end of the year, so that those teachers that don't care about professional development could have those days for professional development. They are not taken out of the regular school year; they were tacked onto the end of the school year in order to give the teachers their professional development days. The complaints that we heard were not that teachers weren't getting enough professional development, but that there were too many days off for professional development. The teachers have had some good professional development. They've brought speakers in, they've done courses, they've done everything on these areas, and they are good professional development days that work at developing strength in the classroom.

I look with interest, because the professional development program itemized in the bill says that the professional development committee "may . . ." and it goes on. Now most of us reading these bills look for the "mays" and look for the "shalls." When it says you "shall" do something, that means you will do it and you must do it; when it says you "may" do it, that means you might do it. There is nothing here to obligate the college to actually produce any professional development, because it says "may" and does not say "shall." If this was really concern about professional development, then I think the wording in it would have reflected it. The wording would have indicated that professional development was the key point in this thing.

Madam Speaker, I think the main point to this bill . . . . There are many bad points, but the worst point to this bill is the fact that we once again have our teachers up in arms. We once again have confrontation in our school system. At a time when we need to have everyone working together, we have everybody at arms. We are pulling everyone against each other. We've turned our students against various people. They're forming factions: some are for the teachers, some are for themselves, some are for the government. We've got parents turning against them, we've got the teachers turning against them. What we need is to pull them all together so that we can have us all working together for an educational system that will reflect the needs of this province. We can put our system back on the line again, so that we can work to develop a strong educational system that will take us into the nineties.

We've seen some problems. We haven't seen this bill deal with private school teachers or standards for private schools. We haven't seen any of those things. They have dealt merely with the BCTF; they have dealt merely with trying to structure the system in such a way that the BCTF will no longer exist. There is a problem out there that they are trying to deal with on a push basis, and they have pushed the teachers. I am not surprised that they have responded. If you push anybody.... We need to back down, everybody, and take a step back and work together for the educational system of this province.

MR. LONG: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 20. The hon. member for Prince George North mentioned quite a few different things; for instance, that the educational system in the province was suffering. I don't think that is the case.

[ Page 953 ]

I think the educational system in British Columbia is by far one of the best we have in Canada. What we have a problem with today is not with the educational system, and it is not with the students. It seems to me to be a problem with the BCTF. The teachers want to teach. The teachers want to do the job they were hired to do, and in some cases we find the BCTF standing in the place of these teachers, making their decisions for them and saying, "This is what you will do," and these people are intimidated into it.

The teachers have wanted to right to strike. The teachers have wanted the right to bargain, and they want the right of association. They have these things in this bill. They have the right to strike and bargain and associate. They have the right to form their own independent organizations within their own school districts.

But I think we are missing some other points. We are missing that the educational system is not at fault here; it is not the one being judged. It seems to be the teachers that are creating the problem — or the BCTF, not the teachers. The teachers basically just want to teach. But the students are entitled to a good education. I think it is time that we just let our teachers educate our children, and that we basically stayed out of their way, other than making the ground rules. The government of British Columbia has to be responsible to the taxpayer, and the taxpayers are the parents and the families of these children that need the education.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: To protect the BCTF at the expense of all the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia . . . . You are fooling yourself. You are playing to one little power group. You are just playing a game for your own little friends.

MR. BLENCOE: Which speech is this — 3(a) or 3(b)?

MR. LONG: Well, you wrote it.

I don't think anybody is pulling against anybody here. I think it is a matter of the teachers basically knowing what they want. They have asked for it; they have received it. I think our hon. opposition are pulling for their organization, not for the teachers. I had a teacher come to me very recently. He said to me: "I don't know where they were. I got my education at UBC as a teacher, and I paid for that. I went through teaching, and then I got a job. You know, not until I got that job did the BCTF stand up and say: 'Now we've got you.' They made it mandatory: 'Join my organization, and here you go. We'll tell you what to do from here on in."'

When this teacher came to me and spoke of this . . . .

Interjection.

MR. LONG: You're interrupting.

I think the teachers who want to teach should be left to teach. If the teachers do not want to teach, then they should just join their organization, stay with the BCTF and do what they want. That is up to them. But I think the government has a responsibility to the students, the parents, the taxpayers and the teachers of this country, not just to one little group. I think that is the case all over British Columbia, and I have had very few complaints from teachers that this is unjust legislation.

Most of the ones I have talked to figured this was quite just. It is probably what they wanted all along. They are no more intimidated by this than they were with the BCTF, because now we have the College of Teachers, with the same teachers sitting on the board, possibly making the same decisions the BCTF made before on their professional status. So I don't think there has been a big change in that the teachers are going to be thrown out unjustly, or some the things that have been brought down by the opposition. Therefore I think Bill 20 should proceed, and it should be brought into being. I think it is good for the whole province of British Columbia.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to start by commenting that I am disappointed that we haven't delayed consideration of this bill. I'm known in my own caucus as a person who is very interested in process. I really like to have processes in place which I think are going to get us to the point where we have good legislation and good decisions. A lot of that has to do with climate, and I think that — whether by choice or just history or a combination of the two — the government of the day is in a position where the climate for a significant change at this time, the Teaching Profession Act, is not a good one. Part of that comes out of a history which I recognize goes with the party in power but not necessarily with all the people who presently occupy seats in government. There is no question that teachers and the education community at large have a feeling of dis-ease, if you like, about what has happened in the education field over the past three or four years, and are apprehensive about change. In that particular context, to bring in Bill 20 right on the heels of Bill 19, both of them very major pieces of legislation in structure, philosophy and approach, seems to me a decision that was bound to create some major difficulties for the Education minister, who I believe is a person sincere in his desire to move ahead in his portfolio.

I want to commend the minister for being involved with negotiations at this time, but at the same time to ask him again why in heaven's name we are debating this bill while those negotiations are going on. When I make a couple of comments about some things that have happened in the last day or so, I may perhaps be able to point out why I think the minister and the government have put themselves in singular difficulty in terms of the discussion of this legislation at this time.

You know, we've had a lot to do with long and protracted negotiations over the last six or eight months in this province, and we certainly should have learned some things during a very major dispute that affected our province last fall when the forest industry and the International Woodworkers were engaged in a long dispute. One of the things I learned at that time and certainly recognized all the more pointedly is that there are times when it is well to have things going on quietly behind the scenes and when it is well for key actors to speak with great care.

[5:15]

Our Premier is a person who is given to being outspoken and to expressing his point of view when he is asked, and I think he sees that as a commendable quality. Probably many of us, in contrasting him with his predecessor, might consider that that is at least a quality that lets us understand what he is thinking about at any particular moment. But I think he sometimes speaks without contemplating the consequences of his comments, and certainly in terms of the discussions and negotiations that are going on right now, one of the comments made by the Premier over the weekend seemed to me very much one of those comments.

I happened to see him on television last night when he made this comment. I'm not sure whether it was in response

[ Page 954 ]

to somebody who had phoned him on his monthly radio show or to one of the reporters who inevitably was there to interview him about what he had said so he could say it once again after the show was over. But the comment that really struck me and really concerned me was this: "We promised consultation, but consultation is not capitulation." It seemed to me a very insensitive remark for the Premier to make at this times when his minister, in good faith, has been meeting with representatives from the Teachers' Federation and the School Trustees' Association, and I imagine meeting with a great deal of care and concern to try to see if they can arrive at some kind of working agreement over a contentious piece of legislation about which the educators in this province — all 30,000 of them — are very upset.

I'd like to cite another example of an action that perhaps was well-meaning but which I question being done at this time. This was an action of the minister, who sent an open letter to all students in the province and requested that that letter be read or circulated or posted — a variety of means by which it would be communicated to students. I know that that letter caused great consternation in my community among educators and among students. It seems to me that the minister, in his comments, intruded on the affairs of local school districts, and I know he's very sensitive to the affairs of local school districts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Have you read the letter?

MS. A. HAGEN: I have the letter in my hand, Madam Speaker. I've read it with great care, and I think there are some comments in that letter that bend the truth and give an unfair impression.

In its very first sentence the letter notes that the minister assures all students in the province that examinations will not be jeopardized. In that context the minister is probably referring to one aspect of examinations, but if I read that as a student the first thing I would think is: "My goodness, am I not even going to be able to write my examinations?" which is of course not the issue at all. So there's a misleading kind of context that people could read into this, and that's repeated later in the letter. Certainly, in the manner in which he comments about the teachers' work-to-rule, he makes some comments about teachers that they would find did not reflect their independent decision for action.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Read it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I plan to read it, Mr. Minister. Indeed, to make sure that I quote you accurately, I have a copy of your letter.

"No one has the right to tell teachers they can't continue to volunteer their services to provide extracurricular activities such as coaching, club sponsorship, music and drama events."

That particular sentence is one that has caused teachers in my district great concern. Those teachers, by a vote, indicated that they would give their organization authorization for courses of action in the context of their response to Bill 20. This particular course of action is one that has been determined in that context, and teachers took offence that they were seen to be simply acting without choice. They had exercised their choice in their vote and had given their organization responsibility for taking some decisions around a strategy to deal with Bill 20.

I'm not talking here, Madam Speaker, about whether we agree or disagree with that course of action; I'm talking about the kind of comment the minister is making to teachers and parents about that course of action. I know that the teachers in my district do not feel that that sentence reflects the decision they have taken in context with their organization about a course of action at this time.

I acknowledge that the minister does give due credit to the volunteer nature of the activities of teachers, and I commend him for his understanding of that role as distinct from the teaching role of the profession.

I would like to comment, too, on the words of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) a short time ago, where he talked about teachers providing minimal service at this time because they were not engaged in all of their volunteer activities. My young niece who teaches in Prince Rupert was here this weekend for professional development work, and I of course wanted to talk to her — she is a young teacher just beginning in her profession — about her working conditions and her enjoyment of her teaching responsibilities. I want to assure the Hon. Minister of Highways that there is no question that that young lady and many other teachers are not providing minimal service when they are involved as they are each day with 20, 30 or 35 children in a classroom for five hours and making the necessary preparations for those children. That is a part of their work that takes hours of their time, and I know that the kind of work that teachers do just to maintain their classroom presence is an incredible effort on their part.

Madam Speaker, I want to comment about the climate. I don't want to belabour this point, but it seems to me that it is extremely important for all of us to recognize that this bill has come forward at a time when trust and confidence in government is not high, and those people who will be responsible for guiding discussions and acting on the product of those discussions would do well to consider the words that they speak and the actions that they take, so as not to jeopardize those sensitive negotiations.

I'd like to move now to the bill itself and to comment about some of the aspects of it now that we're into second reading and talking about the bill in principle. I'd like to preface my remarks with what I thought was a very profound statement by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) in his report to the Premier, the "Labour Legislation Review." He was speaking about his experience as a result of his very extensive consultations throughout the province. As one of the officials from the BCTF commented in a BCTF paper, the impression that that minister left as a result of those consultations was a very favourable one. It was clear that he had gone out and listened and was concerned with process and understood some of the ways in which process enables us to get to good legislation. After he had looked at all of those representations and considered legislative change that he was planning in his preparation, presumably, for Bill 19, he looked at all of that experience he'd had and said: "No amount of legislative change will be sufficient in and of itself to turn around" — and here he's talking about industrial relations — "our own negative industrial relations climate." This next is the phrase or the sentence that I thought was such a valid one, and such an important one in understanding how good legislation comes into place. "Any law without the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the majority of those whom it purports to

[ Page 955 ]

affect, will inevitably be opposed, and this opposition will guarantee, in this case, the failure of the larger objective."

We know that Bill 20 has been received with opposition, and we know that we're in the process now of moving to enshrine that legislation in law. I think we need to move in whatever ways we can to have that legislation enshrined in law with the acquiescence of those people whom it is going to govern — the 30,000 teachers in the province, the many others who are certified teachers who will be governed by this legislation. Bill 20 doesn't just deal with public school teachers; it deals with any teacher in the province who has a certificate.

If I'm ever going to think about going back into teaching, which I haven't done for 25 years, I might need to be concerned about this particular legislation in terms of my teaching certificate. Those who are teaching in private schools will also be covered by this legislation. All the students in the province are also going to be affected, because they are, of course, the receivers of the professional expertise of these well-trained and properly certified teachers. So we're talking about very significant legislation.

There seem to be three basic principles around which the legislation is developed, and I think that there is relative unanimity on the importance of those principles. The issue is how they will be implemented, and that what we are looking at at this stage is how fixed this government is in the process of implementing those principles. One of them is an expanded scope of bargaining and an end to the compulsory arbitration process as the only method of dispute resolution. This bill well and thoroughly addresses that issue. I think it is good to see that the teaching profession, the trustees, the government and the opposition have come together. There is, if you like, consensus around that particular principle and around the development of processes for that to happen.

The second issue is a more contentious one. It is the principle of increased responsibility exercised by teachers for the certification and development of their profession. In that we have, of course, the College of Teachers as the vehicle, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about that after I have looked at the next principle.

The third one has to do with clarification of the roles and responsibilities of principals and other administrators in our system, which is contentious because in this particular legislation the government has chosen to move those people quite far from the education focus of their responsibilities and into a managerial focus. I want to spend a moment on the principals and vice-principals. I spoke about it last week at some length and I don't plan to discuss it so thoroughly today, but I want to say again that I support the role of principal as teacher. In this legislation, it seems to me, we are setting up every principal in the province as almost a mini-superintendent with an individual contract and job security. We're asking him or her to make a decision about whether he or she is going to be a teacher or an administrator. I think that with that whole process we are very much undermining the emerging role of principal as education leader, as the person who assists teachers in their professional growth and in the practice of their profession, and as a person who works directly with children. I think we need to have some changes in how administrators exercise their responsibilities. I'm not suggesting that we should be fixed in the times that have been before, but that change is more toward collegiality and working together.

[5:30]

I think it was the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) who today quoted from the minister's own paper which suggests that evaluation shows that effective schools are ones where principals and teachers work together in that collegial model. It may be that some of the things that administrators — principals — are responsible for in large schools could better be done by a business agent or an administrative assistant. Those kinds of changes could and might occur. In fact, some school boards have been innovative and have implemented changes of that nature. One of the members of the Vancouver School Board, if I'm not mistaken, is a business manager in a secondary school in North Vancouver. There is a different kind of structure and role that can exist. But I again want to plead strongly for a relook at this particular clause in the bill. I think administrators should be very much associated with the teaching profession in any structures that exist.

Now I want to take a look, as I have not yet had an opportunity to do, at the College of Teachers, the structure that I think is causing most concern. In that particular college the ministry has considerable power; some of that power is exercised by the definition of regions. We've already noted that the one-teacher, one-vote kind of distribution is quite unequal, and I think that is a matter of concern. Those regions might indeed be amended, but obviously one has to look at some of the geographic factors that make it possible for a region to function and for people to vote and work together to elect representatives to the college.

The second issue is one which it appears the minister plans to address: that is, the matter of the college being elected in the initial states of formulation. I think that that certainly acknowledges the importance of such a body being representative from the very start of its existence.

The third kind of power which exists with the ministry is the fact that the minister is responsible for approving the bylaws. Again, we have to recognize that the minister has, in law, a responsibility for education in the province . . .

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Three specific areas.

MS. A. HAGEN: ...and that are certain areas there where that must be addressed. But I think we need to have an understanding of those areas, and there is no possibility of the college having intrusion by the minister at the same time that it is providing powers to teachers.

I'm concerned about the potential bureaucracy in the college and the kind of accountability that it will have to its electors. The present organization has an executive that is elected at an annual general meeting, the representatives from the various regions will be elected annually, and there will be an annual general meeting. But I just can't get any sense here of an organization that is going to be empowered by its membership. It seems to me that what we're creating here is more of a regulatory body, a bureaucracy, and I think that is troublesome. It can, in fact, grow to be quite an extensive bureaucracy when one looks at the powers that are available to the members of the college, the 20 people — 15 elected by the teachers and five appointed in various ways.

I'm concerned about the bureaucracy and the focus. That focus seems to be more regulatory, more how we're going to deal with keeping track of a lot of lists and with certifications and so on. So that particular aspect of it is problematical.

Discipline responsibility is obviously something that is causing great concern among the profession and, I think, with

[ Page 956 ]

justification. The boards of this province have considerable latitude; in fact, all the latitude that any employer would need right now to deal with competency within the system and with any failure on the part of a professional person, of a teacher, to be competent in the classroom. In my own district, for example, the board has taken action against teachers recently and has let two teachers go from employment on the basis of behaviour that was not deemed to be appropriate for a professional person. With this college, we now have that person in double jeopardy, and we have the college able to go further in its disciplinary action against teachers.

I want to acknowledge that we are all concerned about the competency of people in the teaching profession. I want to acknowledge too that we are all concerned that no one in the classroom is in any way exploiting or harming children. Those are standards that all of us on both sides of the House would acknowledge and would want to ensure would be dealt with in the most expeditious way.

I think all of us, including members of the teaching profession, are concerned when the trust that involves children and those who work with children is betrayed by anyone. So I want to emphasize that we are not looking in any way to protecting people, but we are looking at there being due process and no failure of that due process to be fair and just. We certainly don't want to put people in double jeopardy.

I might note in this regard that principals are summarily able to be dismissed according to this legislation, and I think that most people would see that that is not a fair system to have in place for those people working within the profession.

Finally, the college is responsible for professional development. This is in fact the heart of much of the work that involves the teachers' organization. The nature of professional development as it is described in the bill seems to me quite different from what we have known in the past as the focus for professional development. It has a lot to do with certification; it has a lot to do with upgrading. Both of those aspects of professional development are important, but it says little about the kinds of issues that teachers themselves raise around their need for professional development in a vastly more complex society than one in which our forefathers and even I taught in as a young teacher.

I don't think we can avoid having within the profession a recognition that social issues — and yes, Madam Speaker, political issues — are ones that teachers will be concerned with. Education is for life. It's not something that has us in an ivory tower with children who come to us as vessels to be filled or as people who don't bring with them all of the residue of the social issues of our time.

So poverty, the need for parents to have educational opportunity, the need for some children to have head starts, the problems of child care, after-school care, the concern for children with special needs: all of these are a part of professional development. Many of the things that happen in the way of professional development come out of the teacher's own recognition of these issues, and the initiative then comes from them to deal with professional development as they see it affecting their lives as teachers in the classroom with those little children in front of them and all the needs that those children — young and maturing — have.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say a brief word about the companion bill, Bill 19. I'll come back to my initial premise: that is, that the climate in which the work on this bill is taking place is one that produces incredible tension and stress. Bill 19 is in fact the companion piece for Bill 20. Teachers cannot deal with just the one bill, and I think it would have been and still would be very preferable to deal with that bill in all of its ramifications before we move ahead with another radical restructuring in Bill 20.

I am concerned that the education system return to a period of stability and growth. The process for Bill 20 is not conducive to that, and that is one of the reasons I am very concerned about our second reading of the bill at this time.

MR. REE: Madam Speaker, there has been great debate about the urgency of passing this bit of legislation — this Bill 20, which is a bill that I think the minister should be commended for. There is in a sense some urgency to have this as part of the law of this province.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation has grown to a fairly strong organization, an organization which at this point might be construed as a provincial union or bargaining agent for the teachers. It is an organization that might be construed as a professional representational organization for the teachers, and construed as a political organization. It is not absolutely either political, union or professional when it has this conflict. It has not got the courage to stand up as a political organization and run as a political party. It has not got the courage to stand up as a professional organization and insist on professionalism with its members. It has not got the courage as a bargaining agent or union to strike in a legal manner, to have its members operate as a union. It operates more as an intimidation organization towards its members.

By these three things, Madam Speaker, it is necessary that legislation be put in place to protect the students and the children of this province from the power of this organization. The education and the knowledge that we give our children is paramount to that of the teachers or, in a sense, the parents, because the students are the greatest renewable resource of this province. This legislation puts into place the means whereby students can receive a certain amount of protection; and the teachers themselves, from their own requests in the past, will receive a certain amount of protection. Yes, the legislation will in essence do away with a certain amount of the political power of the BCTF. If they wish to become a political party, they still have that opportunity. The BCTF can get its members the same as any other political party. Also, Madam Speaker, if it wishes to be a governing agent for unions or the representative of a number of unions — the 75 unions that are possible in this province after this legislation is enacted — it can do that, the organizing of it.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But the legislation also provides for the professional arm for teachers, and most teachers are professional, most teachers want to be professional, most teachers want to teach without interruption. That is their main goal, and we see most teachers doing that. We see them in their extracurricular activities, staying at school after hours and helping students. Those are the professional ones. We see the others, who leave at three o'clock or when school adjourns and run off to their BCTF meetings. They don't stay and do the work and give the extra help to the students the same as the others do, those who help with the ball teams, the plays, the tours, field trips and things like that. But no, most teachers — and the ones I've talked to in North Vancouver — certainly want to be professional.

[ Page 957 ]

But we've had the BCTF showing its irresponsibility in this last week. We've had them having teachers go out on illegal strikes. They've shown their lack of professionalism by instructing teachers not to carry on with extracurricular activity. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any other organization — union or otherwise — that tells a member they cannot volunteer their time. But that is what the BCTF is doing. I don't think the college will ever do that, because the college will be representative of teachers.

MR. MOWAT: Professionals.

MR. REE: Professional teachers. Thank you, Mr. Member from Little Mountain.

The college will not instruct their teachers not to give professional attention or extracurricular time to students. Mr. Speaker, that is why I support this bill, and that is why this bill has to become legislation in this province and cannot be delayed any longer.

MR. JONES: How does your bill address those concerns?

MR. REE: The bill addresses those concerns, Mr. Member, because it does create a professional arm for teachers, an organization that is professional, an organization that will have certification, discipline and education for teachers, and it will be run by the teachers.

I know there is a great deal of fear on the part of the opposition and the BCTF with respect to the college and the authority the college will have over teachers. That is probably because the opposition here do not understand what a professional organization is. They do not understand how it runs, even in a democratic society — any club or organization which has authority over its members. If you turn around and took at some of the others — the nurses' professional organization, the doctors' professional organization — all of them have their own bylaws and are run by their own members, and they all have a vote. I don't have any fear about this college organization dealing with its members,

I've heard various reports that say: "Oh, there will be three people there on discipline. The three government appointees will be able to discipline a teacher." I have far more confidence in the board of that organization of elected teachers than someone making such statements. They will not appoint the three government members to be the discipline committee. It's the board that appoints the discipline committee, and I am sure it will be representative of the board. Teachers will be administering any decertification, certification or discipline with respect to a teacher. Thus it will not be controlled by the government.

I have a great deal of faith. I don't run the teachers down as the opposition does by saying they will not look after their own members. I've listened to the opposition here today, and I actually believe the opposition is against teachers. They really have no faith and confidence in teachers. The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) spoke of there being a great bureaucracy. I don't believe there will be a bureaucracy, and I don't see any fear of this college. As I said, I have faith in them. I really do. I think they will do an excellent job professionally.

I've talked to representatives of the teachers in my constituency, and they did not have a great deal of respect for any professional courses put on by the BCTF. They said: "We in North Vancouver have better professional courses than the BCTF does." I'm willing to bet this college will have far superior professional training courses than the BCTF has ever had, because the BCTF in the last number of years has become a strictly political, power-grabbing organization. They have ignored the rights of teachers, they have ignored the benefit of teachers and they have ignored the professionalism of teachers.

I believe the bill is necessary. The last member for New Westminster . . . . I shouldn't say "the last member." The current member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) — maybe the last one — made a comment about making administrators or principals separate from teachers, and having separate authority, and their not being part of the union or association that is possible under the legislation. Mr. Speaker, last week we had a group of students from Shoreline Junior Secondary School on the front stairs of this building who had walked out. They'd walked out because the teachers had walked out the day before. They followed an example — a very poor example to follow, I might say. They came, and I spoke to them.

Mr. Speaker, I learned today that some of those students have been suspended. I also learned that on that same day they walked out, one teacher walked out with them. Some of the students were suspended by the principal — and I agree, they should have been. They should have stayed in school. I spoke to them, and I got after them, in a sense, for playing hookey from school. They should stay in there; their education is more important. Some of those students were suspended by the principal, but none of the teachers was suspended by the principal for walking out illegally the day before. The teacher who walked out with the students wasn't suspended. No action was taken against that teacher.

That, to me, is one small indication why principals should be separate, and part of management, so they can administrate impartially those that are under their direction — and that includes the teachers as well as the students. They should not necessarily be the hand-holder and compatriot of the teachers; they should be part of the management of the teachers within their school.

MR. JONES: Say that again.

MR. REE: If the hon. member wishes me to repeat it, I'd be quite happy to, but I think it would be simpler if he would read the Blues tomorrow, or stay awake now.

MR. JONES: I just couldn't believe what I heard.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in my riding Friday I had a school principal instructing the students on Bill 20. That principal told the students that the lack of extracurricular activity is because of the government. Bill 20 does not address extracurricular activity; they're taking that away from the students. That is what is going on in our schools today under the direction of the BCTF. I think it is — and someone else used this term earlier — dastardly. I think it's terrible and atrocious that certain people will do that to our students today. No wonder the students are confused and are walking out.

Mr. Speaker, I have arranged to go to speak to the students in that school in an open assembly, and I've asked for a member of the BCTF to come over and speak at the same time. I would like to find out the fears of the BCTF and why

[ Page 958 ]

they are against Bill 20. Bill 20 gives them a lot of the rights that they have been asking for. It gives them the right to bargain on behalf of teachers, or for a bargaining agent to be created on behalf of teachers within a school district — the right for the teachers themselves to have professionalism. There are a great number of rights granted to teachers as an organized body within Bill 20. Possibly the fear of the BCTF is that it's not quite in the same form they anticipated. They expected to be handed all these rights as an organization without having to work for it. Ask any union group that fought for certification — they face the real world when they look for certification — or employees when they look for decertification. This bill puts the teachers into a position of reality in the marketplace as far as unionism is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Bill 20, and I'm confident in its principle that it will be an established part of the law of this province.

Ms. Marzari moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inform the House that by agreement the House will not sit on Wednesday, May 6. I move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.