[ Page 959 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Ms. Marzari –– 959

Mr. Mercier –– 961

Ms. Edwards –– 963

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 966

Mr. Blencoe –– 968

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is a great pleasure for me this morning to introduce as a guest on the floor of the House the Hon. Jean Charest, who is the Minister of State for Youth from the government of Canada. I'd like you to help me to bid him welcome.

Also in the galleries we have several people from the federal government who are with the Minister of Youth this morning. Please bid them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, from another arm of government in the province of British Columbia is somebody who saw the error of his ways a year or so ago and crossed to become a good strong Socred — the mayor of Ladysmith. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Alex Stuart.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I'd like to ask leave for two select standing committees to meet later on today for organization purposes. They are the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts — pardon me, that's next Tuesday. Just for today, then, the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. Could I have leave for that committee to sit today?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

MS. MARZARI: When last I stood to speak to Bill 20, I spent some time discussing the nature of professionalism, the nature of what it is to be a teacher and an administrator inside the school setting; something about collegiality and the relationship between teachers, principals and parents. I also questioned the motives of the government for bringing Bill 20 up at this time and putting forward proposals that would, to the mind of the opposition and to the mind of much of the community, rip asunder the education system we presently have.

I want today to go on with some of these thoughts from the vantage point of being a parent, a member of the community, and very much a part of the community of interest that is expressing its dismay with Bill 20 at this particular time. I want to go on to talk about some of the assumptions and values, and some of the compromises that I make as a parent with the existing school system, and to discuss my feelings about what you must be thinking and what your values might be as you come forward with Bill 20. It's in this way that I hope that I can try to get some understanding of why you'd bring this piece of legislation forward at this particular time.

As a parent, then, I have troubles with the education system. Many of us do. I strongly believe, for example, that education is not something that is imposed on children from the ages of five to 16; education and enlightenment are in fact something that happens throughout life. It happens not in a linear process. Learning, judgment and wisdom are qualities which are developed over a lifetime of experience through different stages. It's more cyclical and circular than it is linear. The school system, in the minds of many parents, becomes an institutionalization of children for a period of their lives which was basically designed in the nineteenth century to teach children how to become good clerks. You know that and I know that, because we know the history of education and the history of public education.

My concerns, then, for education, as I send my children through the Vancouver school system, are that the educational system does not knock too much out of them; that they come out of the school system with a sense of fulfilment and a sense of confidence; that they can take on this life and move through it with reasonable ability and reasonable self-esteem. I'd also like the school system to open their minds. I'd like them to become involved with discourse. I'd like them to know how to deal with the community at large. I'd like them to have their minds open to new ideas and new ways of looking at things. I would like them to learn how to do research, how to find information. It's not important to me that they memorize by rote; it's important to me that they know where to get information when they need it and how to question that information with mature minds.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's the same objective that we have.

MS. MARZARI: I'm glad you said that, Mr. Minister, because we all have to make our compromises, do we not, with the education system? Because systems that we create to help us run a government, to help us create equal access to services, to help us create democratic institutions that serve the needs of our population, some of those institutions do become institutionalized and bureaucratized, and they must, by virtue of the fact that when government is in the business of regulating and imposing and governing, it develops bureaucracies. It's not a bad word, bureaucracy. We develop our own bureaucracies, and then we evaluate them and monitor them as we go. We try to make them as democratic as possible.

This is certainly one of the essences of education itself. We have reasonable expectations of progress as parents, for example. We compromise our ideas that our children will be the Renaissance people of the future. We know that our children make their own accommodations within the school system. But we consult, do we not, with the teachers and principals as parents. We talk to them at our local levels, wherever they are in this province, about what might be best for our children in the classroom. We have a reasonable expectation of progress. We read the report cards; we comment on them to our professional teachers, to the people who are guiding our children. We expect that the school will be responsive to our needs, and in fact most of us have been very happy in the process that the school is responsive to our needs, and that the school can be responsive to our children's needs, as we dress them and feed them each morning, and get them out the door, whether they want to go or not, and get to school. We expect certain standards of behaviour from the school system, and we expect our children to behave in a certain way. We expect that there is a partnership there

[ Page 960 ]

through discussion, through discourse, through communication, through the process that lasts for 13 years with our children — that we're going to have from this process a partnership.

So those are the accommodations we make as parents — education being lifelong, education expecting our children then.... We expect of our children that they'll get through the 13 years and come out better people, more socialized, able to express intelligent judgments. So we challenge the system each day as we go, virtually.

[10:15]

There's a lot of talk about these assumptions from both sides of the House, as the minister just said. But now that we come to Bill 20, I have to ask: are we really being pushed around by the same concerns? Are we really sharing our definitions of what education is all about? What is really driving Bill 20? Even more important, how have you handled your frustration with the education system?

It strikes me that your major concern is not about the institutionalization of kids and their enlightenment, but Bill 20 tells me you're more concerned about the abuse that teachers are making of the rights that they have now. You don't seem to be so concerned in Bill 20 about the lack of textbooks in the schools and the underfunding of the system.

You seem to be more concerned about competitive wages between the public school system and the private school system.

You don't seem to be engaging in the process of dealing with teachers and principals as a slow unfolding and a slow process of discussion, research, discourse, evaluation and slow resolution. You see, that is the stuff of which education is made, in my mind. You seem to have come out with a process which is exactly the opposite. This is worth talking about, because as you engage in this process of pushing Bill 20 forward, it becomes, in my mind, the antithesis of community education.

The letter sent out by the minister to the schools last week is symbolic of this attitude. What did you want this letter to achieve? That you had won a fight? That the underdog government could beat the big bully teachers? The promise that you, as the cabinet, were going to be out there supervising each grad ceremony in the province? That you can use teachers as conduits for your own individual and personal belief systems? Are you interested basically in using the classroom as propaganda and asking individual teachers to forsake their own value systems to read a letter?

I would like to read it into the record, Mr. Speaker. It's an open letter to all students in the province, which was read by all teachers, from the Hon. Anthony J. Brummet, Minister of Education, dated May 1, 1987:

"I would like to assure all students in the province that examinations and graduation ceremonies will not be jeopardized this year because of work-to-rule actions in some school districts. I have been asked by some students, deprived of extracurricular activities at school, why they are being punished in this way.

"This appears to be the choice of the same teachers who have voluntarily provided such services in the past. They have done so because of a professional interest in enriching the learning experiences of their pupils, and I expect most of them still feel that way. 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.

"I know it is frustrating for students who are not able to participate in these events, but I would advise any who are contemplating staying away from school as a form of protest to remain in their classes and to try to make their case in other ways.

"I have no doubt that principals and teachers will see that graduation exercises proceed this year, so no plans should be cancelled. After 12 years of schooling, students are entitled to a graduation ceremony. Grade 12 examinations will also proceed as usual, and students planning to enter college or university next September should not worry about having their marks submitted in time.

"I fully expect that common sense and good will will prevail to serve the best interests of students.

Anthony J. Brummet, Minister."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I might remind the member that you cannot use a member's name even when you're using a letter.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, I'm sorry.

This letter sets us up in a situation where the government is using — abusing — its power, taking a letter which deliberately throws, it seems to me, confusion into the students and deliberately provokes the teaching profession. To suggest that examinations are not a part of your job as the Ministry of Education, to suggest to the students that they might not be able to write their examinations, is a deliberate misrepresentation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did you read what they said?

MS. MARZARI: I want to say that you seem to be in the business of bullying the education system –– I want to ask you, now that you have agreed, now that you have suggested that we have the same values and the same definitions of education, which is reasoned discourse, gradual resolution through dialogue and democratic decision-making to resolution of problems, why you would get involved with the writing of such a letter, why you would get involved with the writing of such a bill; why you would not use instead the democratic decision-making processes, why you would not use discourse, why you would not use techniques other than bullying and power-tripping to deal with what you consider to be our frustrations with the school system. I can only suggest that the way you are in fact dealing with it creates the problem. You seem to be doctors who are creating the disease you want to cure.

What do you want of my children? Do you really want my children to fear and obey you? Do I have anything to say in this? What do you want of me as a parent? Do you want me to privatize my interest in education, now that I seem to know you don't want to use processes that in effect are educated processes? Do you want me to set up a private school where my children will be taught discourse, encouraged to think and given the supplies and textbooks they need so that they can hone their judgment? Do you want me to start a private school so that I can get cash grants and special textbook subsidies? What do you want of the teachers in my community? Do you

[ Page 961 ]

want them to take orders from you and read your letters in the classroom every morning? Do you really want to tell them exactly what it is they're going to teach or not teach?

We won't let you. Letting the narrow interests of a few people run away with a billion dollars plus in the education budget each year and demolish a profession is not something that we're in the business of doing on this side of the House. Making the public and private schools compete for students, teachers and money, dividing and conquering, is not what we're in the business of doing. You haven't done it very well, either. If you'd read Machiavelli, you'd probably have done a better job.

For the sake of getting back at the BCTF — this agenda seems to have come out much more clearly in the last few days. Yesterday the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) defined professional teachers as teachers who stayed after school, and non-professional teachers as those who ran off to BCTF meetings. Do you want to get back at the BCTF that badly — a machinery that you don't seem to understand very well? You want to get back at Larry Kuehn that badly? You want to score bully points with the teachers in the classroom? You want to undermine and kneecap the teachers? The only person I can think about reading at this point is Freud. Perhaps that is what you should be reading. Do you really want to hurt them that badly? What happened to you in your own educational systems when you were young that would make you want to turn on the educational system in this manner?

Bill 20 does the following. Sex education has finally come to the fore and is being addressed both by the press and by the school administrators and by teachers. It is time that it came out. It is tragic that it had to come out in the context of AIDS, which threatens our society and our culture as we know it. Finally we are talking about family life education and sex education. But Bill 20 basically says that it is prescribed. You are about to prescribe exactly how sex education is to be delivered in our school system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Show me where the bill says that.

MS. MARZARI: There is a group called Teen-Aid which has put forward briefs to the government urging that the Social Credit government adopt the approach of pushing sexual restraint based on the concepts of postponement and secondary virginity. Secondary virginity is when you really believe that you can once again become as pure as once you were, I gather, if you truly believe it — it is the doctrine of pure belief.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, it's something like born-again.

The ministry committee developing this sex education program, I gather, has seriously considered the ideas in this brief as the possible basis for the provincial program. Suppose that the decision is made and the provincial cabinet decides that postponement is the only approach to sex education that is to be taught, with no questions asked. What happens? What are the effects on the teacher of such cabinet prescription under Bill 20 and under the current law?

Under both circumstances the teacher has little control over how many students will be taught, what students will be in the class, where the course will be taught or what materials will be provided to teach with.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Where does it say that?

MS. MARZARI: The decisions are made by you with your budget, by the school board and the administrator with little or any input from the teacher affected.

But let's assume that the students are already assigned to the teacher and go back to sex education. Under the old law, the cabinet would approve a set of goals for sex education and approve or authorize some materials which would be supplied by the ministry to the school. The teacher under the old rules would be able to decide what method would be most effective for reaching the goals with the group of students. The materials supplied by the ministry might not be used, for example, if the students had a different reading level than the materials were provided in. The choice of methods has in the past been left largely to the teacher — just about the only decision in education over which the teacher has primary control. But this is taken away with Bill 20.

If we are assuming that we have a sex education program with no questions allowed, Bill 20 moves teaching methods out of the hands of the teacher into those of the central government. The teacher thinks there might be a better approach, such as allowing questions. The fundamentalist parent complains to the principal that the teacher is allowing questions. The principal responds by recommending that the high-school teacher be transferred to an elementary school out of the district; that happens in seven days and without appeal. Then the issue comes to the school board. Under Bill 20 the trustees simply decide that in the opinion of the board the teacher is unsuitable for the position held by him, and give 30 days' notice of firing. Under the old law, firing requires three reports of incompetent teaching, based on actual observations of teaching, rather than on the opinion of the board.

Should the teacher file a grievance, the ordeal is not over. The College of Teachers then jumps in to carry out its primary function: "getting" the teacher not already "got" by several previous layers of arbitrary authority. The disciplinary action initiated by the board against the teacher must be reported to the college. If an arbitration board overrules a school board, then that too gets reported. Any three members of the board of the college may now cite the teacher, call for a hearing, and suspend the teacher's certification and thus his or her right to teach.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, what does this government want? What does it want of me as a parent? What does it want of my children? What does it really want of the teachers? It is engaged in a process which is the antithesis of the process of learning and education that we all want for our kids and that we all like to think is a benchmark of civilized society. We are engaged in a process of dividing the teaching profession, weakening the teachers' organization, placing individual teachers' jobs in jeopardy, weakening the school board autonomy and, worst of all, promoting confrontation. I speak strongly against Bill 20, and I represent not just myself; I represent all of Point Grey as I say this.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act. Previously, speaking to the hoist motion, my comments were

[ Page 962 ]

critical of the management of our provincial education system in past years by all of those involved. There are many, including me, who feel the root of the problem was twofold: firstly, confusion about the status of teachers; and secondly, dissatisfaction generally with the financing formula and the restraint program when it was necessary to bring in the restraint program. Teacher and administrative salaries comprise a very high percentage of the school costs, so it's clear that teachers, like it or not, are at the root of the problem, firstly as to their status as professional or union-paid employees and secondly with respect to their remuneration.

Previously — say ten to 15 years ago — for whatever reasons, the conflicts among those involved in education were minimal, and the system benefited, as did the students. It seems that the more strident the BCTF became, the further apart those involved with education became. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the impact of the recent recession on education costs was, in the view of some, mishandled –– I referred to that in my earlier comments on Bill 20. The recession compounded the problems that are grown in the system: uncertainty, lack of confidence, failing trust and respect that each party had for the other parties in the education system.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The executive of the BCTF is now feeding on the disarray in the teaching profession. There are many excellent teachers who feel that they were wronged during the period of restraint, and the BCTF has not seen fit to lead them past that feeling. The BCTF has not seen fit to accept that the current Minister of Education is promoting a more positive relationship among those who are responsible for delivering education to our children — namely, the school boards, the ministry, the principals and the teachers. We all know that two wrongs do not make a right, so why has the BCTF executive ignored the simple logic? They are losing credibility with the public, because the public know the truth. They know the BCTF must not hold a grudge for what are perceived as past wrongs. They must not ransom the system and the children for their own gains or to entrench the BCTF structure.

Getting back to my view of the two main problem areas that got us to where we are today, firstly, with respect to remuneration and the financing formula, the current government can assure that education is highly regarded and that, on a global basis, it will continue to be funded as a priority. Teachers, educated as they are, should be the first to realize that the province has been through serious economic difficulty. We hope that is behind us.

I thought in the early 1980s there was absolutely no reason for a government to make political points when the restraint program was put in place. The restraint program was unnecessary in some parts, but very necessary in general; even though it was unwelcome, it had to be done for the long-term survival of the infrastructure we enjoy. It was wrong to make political hay, so to speak, from the imposition of restraint programs — in particular, programs that affected the school system. It seemed that those in the school system were among the last to realize the low level the provincial economy had deteriorated to. A more thoughtful communication of the facts by the government of the day and the BCTF might not have us in the fix we are in today.

In order to make peace these days, perhaps a starting point is to apologize for the part played by the government with respect to communications in those dark days, and the BCTF would do well to consider doing the same. Notwithstanding the wish to bring people together, as I referred to, it is sad that the BCTF executive are now resorting to misinformation solely to retain their structure.

They won't distribute the facts of the case to the teachers. They are not cooperating in conveying the positive messages that are contained in Bill 20 to their own members. The BCTF executive has created a propaganda barrier which prevents teachers from access to important information and consequently results in distortion of the facts.

In the same negative vein, they have actually encouraged civil disobedience, and I think that is a sad commentary for the education system generally. I believe that the BCTF executive in the future will look back and realize that what they have been doing these last few weeks was not really for the good of mankind. It was really their own selfish goal that they want to retain their organization as they see it.

I said earlier that the second thing that got us where we are today was the confusion about the status of teachers. Are they professionals, or are they union members? The answer before Bill 20 was yes, they were professionals; and the answer to the second question was no, they were not union members. The answer after Bill 20 will be yes, they are professionals; and yes, if they wish they can be union members.

Their professional matters will be handled by the College of Teachers. The College of Teachers will be governed by a council. On that council there will be 15 teachers elected from among their own on the 20-member council. If I was a teacher, I would really like to be on a College of Teachers council, and I would encourage other teachers to run for election to that council, because I know that with 15 of us on a council of 20, we could very well govern our own affairs professionally. We could discipline our own as they do in many other professions, as the chartered accountants have an association, and as they have on occasion had to discipline their own. The democratic part of the system permits an appeal of any decisions of the association in dealing with the discipline of members, and I am sure that will be the case with the College of Teachers.

Their union matters, on the other hand, for the teachers who choose by free vote to do so, will be handled by a body of teachers, perhaps the BCTF, set up by the teachers themselves to handle their collective bargaining. Should teachers not wish to form a union in a district, they will be able to set up an association to negotiate their contracts.

The point is that in either case the benefits currently enjoyed are expected to be embodied as common sense dictates in the agreements reached with the respective school boards. The government has heard for many years that certain teachers wanted the freedom to bargain as a union. Bill 20 permits that freedom and does not diminish any other of the freedoms or benefits now enjoyed by teachers.

I have been in contact with a number of teachers, and I have asked them to specifically write me on any items that they think will adversely affect them in the new legislation, apart from the structure that is intended to be in place. I have not received a response; I have not received a telephone call from any teacher who feels that they have lost a freedom. I would like to know if they could point out to me any freedom that they currently enjoy under the structure that is in place that has been taken away from them.

[ Page 963 ]

There hasn't been a response from a teacher, or from the BCTF, to specifically show that their rights have been diminished. In fact, those teachers that have taken the time to read the bill find that they have freedoms greater than they had in the former structure.

It is time for the BCTF executive to realize they are simply talking structure. They wish their structure to deal with the professional issues and collective bargaining. This would continue to mix the professional status with the union function. The government position, which we are confident is supported by the public at large, separates the two functions. It's logical, because the functions are incompatible.

It's difficult for me to conceive that a professional body would walk out and take illegal strike action over a matter of structure. They aren't talking about freedoms or rights that normal union bargaining leads to. They're talking about "their structure is better than our structure." It seems very petty, and history will reflect that it was very petty, particularly because they aren't addressing the matter of the freedoms, rights and benefits that will be governed inside whichever structure you would like to choose.

I think it's unfortunate that, because of the lack of information percolating down to the average teacher, who's more interested in doing his job than politicking, the information has led them to that course of action, because it's a severe course of action. Normally strikes are not taken over matters of structure. The action taken was regrettable; I don't think it was terminal. I think it was a political action. The BCTF should know that if it has a valid argument, it could take that argument to the polls at the next election. Perhaps they feel the subject will not be an issue beyond the current debate, so it created the situation of urgency. I think they're afraid to live with positive change. I'd like to think that those fears are unfounded.

You know, it was interesting that the minister sent a notice to the school boards to communicate to the students his assurance that exams will be set and marked, and that graduation ceremonies will proceed this year. The vice-president of the BCTF objected to that notice being circulated by the minister. Of course, the vice-president of the BCTF is forgetting that a simple statement of fact like that is perfectly within the purview of the minister. What it makes you wonder is: does the vice-president of the BCTF object to the fact that the exams will be set and marked and that the graduation ceremonies will proceed? I really can't conceive that he would disagree with the minister with respect to those two items.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the BCTF can see a peaceful way out of their predicament. I hope that they can make constructive criticisms of the details in the bill so that all of the matters contained can come out perfectly, and that the principle of the bill . . . . I hope they can find it in them to adopt the concept and the structure. I would leave that responsibility with them.

[10:45]

MS. EDWARDS: There's been a great deal of discussion, of course, about this bill, about whether or not it is open and whether the government is open — whether in fact the process with which this bill is being considered in this House is one that follows the promises that the government made when it came to government.

The government insists that it is open. It says: "We are an open government, and the teachers are...." I'm not sure whether they’re saying "perverse" or "stupid." In some way or another the teachers say this is not what they asked for, but the government says it is. So the question continues.

It is not just the teachers that are arguing this, but any number of people. I would like to read into the record part of a letter from the B.C. Home and School Federation to the Minister of Education, a copy of which was sent to the New Democratic education critic. It's signed by Carol Tiessen, the president of the Home and School Federation, and it says:

"While our consideration of this major change in the role of the BCTF is still ongoing" — and she refers to Bill 20 — "the board wished me to convey to you our concern that this legislation has been proposed at the same time as the Royal Commission on Education is just preparing for public input. We believe that the measures outlined by Bill 20 do not reflect the consultative process which you stated had led to your establishing the royal commission and which we believe is instrumental to its effectiveness. Of what benefit is a commission when many of the very matters that provoked its establishment are being changed as it is proceeding?

"We urge you to withdraw this proposed legislation and redraft it only after you have reviewed the findings of the commission."

"In expectation of your consideration, " she says. Well, that expectation is not going to be reached, because every message that we get from the government, from the Premier on down, is that: "We are a very open government, but we will not make changes in this legislation. We have decided what the teachers asked for, and we have decided that it will stay as it is. There will be no change in the legislation."

In fact, as we listen in the House and outside the House, it becomes clearer and clearer that this bill is really a bill that is designed to, if not destroy, then at least diminish the effect of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, which as we understand it is not only a bad organization, it's wicked and manipulative.

We have everything from the member for Langley saying there are problems . . . . Well, you could go on forever with what's in Hansard. And then outside the House, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) said the other day on an interview on CKNW that "the BCTF has really harassed teachers in a lot of cases, or certainly intimidated them." She went on to say: "You have to recognize that there are some philosophical differences in this society. The BCTF in 1983 endorsed the New Democratic Party." That is not a true statement, Mr. Speaker, but that is what the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey said. The BCTF has not endorsed any party in this province. She said they spent $195,000 on an election program that supported the New Democratic Party. Well, I am afraid that alleging that an organization — a democratically elected organization, by the way, led by elected people — endorsed a party is a very different thing from recognizing that the aims of that party may well have been those that coincided most closely with the aims of most of the BCTF.

I think it would be really . . . . I want to pursue this a bit, because the BCTF has been very careful not to endorse a party, and their political action campaigns have been designed to encourage their members to follow up and to support a party; but whichever party, it is of their choice. That is probably, Mr. Speaker, because the BCTF is a democratic organization. All the members have a vote, all the members are able to elect their executive, and that's what

[ Page 964 ]

happens annually. The BCTF has an annual general meeting at which they are allowed to nominate members and elect them.

I'm not sure why the government has decided that the BCTF elected executive does not represent the membership. We hear over and over again that the teachers in this province want to teach but the BCTF doesn't. I have a little trouble trying to define who the BCTF is if it is not the teachers of this province. Sometimes people say "the executive of the BCTF," but often it's "the BCTF." Well, fine; if the BCTF executive does not represent its membership, it seems very strange to me that it has been elected by its membership. I don't know of any democratically run organization in which there are not a few people who feel that their interests are not represented because they do not belong to the majority within that organization. Perhaps that's some of what the government sees, but if in fact it were not allowed to have majority votes, then maybe there would be something to it.

What's going to happen is that this bill, we are told, is going to give the teachers in this province freedom. All of a sudden they're going to be free to choose. Well, you know, what that means is they're going to be able to be free to choose whether they belong to an organization. Great — but it doesn't seem to me to be very different from the kind of attack that's going on, as if the government were attacking the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I know a few members of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who feel that the organization doesn't represent their interests all the time. I know a few people who belong to the B.C. Wildlife Federation who feel that that democratically elected group doesn't always represent their interests. I don't know if the government is going to take after the B.C. chambers of commerce when they start listening to a few members who feel that that organization — the democratically elected executive — does not necessarily all the time represent their interests.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They have a choice.

MS. EDWARDS: They certainly do have a choice, Mr. Speaker. I think that the idea of democratically elected organizations in this province is at risk if in fact the government can decide that one of those democratic leadership groups can be attacked because it doesn't represent all of them.

The issue is not, it seems to me, one of improving the educational system. The issue is one of control, and if you read the debate you will find that the words "discipline" and "control" come in from the government's side on a consistent basis. The government has decided that it must control teachers, and it's going to do that through Bill 20. How, in fact, it has decided to do that is by introducing an industrial model instead of a collegial model. I talked about this when I was talking about the hoist motion, but I think it would be useful to go into it a little more deeply with a little more detailed look at what's going on.

I heard the industrial model of organization described last night as a military model, and it became very clear that that seemed to be a good analogy. The people seemed to understand that if you have that model, it's like the military model. In fact, it is a pyramidal model. It starts with a very broad base, and it goes to a single point at the top.

Now at the top, as we all know in a war, we have to have a chief of staff, so for efficiency's sake — and that's what the industrial and military models are for, is the efficiency of the organization — you have a pyramid model. What happens with this model and in this bill is.... I wondered, you know, because when you first look at it, it seems almost as though there is a bit of a sharing below this top peak, but that's not the case when you begin to go into it a bit.

The school board, of course, has some power in this model, but in fact the school board is still regulated by the government, through the ministry by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is regulated from the centre, and anything that the college does — the college or the council of the college — or that the school boards do is still regulated by anything that happens in the government. So that pyramidal model is very clearly there.

Now what happens with that model is that whoever is on any level of the pyramid always has to report up. You've got to know what is happening up.... There is no responsibility to anybody who, in that diagram, happens to fall below you on the pyramid. That, as I say, has worked and has been used many, many times, and the organizational experts tell us that's how it happens and that's how it goes for a fairly.... It can be a fairly efficient type of organization.

If you try to transfer this kind of model onto education, where the task at hand is a little different than the task that you probably want with a military or industrial or commercial model, then you've got a model that is working against the function that you want to happen. The function has to be recognized as getting students to learn, allowing students to learn and having students learn, and in order to think of that you have to remember that teachers may teach all they like, but students don't always learn.

Is the object of this whole organization, this whole pattern, to have teachers teach as they're directed from above, or is it in fact to have the students, who make up the base of this whole model, learn? Now if a teacher stands and teaches whatever — what's been given from above, whatever professionally that teacher decides — if the student isn't learning, the function is not being carried out. In other words — and this is the crux of the whole issue — if that teacher is not responsible to that function, if the teacher is not responsible to the students and to the learning process within each of those students, then the process, the pattern, the whole structure is not what matters. When you have that kind of function to carry out, you should have what we call a horizontal organization, not a vertical organization.

Most of the moves in Bill 20 are designed to create a vertical organization, to take away the kind of collegiality that gives you a horizontal organization among peers — in other words, teachers — and to deny the fact that teachers and principals are responsible to the group who sit below them on a pyramid. You can't resist these forms all the time. If your model is on you and you must constantly be reporting upwards, you cannot put your efforts and all of your ability and your professionalism into the effort to be responsible to the whole group to which you should be responsible if you want learning to occur.

[11:00]

That is my major objection to Bill 20. It tries to take away the learning that will happen in schools, because it makes every teacher responsible to a principal who is now a manager who is responsible to somebody else up there. The whole business is a matter of control that can go down in the pyramid, instead of a function of learning which should be happening at the bottom with a horizontal model of organization.

[ Page 965 ]

If Bill 20 were designed for anything other than control, I think it would have a different model. Let's follow up on the business of where this bill goes. As I said, discipline is mentioned frequently in the bill. The discipline parts of Bill 20 are very interesting. The term being used to describe the position teachers are put in is "double jeopardy." The double jeopardy is the situation that's going to create the fact that they will have to be responsible on an upward model rather than a downward model.

Under Bill 20 any school board can dismiss a teacher for cause without notice, or they can give 30 days' notice for professional reasons of dismissal, or five peers can report on a teacher. If any of those things happen, this teacher is on the way out. It's no longer three unsatisfactory teaching reports, which is a situation that was wrestled over for years. Years of experience said that possibly three unsatisfactory teaching reports would put a teacher at jeopardy. Now you can be dismissed without notice, or with 30 days' notice for professional reasons.

After this point, if a teacher belongs to a union, the union can work with the teacher to grieve the issue. If the teacher belongs to an association, that teacher can ask for a board of reference. If that board of reference convenes and looks into this issue, it's the final word. There is no appeal to whatever that board of reference decides.

However, let us suppose that the teacher, either through the grievance procedure or through the board of reference, was exonerated and it was found that that teacher should not have been either given notice of dismissal or dismissed. That doesn't matter, because the council of the College of Teachers can still call an inquiry into the same issue. This inquiry can be called not only by any three members of council — and I believe this has been said before, but I think it's important to restate it. There are five members on the council who are not elected by the teachers, and it only takes three members of council to call an inquiry. They could easily be members of the council who are not elected teachers, not the peers, or in fact this inquiry could be called by the chairman. One person could call this particular inquiry.

So at the behest of a single person we could now have an inquiry into an issue that has already been decided at the board level and at the level of board of reference or grievance. This teacher can now be required to go into a whole new business of an inquiry. Again, once the inquiry has been called, the teacher can be suspended by three council members who agree.

MR. SERWA: That's not so.

MS. EDWARDS: That's what it says in the act. Why wouldn't it be so if it's in the act, Mr. Member for Okanagan South? I can't imagine why it would be in the act. It says that they can be suspended at the insistence of three council members. Two of them may have to be the chair and another member of the discipline committee, but they are three council members.

What the council can do in its inquiry is make orders about the professionalism of that teacher or board matters. It says that the council could lift the teaching certificate for conduct unbecoming a member of the college, or for having incompetently carried out duties undertaken by him in his capacity as an employee of the board. I know this sounds as though it's fairly solid, but what has happened is that this teacher who has already gone through one process is now going through another process and could have his certificate lifted because he had undertaken duties in his capacity as an employee of the board that he had incompetently carried out.

I find that very dangerous, Mr. Speaker, because of the little I know about teachers and what happens with the duties that they have to carry out for school boards. Since restraint, there have been any number of teachers who have been required to teach subjects for which they are not particularly well qualified. If they want their job, they had better take this particular subject whether they want to or not. I'm sure that what you're saying is, "The council should require that teacher to be totally professional and say: 'I don't know how to teach phys ed, "' but you know as well as I do that no teacher is going to do that if that means his whole job. And everybody says: "Oh, sure you can teach phys ed. We'll give you all the support we can." But if a teacher does that, that teacher is then in jeopardy, is then under threat. He can then lose his whole teaching certificate for incompetently carrying out duties undertaken by him — or her, I would say, but the act says "him" — in his capacity as an employee of the board.

This whole thing also happens, and — as the bill says, "if the bylaws permit" — we are not sure that this is what's going to happen, because in fact we are asked to pass a bill that says that maybe this will happen if in fact the bylaws that the council puts forward. which must meet the regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may allow this kind of thing to happen. So in fact we're looking at a very difficult situation as to deciding where the principles are in this bill.

There is also in this whole business some confusion of board and council tasks, and it seems that . . . . Can they both get the teacher cited on non-professional or non-servant items? The board can notify a teacher that they would like to dismiss that teacher on unprofessional grounds. Granted that has to go to the council, but the board is making those kinds of decisions. Then the council can have a certificate lifted on the grounds that that teacher did not behave properly in the master-servant relationship with the employer, who is the board. The teacher is being told by the board on both cases and by the council on both cases and can go through a whole process that may have them go through at least three processes.

That is interesting in comparison to the government's proposal that the school teachers themselves are incapable of handling professional and bargaining matters in the same organization. It's very interesting that the teachers who have been doing it for 70 years in British Columbia and the teachers who do it across the country they say can't handle professionalism and bargaining; however, school boards now can dismiss and councils can discipline on these bases and the whole thing is fine for everybody else but the teachers — who of course currently belong to the BCTF and we don't like the BCTF, so let's get them out of there. It is a most suspicious direction for the bill to go, the bargaining and professional separation for teachers.

May I, Mr. Speaker, again read into the record a letter that was sent to the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), the critic for the New Democrats on education? This is from a teacher in British Columbia.

"I'm very concerned with the proposed legislation. In particular, Bill 20 appears to be a punitive action against the BCTF and teachers in general. The degree of commitment and professionalism amongst teachers in British Columbia far exceeds that which I

[ Page 966 ]

encountered previously in Britain and Germany. I attribute this to the collegial model that exists in the schools and the leadership provided by the Teachers' Federation. The new legislation will effectively destroy this collegiality, with school administrators becoming managers and our parent organization nullified. I urge you to do all you can to prevent this legislation, in its present form, from becoming law."

I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are more members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation who think that way than who are dissatisfied. Otherwise I think that the executive of the B.C. Teachers' Federation would be someone else. It would be someone who represents other interests than the BCTF is currently showing that it represents.

Another thing that will happen under this bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the whole business of advocacy for children. The BCTF has said, and I think has proven it — and many people in this province believe it has proven it — that it is an advocate for the children in the education system. There's no question that they are also advocates for themselves in their professional areas and in their bargaining areas, but they have been advocates for children. Under Bill 20, the likelihood of that carrying on is very limited. In fact, you will have these groups . . . . You will have the College of Teachers, which will be far more closely represented . . . . In other words, there will be fewer representatives in that body than there are currently on the BCTF — people who speak for the whole group.

There will be only 15 in the college. These people will become the people to whom most questions of professional teaching and education will be referred. Everybody, as the government expects, will say: "The BCTF is just a union, so you don't talk to them about education." What will happen is that this college . . . . And if you look at Bill 20 and see all of the things that the college is supposed to do, you talk about admissions and dismissals and discipline and management and tasks of vice-principals and so on; all of these things are management tasks. The whole thrust for the college is going to be control of the teachers and how they are allowed to do their job. That role will be controlled by the college, and that will be regulated by cabinet.

MR. R. FRASER: It's regulated by cabinet now.

MS. EDWARDS: Right.

If you look at section 23, "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may disallow a bylaw respecting the training, qualification or certification of teachers . . . ." So the college will be much more a body that will be looking at the discipline of teachers instead of advocacy for children, or the betterment of the whole education system.

The vice-principals and principals, as we've said, will be separated from their peers. They will now no longer be able to be members of the same organization. They will be given specific tasks that will prevent them from operating in a collegial way with the teachers in their own school. They will continue to have bargaining and professional functions, but at the control level again. They will continue to have to represent the board, instead of representing their peers . . . and what goes on in the classroom, and the everyday conditions that apply to the teachers when they're interacting with the children and trying, if the system is doing what it should be doing, to have the children learn.

The principals and vice-principals are stripped of their bargaining rights for themselves — that's fairly clear. They would be excluded from collectively negotiating the terms and conditions of employment. They will be required to perform primarily managerial functions, including assisting the board on collective bargaining matters, helping to resolve disputes between the board and teachers, and making recommendations to the superintendent of schools on the reassignment, suspension and dismissal of teachers. They will be subject to dismissal by the board at any time, with or without cause, and without any right to appeal under the act. They will be subject to reassignment at any time on seven days' notice, without the right to a review or an appeal. So their rights themselves are basically taken away, and they don't have the right, then, to appeal in the law courts. They will be evaluating their peers. Again, what you lose is the collegial model.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Hon. member, your time under standing order 45 has expired.

[11:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate and speak in support of Bill 20. I am sure that by now everything pertaining to this bill must surely have been said. I've listened, day after day, diligently to both sides; when I'm not here, I have the speaker on. I think I've heard almost everything there is to be said about this bill. I think a few things have even been invented — fabricated, if you like. When there was something that wasn't there that someone wished to attack, they invented it and then attacked it. We heard a pretty good example of that when the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was speaking. I'll come back to that in a moment.

It's been dissected and interpreted, and we have had pyramids built on it now and horizontal models and all the rest of it. I really don't think that going into clause-by-clause analysis of this bill is going to serve any purpose at the moment. We will do that in committee, I am sure; we will go through it word by word.

For the moment, I would like to address the overriding philosophy that is pervading this debate, especially from the other side of the House. A few points first of all. I do sometimes take objection to the old phrase that we hear when someone disagrees with you: "You obviously just don't understand." I hear that coming from the other side with regularity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to everyone in this House, and for the record, that I think we understand very well. I understand Bill 20 as well as anyone, I think. I've been through it clause by clause, being a member of the legislative committee of cabinet. I have also had the opportunity to talk to several parents and teachers, including principals and vice principals, in my own constituency. I think many of them are now starting to understand what Bill 20 says. Up until the last few days, maybe a week, a lot of them didn't understand, but now that they are getting copies of the bill and starting to go through it, they are starting to understand. We are hearing the comments from them that they are really not worried about what is contained in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad, once again, that the, students are used to fight a political battle. We saw it before, and we are seeing it again. The students are being the pawns in a political battle. I don't think there is really any need for the executive

[ Page 967 ]

of the BCTF to do that, but they seem to want to. Just to make my point, I look at a few of the headlines. "Teachers' Move Kills Track Meets." Now why in heaven's name would any teacher or group of teachers, if they weren't directed to, want to kill a students' track meet? Purely political, so as to get at the politicians through the students. Let's make it inconvenient and uncomfortable for the students so that they go home and tell their parents: "Look what that nasty government is forcing the teachers to do to us."

Statements such as made by Mr. Myers of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, like this, really alarm and upset me: "The Fed is also angry that Brummet has urged students to stay in class." Isn't that terrible — the Minister of Education urging students to stay in class. And an executive of the B.C. Teachers' Federation finds that hard to believe. "School disruption is only a taste of what is yet to come if this bill is rammed through."

I would like to iterate the feelings of a lot of people on this side of the House that it is truly sad when these people have to use the students to fight their political battles. What we are witnessing here, Mr. Speaker — make no mistake about it — is a political reaction to a piece of legislation, purely a political reaction by the executive of the BCTF. It is not a response to a legislated change or to a solution to long-standing problems; it's strictly a political reaction. I will prove my point in a moment, because I'm going to quote from a letter from the president of the BCTF.

This bill is seen, I am certain, as a means of politicking in tandem with the B.C. Federation of Labour on Bill 19. I think the marching orders are loud and clear. They come from the top, from Cliff and the boys at the B.C. Federation of Labour, through Elsie McMurphy on the BCTF, down through to the opposition sitting on the other side of the House. Those people beat the drum, and these people march to it. We can hear it in the House day after day after day: "You get in there and attack this bill."

I sense even a sense of embarrassment on the part of some of the speakers over there when they have to get up and speak against this legislation. There must be embarrassment, because they are now making up things that don't exist in the legislation; inventing situations, such as the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey inventing a scenario of what would happen to a teacher, when a great deal of what she invented was not even in the bill. So I do sense a great deal of embarrassment coming from that side of the House as speaker after speaker gets up to try to attack what is essentially a good piece of legislation and essentially what was asked for by the teachers of the province.

What I want to do now to prove that point is read from a letter addressed to the hon. Premier. I want you to make note of the date of the letter, because it was written on March 25 of this year. Bill 20 was introduced into this House on April 2, approximately a week later. To the Premier:

"Dear Mr. Vander Zalm:

"I am writing on an urgent basis to seek an early meeting with you.

"Our recent annual general meeting, attended by some 650 delegates elected to represent teachers around the province, made it clear that continued wage controls and denial of full, free collective bargaining are not acceptable and can only lead to further disruption in our province's education system."

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that the disruptive process was already planned before the legislation was introduced; but not only that, the two points that Mrs. McMurphy makes — the removal of wage controls and the granting of free collective bargaining — were given in the bill. Yet the disruptive process still continues.

"The delegates overwhelmingly authorized the federation's executive committee to proceed with a plan of direct job action on a provincewide basis if these problems are not rectified."

Clearly a plan of action a week before the bill was introduced into the House. So tell me it's not purely politics; purely politics coming from the executive of the BCTF.

"It is important to make every reasonable effort to avoid the actions contemplated — our school system needs fair treatment, not further strife, if it is to be the bedrock of our new economy.

"That is why I think it is essential that we have an opportunity to convey the urgency of our concerns to you, our need for a fair, free, full collective bargaining system, and to ascertain what measures you will be taking to redress these long-standing grievances."

A week before they saw the bill.

"I trust that you share my sense of urgency."

Now when we're trying to pass Bill 20 to give them exactly what is in this letter, they don't like our sense of urgency. We now have the sense of urgency, and they want to hoist it for six months and modify it, etc.

"I hope you will be able to arrange such a meeting in the next week or the earliest possible date thereafter to try to avoid escalation of this situation."

A week before the bill was introduced — "try to avoid escalation of this situation."

"I will be available to suit your schedule.

"Yours very truly,
Elsie McMurphy."

I'll make a copy of that available to the House if you wish, Mr. Speaker, but I think it points out very clearly what the agenda is. The agenda has little or nothing to do with bettering the situation in the education system. It's purely a political thing that's being perpetuated day after day after day. I heard the member who just spoke — from the Kootenays, I believe — talk about the philosophy of the teachers' college. The philosophy of the teachers' college does not suit that member, because it doesn't suit the BCTF. The BCTF, in my estimation, wanted control of the whole thing. They wanted all the marbles. They wanted to be immediately certified as provincewide bargaining agent for all the teachers, and also have the powers of the disciplinary college — to be able to discipline teachers and be the professional body. It didn't happen, and now they're all upset. Well, as has been said by many members on this side of the House, the two are incompatible. You cannot be the bargaining agent for a group and also its disciplinary and professional agent. It doesn't happen with the doctors or any other group that I know of. The member mentioned that there are going to be members in any organization who don't always agree with their executive. Of course there are going to be. But in the other instances she mentioned, such as agriculture, wildlife federations and chambers of commerce, those people had a choice, and still have a choice, as to whether or not they wish to belong to the organization. If the organization makes too many decisions they don't like, they can opt out. At the present moment teachers cannot. If they don't like what the

[ Page 968 ]

executive of the BCTF is doing, they can't opt out, because membership is compulsory.

We hear a good deal about how we're destroying the collegial atmosphere among principals, vice-principals and teachers. We've got a new buzzword now, a brand-new word, "collegial," and almost every member over there has used it. There can still be collegiality among principals, vice-principals and teachers. That doesn't mean they can't be good managers. I know many good managers in business — and I'm not ashamed to link it with the business model — who have a rapport, if you like, or collegiality, if that's the word, with their employees, and they get along very well with them; in many instances they work side by side with them. But they're still good managers, they don't belong to the same trade union as the people they're working beside, and it works very well.

So I don't really see a problem with the philosophy of the teachers' college. The teachers control that college; they have by far the biggest say on it — 15 members, so they totally control it. I think it's a red herring being thrown up and bandied about by almost every speaker who gets up on the other side.

I want to make it clear that I think it's the leaders in both cases, when we come to both bills, Bills 19 and 20. It is the leaders, the politicians of their organizations, who are calling the tune. It's not the rank and file, not from the ones I have talked to. I have had meetings with tradesmen in my constituency. Yes, I have had meetings with their leaders too: with the president of the Kamloops and District Labour Council and four or five others just last Friday. But I have had individual people come in and say to me: "It's about time you introduced this kind of legislation."

So I don't think that the leaders in either of these cases speak for the majority of the people in their organizations. Many of their leaders are still fighting the last election, and they see this as a way of keeping it going. The more I hear from the other side, the more I am convinced that they are beating the drum, and everyone else is falling in line and marching to the drum.

[11:30]

Reference has been made to the letter written by the Minister of Education to the students. I think the letter was perfectly in order, Mr. Speaker. Having read it, I don't see anything political in it at all.

The minister clarified for me that he didn't ask teachers to read the letter, as was said from the other side of the House; he asked school boards to make sure that students were aware of this letter, in whatever way they deemed fit. We should clear that point up, because it was said a couple of times over there that teachers were forced to read this letter to the students. That is not correct.

I don't think the letter was political at all. Having looked at it, I think it really guaranteed the students that they wouldn't lose a year of school, that they would get their final examinations, that the examinations would be marked, and that they would have a graduation ceremony. I don't think that is too much to guarantee students, especially those who have put in 12 long, hard years to get their high-school graduation certificate.

It is the same . . . . I will repeat as best I can some of the remarks I made regarding Bill 19. It depends whose ox is being gored here. It is the leaders of both the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Teachers' Federation that stand to lose a lot of their power and authority. It is those leaders who are upset, and it is those leaders who are calling the tune or beating the drum, if you like, and using the one method that they always seem to use: "Let’s get at the government through the children. Let's get to the students, therefore to the parents, and therefore to the government." Instead of fighting the battle, if they want to become a trade union — which I suppose they are going to be, a lot of them — then fight the battle on the basis of being a trade union.

I have had several phone calls from principals and vice-principals in my constituency, and they seem to like the new setup. It is something they have wanted for a long time. So I don't think the members over there are correct when they say that principals and vice-principals don't like the management setup proposed under the new legislation.

In closing, I just want to say once again that I think most of us understand the situation very well — in fact, some of us a lot better than others would like. I understand what is happening in the education system in this province, and I was party to a good deal of the drafting of the legislation and the debate on it that takes place before it comes into this House, and I'd be the first to admit — and I think the Minister of Education would be too — that it's not perfect, and he has offered to clean up any situations that need cleaning up. He has guaranteed the teachers that their pension plans and their sick leave would be safe, yet we continue to see . . . . They keep throwing that up on the television screens as being one of the things they're worried about, when the minister has guaranteed them that they have no need to worry. So having said that the minister will clean up any errors in drafting or any oversights or any places where the legislation is flawed . . . . But the philosophy and the intent will stay. It's a very long, complex bill. Naturally it's not going to be perfect. We will do our best, I'm sure, during the clause-by-clause debate in committee to make it as perfect as we possibly can.

I sincerely hope that in the ensuing days and weeks saner heads prevail and that those on the front lines teaching the children realize — as I'm sure they do — that the important thing is the education of the students and helping them finish out this year, especially those in grade 12, the last year of their public school education. I have no objection to them continuing their political fight, but let's do it in the political arena. Let's do it as any trade union movement has a right to do — and I would defend that right, as I've said before. Let's do it in the proper arena in the proper fashion, but let's not do it at the expense of our children and the students in the schools. So I sincerely hope that saner heads prevail over the next week, two weeks or months as we go into the summer, and that we get on with the job, keeping the students in mind, and get on with the idea of being professionals, of being professional teachers. I firmly believe that most teachers out there are professionals. The ones that I know certainly are. I'm sure that, as we get further into the bill and they understand it more fully and further, this type of thinking will come to the fore and we'll get the fight — if that's what is required — out of the classroom and into the political or labour-management field where it belongs.

MR. BLENCOE: Please excuse me today; I've got a bit of a sore throat and a cold, so I will try and get through the next 25 minutes as quickly as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's interesting.

[ Page 969 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I may not do it all. I'll speed it up.

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned this morning, as we have been concerned during a lot of the debate, during the hoist motion and during second reading, at the government members twisting, turning and trying to portray those in the teaching profession as wanting to — on purpose — hurt children. That is really disturbing. In this House and in the political arena things are said, twists and turns are made; but when you have a government and many members . . . . I've heard many speeches. I've sat and listened to them, either in here or in my office, and I hear, I think, the vindictive twists of government members trying to portray teachers, who spend a long time getting their degrees at university, going back summer after summer to get upgrading . . . . When I hear many of these members saying that teachers are trying to hurt the children or hurt the system through their actions and that they're doing it on purpose, I find that really disturbing.

MR. SERWA: We're not saying that.

MR. BLENCOE: No? You know, who put the teachers in this position? Who introduced this legislation? Who decided to confront, once again in the province of British Columbia, but the Social Credit Party and the government? Nobody else.

Everybody was hoping for some peace and tranquillity and consultation, and for some consensus on the critical issues of our day, issues that make up our future, our children . . . . There are no others; they are our future. I hear this twisting and turning by government members that teachers are wanting to do what they are currently doing now in terms of protecting their profession and protecting the interests of children and the schools they work in — that they're doing this to hurt children. I find that absolutely scandalous. It's shocking, Mr. Speaker, and all these government members who have twisted this issue should reflect on their comments.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I've been around this House long enough that when you speak and the chamber's this empty and when you make certain comments and you get a reaction, as we're getting this morning, you know you're hitting home with some truth. They know that they've twisted this bill and turned it, and what they've done . . . . They didn't have to bring this bill onto the floor of the Legislature at this time. They could have had further discussions and tried to achieve some consensus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tough Guy Two.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right, Tough Guy Two. Patrick Kinsella and Tough Guy Two are back. We heard the Premier on the weekend saying: "We can't back down."

We can't achieve what he's saying; we can't achieve consensus in one of the most critical areas in our province, our education system; and that is so sad. We debate this piece of legislation. We tried to have it hoisted. We tried to indicate to the government that indeed the Minister of Education last Friday said there were some things he wanted to do, and I said to him: "If you're right in what you're saying, so be it, but sit privately with those who represent the thousands of teachers and the children of this province. Sit privately and quietly, not in here but in your office or wherever, and work this out and achieve some consensus." I think the chance is still there, but what have we got? We're still battling it out in here, and it's the old confrontation that the people of the province of British Columbia are sick and tired of.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: What do we get? We get the inane remarks from the member for Saanich, the Oral Huberts of Saanich. What does the Oral Huberts of Saanich say in this House? Some inane remark, when we are talking about children, our teachers and our future. That's what we are talking about.

We have tried diligently over the last few weeks to get this government to come to its senses, to live up to the great promises that it made in the last few months. We've had six months of government and a month of campaigning, with them saying: "Things will be different in the province of British Columbia. We believe in talking to people. We believe in working out problems, and we don't believe in confrontation. The Bill Bennett style of government was totally inappropriate for this great province."

Well, the tough guy is back. The old style of government is back. When we have the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), and we have the member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and other members who say this government is a government of consultation but not of consensus, that tells the people of British Columbia that we are still in trouble in this great province.

Why aren't you consulting without having this legislation in this House right now? Why aren't you doing it privately and working it out, as you do with other professional groups? Every single professional group in the last 50 years that has had changes to their acts or changes to the way they do business has been handled in a process of achieving consensus and real consultation.

Why the teachers? We've heard the speeches by certain members. We know the Premier's record on the teachers. I'll quote him again: "I think the problem is with the B.C. Teachers' Federation." That's what the Premier thinks. That's what the member for Langley thinks. I am going to go through the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) before lunch. I'll cover some of the incredible remarks from that brilliant member about his attitudes towards teachers and their organizations.

MR. REE: You weren't even here at the time.

MR. BLENCOE: Unfortunately for you, Mr. Member, it's in Hansard.

[11:45]

But why the teachers? Why not take the same approach that has been taken with doctors, lawyers, orthodontists, chartered accountants and various other professions — discussions are currently going on with the engineers — about how they should do business in the province of British Columbia? Is it because this government feels that teachers are not a professional organization? Do they have some antiquated, outdated view of teachers and the education system that belongs back in the frontier days of the province? Is that the problem?

The B.C. Teachers' Federation and the thousands of teachers it represents are a professional organization. They

[ Page 970 ]

deserve better treatment by this government. They are on the front line in terms of teaching our children and giving them the ability to handle a changing world — and changing very fast, Mr. Speaker; sometimes they're changes we don't all like. They're there trying to equip our young people for the modern world, for the post-industrial revolution that is upon us. They're there every single day trying to help those children gain the education they need to work in a changing world.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're protecting the BCTF.

MR. BLENCOE: There's another remark. You see, that's where we come . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. BLENCOE: "You're protecting the BCTF." That's what it comes down to, isn't it? You cannot get your minds off the floor to think that this organization and the teachers of this province are part of our great future. You know, it's time for a better attitude to those men and women who go to school, go to university, go back every summer and try to equip themselves for a changing world. Every single year many of them — thousands of them — go back for their summers. And I know many of them. They give up their summers, give up their families, and go back to school because they're concerned about preparing those young people for the future. What does this bill do to help those teachers equip themselves to help our young people?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It gives them freedom.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it gives them freedom — the right wing dogma and rhetoric that we have heard over and over again from worn-out right-wing governments: "It gives them freedom," Mr. Speaker, "freedom."

We can see no reason or justification for this bill other than that a vindictive, small-minded, ultra-right-wing extremist government has decided to declare war on the teachers in the province of British Columbia — that's what it's all about. They're going to shoot the messengers. They're going to take care of the teachers who try to prepare our young people for the future. That's what it's all about.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) says the problem with teachers is the BCTF and quotes some obscure articles of a committee that says the BCTF is full of these undesirables. Heaven forbid that a teacher would talk about current affairs in the schoolroom. Heaven forbid that a teacher would talk about what's happening in the world and what's happening with this province and the Social Credit government when it puts 75 percent user fees on old folk. God forbid that those teachers would talk about what this government is doing to the people of this province. Well, that's the message this government is giving to the teachers, to the children and to the future of our education system.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Somehow, for various reasons — which I will not canvass today — the BCTF and the teachers have got under the skin of the Premier. And he's on record as saying: "One day, I'll get the teachers. We'll figure it out. That's the problem." And it's come right out of the — where is it? — the west annex over here. That's where it has come from. It's vindictive legislation. It splinters the teachers. It hurts the system, and it hurts the kids in that system.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: This government had the opportunity a few weeks ago, if it was serious about consultation, if it could ever accept that consensus can work — and when you're dealing with this issue, we need consensus — to say: "Yes, we've got a bit of a problem." You can't just put down every single teacher, saying: "Oh, well, it's just the executive of the BCTF that's upset." You can't sell that; it won't sell. So you had a chance to step back and say: "Well, maybe there are some problems here in the province of British Columbia with our education system." Step back. Maybe there are some things that could be worked out privately that the teachers could accept in a fair . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Capitulate, that's what you're saying.

MR. BLENCOE: You see, there we are.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Leadership.

MR. BLENCOE: There's the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It comes out of them when we hit home with the truth: they're going to capitulate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's called leadership, good government.

MR. BLENCOE: It's win-win. It's like a hockey game to you, isn't it? You've got to put the puck in the net, and you've got to win every time. You've got to win despite the kids and the system and the teachers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, that's the attitude. They want to win. Well, that was the attitude of Bill Bennett; that was the attitude of the Kinsella image and the tough guy. They've got to win at all costs: don't back down, don't save face, don't consult, don't achieve consensus. No, Mr. Speaker, the old government is back. It's a little more sophisticated, this new government. We've got a Premier today who uses smile and guile; that's what happens today. A little more smiling, a little more guile than the former Premier, but it's the same style of government.

Mr. Speaker, all we're asking for and have asked consistently in this debate on Bills 19 and 20 is for some reason, for some rationality, for some consensus and for some consultation. You're not talking about a minor league hockey association rule change. You're not talking about that, Mr. Speaker. We're talking here about a gigantic change in the game plan for how we run our education system in the province of British Columbia. Whatever you say, whatever the members say — and they try desperately — that they

[ Page 971 ]

consulted about this.... The minister will get up and say he told everybody it's fair, and they understood. No, Mr. Minister, you didn't tell the professional teachers what you were going to do. You didn't.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I did.

MR. BLENCOE: Give them the same opportunity you give other professional groups. That's fair. That's the open government that that smile-and-guile Premier keeps talking about. That's the open government that the people of British Columbia want to see. That's what they were hoping would come with the change of government, Mr. Speaker. Nothing's changed.

Prove me wrong, Mr. Minister. This afternoon say you no longer want to continue with second reading debate. Prove me wrong. Say this afternoon that you will no longer continue second reading debate, that you will hold it off for a week and you will sit down with the B. C. Teachers' Federation and actually achieve some consensus, and do the very thing that you promised you'd do, or your Premier promised you'd do — that this government would be different. Mr. Speaker, this government is not different.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I am really disappointed I'm not going to get to go through the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree). I am really disappointed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REE: I'm disappointed too.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no. It just points out that this government is on a search-and-destroy mission when it comes to the teachers and their organization — search and destroy — as was Bill Bennett and the old government, and as now is clearly the new government under the new Premier.

Let me read into the record the motions passed by the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association, in a large meeting held on April 8 here in greater Victoria. Here, Mr. Speaker, are the motions by the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association, endorsed by the teachers from greater Victoria:

"(1) That we, the teachers of school district 61 . . . at a meeting held in Victoria, B.C., on April 8, 1987, reaffirm our commitment to maintain the goals and purposes of the BCTF and to confirm our determination to continue the BCTF as the democratic organization that represents and acts for all teachers in all professional, educational and employment matters.

"(2) That the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association expresses its dismay at the process used by the government to introduce Bill 19 . . . and Bill 20 . . . without a responsible consultative process involving the BCTF as our representative professional association.

"(3) That the GVTA is opposed to the separation of teachers' professional responsibilities and bargaining rights as reflected in the proposed College of Teachers; and further, that the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association opposes changes in the membership of the BCTF with regard to the role and duties of principals and vice-principals.

"(4) That the GVTA is opposed to the retention of wage controls over teacher bargaining for another year.

"(5) That the GVTA is opposed to changes to the Labour Code/Industrial Relations Reform Act which weaken the rights of all organized workers.

"(6) That the GVTA is opposed to the proposed arbitrary and unilateral cancellation of due process, tenure and benefit rights of teachers.

"(7) That the GVTA call on the government to delay consideration of Bill 19 . . . and Bill 20 . . . to allow the appropriate consultation with the BCTF to take place."

Mr. Blencoe moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.