[ Page 973 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

All-party committee system. Mr. Harcourt –– 973

Royal Inland Hospital board of directors. Mr. Miller –– 973

Deductions from GAIN benefits. Mr. Cashore –– 974

National day-care policy. Ms. Marzari –– 975

Tabling Documents –– 975

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 975

Mr. Jacobsen –– 976

Mr. Lovick –– 977

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 980

Mr. Guno –– 982

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 984

Mr. Stupich –– 986

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 990

Mr. D'Arcy –– 992

Ms. Campbell –– 995

Mr. Barnes –– 997

Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR403). Mr. De Jong

Introduction and first reading –– 999

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the first and second members for Richmond obviously get a disproportionate number of calls to the office, and regularly so. But we're very blessed with a group of wonderful volunteers, who dedicate all their time regularly. They are in the House today, in your gallery, and I would like to introduce them: Lyn Greenhill, Lucy Zapf, Sylvia Howard, Jan Truer, Lorea Szabo, and the constituency secretary, Maria DeVries. I would ask the House to extend them a big welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming two visitors from Alberta: Bill and Delores Stuart. Bill is the president of District 18 of the United Mine Workers of America, and participated in the community task force for selling coal to Ontario.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precincts today we have Gloria Parker, president of the RNABC, and some of her executive. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: In the House today is a former colleague of mine, Don Jantzen. He was executive assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs from 1973 to 1975. He's the first vice-president of the IWA in Vancouver. He has been very active in raising money for the good work that Rick Hansen is doing. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. RABBITT: On deck today I have two friends visiting in the precincts, both from the community of Merritt in the great riding of Yale-Lillooet, two very hard-working volunteer workers for my campaign in the last election: Jack and Carolin Raikes. Would the House please welcome them.

Oral Questions

ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about one-party task forces. The throne speech included promises — many promises, as a matter of fact.... "My government will expand the number and roles of the all-party committees of this assembly." Furthermore, "committees of this House will travel across our province to bring government to the people." Yet with regard to the liquor privatization task force, the social policy review and now the Project Pride Task Force headed by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), the government is sending out one-party Social Credit committees. I would like to ask the Premier whether he has decided when the government will live up to its promises by involving bipartisan committees of this assembly in that sort of work.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I appreciate the question. I guess we've all been very busy, including members of the opposition, and we've only just now gotten into a couple of bills, so perhaps there hasn't been the time to allot to this. But it will be addressed.

MR. HARCOURT: The labour legislation, the Teaching Profession Act and the gambling initiatives are areas that should have been before the bipartisan committees of this Legislature. Those are other examples. So I would like to know, Mr. Premier: what's your deadline for sending those kinds of issues to bipartisan committees of this House as you promised?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the labour legislation, we certainly are aware of the many visits that the minister made to the different communities throughout the province and the various submissions received, and that certainly is the responsibility of government. We intend to involve all members as much as possible, but we recognize, too, that we can't govern by committee. There are certain initiatives that the government must take, legislative initiatives particularly.

ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister by now must have received the motion from the medical staff of Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops with regard to the situation there. Has the minister decided to take any action with regard to the method by which hospital boards are elected?

HON. MR. DUECK: No.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary to the minister. Mr. Minister, the board of that hospital really.... That hospital serves a population area of about 100,000, and that board is not representative. Now that hospital boards have stepped out of their traditional role as monitors of the administration of the hospital and into a political role in terms of policy, do you not believe that those boards should be elected in a democratic manner, in the same way that municipal councils or school boards are elected?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that they are elected democratically. There is a system in place, and historically there has been one for many, many years. There may well be a change in the future; I'm not sure of that. I don't know what change, or whether a change will take place, but they are duly elected. They operate according to the Criminal Code of Canada. I don't know what more he expects the Minister of Health to do.

[2:15]

MR. MILLER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether he agrees with there being no residency or age requirement for people to participate in that election, which is the case with this particular board and probably with others. Does the minister think this is a suitable way to elect a board that's going to decide this very important question of public policy?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not aware of the bylaws that are in place in that particular hospital. If there is some unusual method of electing people to the board, and if it's brought to my attention that it's not properly and correctly done under our laws of Canada, it may be looked at; but I'm not aware of that. I know they have a duly elected board in place. The particular hospital that you're referring to has their election coming up June 13, I believe, and we'll see what the outcome is of that.

[ Page 974 ]

MR. MILLER: It's June 18.

Surely it's a terrible admission to make, that you're not aware of the bylaws or the method by which people.... You've been standing up defending that. Given that situation, does the minister now not feel that it is appropriate to respond to the motion of the doctors — which he has done — to investigate the method by which that board is elected in that community?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not sure whether the member asked whether I was aware of what the particular doctors are doing or saying. All I am aware of is that I've got a letter from 60 of the 130 doctors saying that they no longer have confidence in the board. That doesn't tell me that the board is not functioning and the hospital is not operating properly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: You asked me a question. Do you wish me to answer it or do you wish to ask another one?

I am telling you that there is a board in place, duly elected. They have appointed a therapeutic abortion committee under the Criminal Code of Canada. They are acting according to that Code. Consequently, unless there is some proof that those hospitals are not functioning properly, or there's a risk to health, I will take no action.

MR. MILLER: Another supplemental to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. My question is with regard to policy in your ministry. What arrangements have been made for children who may be in the care of your ministry in that particular city to provide them with an abortion if they so request?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the Royal Inland Hospital has a therapeutic abortion committee in place — or did have, as late as last week. If that committee, which is comprised of physicians, makes a medical decision, why would I possibly want to interfere with or overrule a decision made by physicians?

MR. MILLER: There's some confusion in terms of the responsibility of the minister. If a child in the care of your ministry requests an abortion, what arrangements have been made by your ministry to accommodate the wishes of that child?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member is fully aware that that child, whether in care or not, must fall under the same rules as the rest of society.

DEDUCTIONS FROM GAIN BENEFITS

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. In December the federal government announced its intention to increase Canada Pension Plan benefits for the disabled by $150 a month. On Thursday order-in-council 880 was passed, which clarifies that all so-called unearned income shall be deducted from GAIN benefits for the disabled who live in institutions, including Canada Pension Plan benefits. What is the government's rationale for taking away these federal pension benefits?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, that question has been well canvassed in this House on two or three occasions — during my estimates, for one, and I answered at great length at that time. But I will answer again that income supplements are paid to people as a supplement to their income, to bring them up to a certain level. If any person receives additional income beyond what they have, whether that is an inheritance or a pension or winnings from a lottery or whatever, that is added to their income. Once they pass that level, GAIN no longer applies, and an income supplement is no longer necessary.

That income supplement is not a pension, Mr. Speaker. I make that very clear to the members opposite. It is a safety net, to ensure that everyone comes up to a minimum level of income. If their income rises above that, then the income supplement is reduced at the other end.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would remind this minister that the Hon. Jake Epp has requested that these benefits be passed on to the recipients . I would add that by the passing of OIC 880 there is an indication that that is something new that has happened, which indicates you weren't absolutely sure you had the power to do it or else you wouldn't have had an 880. I would like to ask the minister: has the minister decided that disabled GAIN recipients living in the community can expect similar GAIN deductions in the near future?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the policy is quite clear, and I have gone over it now several times in the House. Supplements to income are not to be viewed as a pension and something that is permanent. When a person's income increases by whatever amount, if it goes above that floor level, then the person will lose by a proportionate amount at the bottom end. We have even had a case recently where someone won a large sum in a lottery and couldn't understand why their GAIN payments were cut off. Although it is not the same as a lottery, it did increase their income. When their income rises beyond a certain amount, they no longer require social assistance from the government.

MR. CASHORE: I would remind the minister that that is the case when somebody wins a small prize in a lottery, too.

I think it is shocking that this government continues to reach into the pockets of the disabled in this way and take away what is rightfully theirs at the request of the Hon. Jake Epp. I would like to ask this minister, recognizing that disabled people with sufficient income and not on GAIN are not penalized in this way and will receive full disability pensions, if the minister will reassure the House that he will not be depriving these people of their pension increase.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member seems to want to make a speech rather than ask a question. We have never "reached into the pockets" of anyone and taken money from them, nor will we. To repeat, if their income rises beyond a certain amount, then they are ineligible for the GAIN supplement.

Further, I have had discussions with Mr. Epp on this subject, and, although we don't necessarily agree on it, I point out that we make the decisions regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' money in this province. Those decisions are not made in Ottawa.

[ Page 975 ]

NATIONAL DAY-CARE POLICY

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. This week in Vancouver is child care week, and I understand and we all know that negotiations are now underway between the federal government and the provinces with respect to new national day-care policy. There is a substantial sum of money to be spent by the federal government in the field. Will the minister tell the House what this province is taking to the bargaining table, give us some indication of what those negotiations will look like and give this House a chance to address the bargaining package that B.C. will be going to Ottawa with?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for the question. We had one meeting in January with the federal minister and the other nine provincial ministers where we set out the timetable and the task force to deal with child care. The follow-up meeting is in June and I'm looking forward to finalizing, hopefully, the child care scheme for the entire country.

At this point I'm not prepared, in advance of that meeting, to tell the Legislature what we will be taking to the meeting, but I certainly will in due course. The member and the House and the people of British Columbia can be reassured that British Columbia will be well represented at this very important conference which, as the member pointed out, involves a tremendous sum of taxpayers' money.

MS. MARZARI: Given the fact that the minister is not prepared to divulge to this House what he will be asking for, will he guarantee that any agreement he makes with Ottawa will address the chronic lack of accessible, affordable and universally available child care in B.C.?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, that was really not a question. That was a political statement about the availability of day care and the philosophy as put forward by that member regarding universal, free day care. So I will accept it as a political statement and leave it at that.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled an answer to a question put on April 30 by the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report and supplement of the Ministry of Human Resources (Ministry of Social Services and Housing) for the year ending March 31, 1986.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member like to present a petition?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I'd like to present a.... Actually, I don't have a petition, but I do have a message to convey to the Premier on behalf of some 1,000 correspondents who have written to the Premier. In order to save postage they have....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you are seeking leave to present a petition, I think that is one thing; but if you are seeking leave to make a statement, the Speaker can't allow you to make a statement.

MR. BARNES: I don't wish to make a statement. I would be satisfied, with leave, if the House would permit me to read the card that I will be presenting some 1,000 of to the Premier. I think for the edification of the Legislature and in light of the protest, Mr. Speaker, which is....

MR. SPEAKER: I might suggest you avail yourself of meeting the Premier after meeting here. I heard many noes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that the message is simple.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member resume his seat.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: While the House is in a moment of levity, this is a political anniversary for all of those elected May 5, 1983. For all of you elected May 5, 1983, four years of fun and games and genuine interest.

A bit more levity, if the Chair will permit me. The best line from the 1983 campaign came from my colleague the opposition House Leader, who said in his maiden speech: "At least I'm a member of the official opposition". I'll give him a response....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we can debate all day but the Chair is at your request.

MR. ROSE: Read the card of the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

Seriously, in response to this particular anniversary, I would like to tell the House that after coming from the cold climes of Ottawa, entering this chamber was a tremendous culture shock for me and it's taken me four years and I've almost got over it. But one of the things that does worry me a bit is the number of days our friend the Leader of the Opposition has got left, and it will not give us seven years if he's right. So the member from Dewdney and I are really concerned about qualifying for that seven years. I don't know who's right, but I hope we might have maybe three or four more years left in the sessions of this House unless something happens to improve things.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20. The second member for Victoria adjourned debate.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria has eight minutes left.

[2:30]

[ Page 976 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, before we all departed for lunch, I was reflecting on how sad I was that this government, in only six short months, has abandoned all its promises about a fresh start and no confrontation, and how sad we are that they cannot keep up to their promises of consulting and achieving consensus with very important professional groups in this province.

If I had time I've got some quotes to make from some of these renowned back-benchers on the other side, but I was also reflecting on the fact that we thought in this House we were going to have a new image and a new Premier who was not going to have the tough guy image of the last Premier. We were hoping and the people of British Columbia were hoping that indeed we could take the Premier at his word that consultation was going to be the theme of the day and the theme of this government. But with this legislation and the way this government has handled this legislation, the old style of government is back. It is back and it looks like it is here to stay. We find that most unfortunate because we on this side of the House and the people of British Columbia had hoped that things would indeed be different.

We've asked through hoist motions and other suggestions on this important bill that impacts on those who guide our young people that the teachers of this province, who are so important for our future, have the opportunity to resolve this difficult issue in private discussion with the minister and find some consensus.

To conclude, unless the government will change its mind, all I can conclude is that this piece of legislation is vindictive and its purpose is to attack the teachers of this province and those who guide our young people. We have seen many speeches from those on the other side, particularly the backbenchers, and I have to say that some of those comments, particularly from the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), indeed do point out that all this legislation is a very banal attack, a vindictive piece of legislation on our teachers.

The first member for Langley, for instance, suggests that we shouldn't have politics in the classroom and we shouldn't talk about current affairs in the classroom. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would remind that first member for Langley of a party that a year ago sent to every school library in the greater Victoria area, asking the librarians to put it on their shelves, blatant Social Credit propaganda. The folder you put out about all the things that you do was blatant Social Credit propaganda, and it was sent out from greater Victoria. It seems to me that if there is any hypocrisy in this government, it's on that side of the House. They say: "We can't have current affairs, and we can't talk about the political issues of the day in classrooms." Which government was it that asked all the librarians in my riding to put blatant Social Credit propaganda on their library shelves? It was the Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by suggesting to this government that they can achieve consensus with the teachers, despite some members saying that they're not a government of consensus. We do need consensus on important issues that face our province. We should truly end the confrontation that we find ourselves locked into in this province, where British Columbians are taking each other on and saying things about each other, which I don't think is becoming to British Columbians and the teachers and their associations, parents and politicians. They're all saying: "I'm right. Our views are correct." But what happens is that the system suffers and the children suffer in the long term.

I would suggest to this government that they have every opportunity — because they're only six months into their term — to do the very thing they promised the people of British Columbia that they would achieve: to try to find consensus on the important issues of the day and try to work with British Columbians, work with the teachers for the future of this province. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, all we can conclude is that the old style of government — Social Credit government — is back, that the tough-guy image is still here on the Social Credit side, and that the people of British Columbia in the next few years — unless there's some dramatic change — are going to be confronted by legislation that wasn't based on discussion or consultation but was based on personal vendettas and vindictive approaches to dealing with issues they can't deal with in a consultative process.

We ask this government to really think through on their promises of consultation, and if there was ever a bill that we've had so far, in terms of the impact on our future, our kids and our schoolrooms, it's this bill and what it's doing to the system. We cannot support Bill 20 in its current form, and we ask the government to consult, to achieve consensus and stop attacking people and those who work for children and the future of this province. It's not getting us anywhere, Mr. Speaker. Let's have some consensus and consultation.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I support Bill 20 not only as an MLA and a member of the government but also as a parent of two young children just now entering the school system. I support it because I believe that my children and their teacher, along with all children and all teachers, will be better off because of this legislation.

When the teachers in this province have had the opportunity to work within the legislation, away from the false criticism and the intimidation that is taking place today, they will be pleased. They will be pleased because finally they will work in an environment of true professionals. They will be free from having their profession used, abused and degraded for a purpose that has little to do with education but much to do with politics.

Everyone who has fairly examined the legislation knows it is good, and the opposition criticism to the bill has been meaningless. Let's look at a couple of examples. The Leader of the Opposition a few days ago spent a large part of his speech criticizing Bill 20 because it did not deal with the important issue of class size. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? Bill 20 criticized because it did not legislate class size. Of course, had Bill 20 dealt with class size, there is no doubt that the opposition would be on their feet charging the government was making a mockery of granting teachers the right to negotiation, by legislating class size without any negotiation. Who are the opposition speaking for when they criticize the provision that allows those considered unsuitable for teaching to be removed from the system? Certainly it's not the children, because that's who this provision protects. And it can't be the vast majority of teachers, because they are the people who are probably most anxious to have those unsuitable for teaching removed from the system, because they severely hurt the profession. Since we compel parents by law to send children to school, we surely have the responsibility to do all that is possible to guarantee the safety of those children. Since we charge the citizens of this province, through taxation, tremendous amounts for education, we

[ Page 977 ]

have the responsibility to ensure that every young person shares in the great advantage of having a good, competent teacher.

No, I don't believe there is one member in the opposition who truly believes that we should have legislated class size, and I'm equally certain that there is no one in their ranks who would support an unfit or mediocre person being allowed a place in the proud profession of teaching. So why all the questions about Bill 20?

A member of the opposition today asked the question: what is driving Bill 20? The answer is the determination to improve education in British Columbia; that's what's driving Bill 20.

A more appropriate question, I suggest, is: what's driving the opposition to Bill 20? Is it the concern that offering teachers the freedom of choice on who will represent them may lessen the opportunity to use teachers as a political force? Is that the concern? Mr. Speaker, there's evidence that points in that direction.

A member of the opposition said that Bill 20 is a political bill designed to blow apart the administrating organization of the teaching profession in British Columbia. Another said the act is not to deal with education, but an attack on the BCTF. Well, that's not quite true. The act does deal with education, and it also deals with the freedom of choice for teachers.

The opposition attack on the bill, I suggest, may have little to do with education, and more to do with political interest. When we look at the past political efforts of the BCTF, it's easy to understand the opposition's concern for the continuity of that organization. Certainly the BCTF is a powerful political force with its large membership and strong financial base, and while it has not always been a comfortable ally for the opposition, it is not difficult to understand the concerns members opposite may have with the prospect of losing such a powerful supporter. But let's be honest. Let's acknowledge what all the objection is about. Let the people and especially the teachers of this province know that the objection of the opposition to this legislation is not a concern with education; it's not a concern about teachers or about children; rather it's a concern with their political future. That's the issue.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, as I've been listening to this debate, which has now gone on for a considerable length of time and has involved a considerable number of people, I was feeling up until this morning that we had come some distance toward achieving civilized, dispassionate and reasonable debate. Now, however, I detect a certain degree of acrimony and hostility, and I'm saddened by that. It seems to me that that ought not to be the case.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He was smiling.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Finance opposite tells me that the former speaker was smiling as he spoke. I would suggest that that is probably a pretty good description of the attitude of this government: they do indeed seem to smile as they stick the knife in. That's the predicament. This government continues to tell the teachers and all the others who protest: "We're really doing this for your best interests." Despite all the complaints and the protest, despite all those expressions of anguish, the government continues to reiterate and claim: "We are doing this because we care for you." Clearly, Mr. Speaker, one can only listen to that kind of refrain for so long before one becomes suspicious.

We have, as I suggested, now heard probably more than 50 different speakers on Bill 20. I would hesitate to guess precisely how many hours and how many days we have spent discussing this bill. Sometimes there has been acrimony, but for the most part I like to think that all members involved in the debate have been guided by their own best lights and what they perceive to be the issues of concern to all of us as parents, citizens and taxpayers.

[2:45]

Let us not forget that besides the words exchanged in this House we have also had a great deal of evidence of concerns by our constituents — by the people throughout this province. We have, I would remind members, had demonstrations; we have had walkouts; we have had schools close down. All of us, I am sure, deplore that, but the fact remains that has happened.

We have also had letters. All of us who sit in this House, I am sure, have had letters. I know certainly I have had, and all of those letters, I am pleased to say....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I am sure the Minister of Education has also, I am delighted to hear. I hope he reads them. Certainly all the letters that I have received are eloquent; they are reasoned; they are rational. None of them is what I would call intemperate or unreasonable; rather, they are, if anything, poignant, and they err perhaps on the side of being reasonable. These are people who are not asking for the millenium; they aren't asking for anything that is outrageous or unacceptable to the fair-minded. Rather, they are asking simply to be beard; they are asking that their concerns be addressed.

I have been asked to deliver some letters today, and this mound of paper I have before me is indeed that batch of letters that I have been asked to deliver. The postman always rings twice, so I am going to perhaps emphasize again that I have all these letters addressed to two different individuals. The first batch of letters is addressed to the Premier of the province, and I have some 198 letters in this pile. I want to emphasize that each of these letters is individually handwritten. We're not talking about a form letter; we're talking about individually written letters. I want to draw your attention to the fact that I also have on my desk another bundle of letters, some 265 in number, addressed to the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How come you got them?

MR. LOVICK: I've been asked to deliver them, and I shall indeed pass them across the House. If you can restrain your enthusiasm and your anticipation, Mr. Minister of Education, I shall indeed pass them across the way. I intend to do that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you reading my mail?

MR. LOVICK: I have not opened them.

The point I want to make again, though, is that these letters are from rank-and-file members of the education profession in my community. These are not BCTF executive members; they are, to coin a phrase, ordinary folks. They are people who feel sufficiently concerned and upset and alarmed about what is happening to education in this

[ Page 978 ]

province that they have marched to my office — some 400 individuals — and presented these letters to me as the MLA, and asked me to deliver them to this Legislature, to the Premier and to the Minister of Education.

When the Minister of Education and other ministers on the government side of the House have the temerity to say to us that what is happening here is not the rank and file but rather the designs and the activities of the few, of only the BCTF, of only the executive, and that ordinary, average members really are not supporting that cause, I am appalled, because the fact is very clear — and I present it here for all to see — that these individuals have indeed taken the time and the effort to make their feelings known to the government.

If I might, it seems appropriate to quote a little Latin. The line I would like to quote is the famous epitaph of Sir Christopher Wren: Si monumentum requiris circumspice. A nice, easy translation for everybody on the opposite side of the House is: "If you want the evidence, open your eyes. It's fight here." Happily, I have not yet had to suggest any acrimony in my remarks. I want to suggest, however, that I hope that these letters will indeed be answered. As I say, they are all individually done. They have all obviously been produced by individuals who want to express their concerns to the government and who are concerned about what is happening.

The theme that comes across, I think I can fairly conclude, is betrayal. These are individuals who, for the most part, said: "We thought indeed there was going to be a 'fresh start'; we thought indeed there was going to be a new beginning." Unfortunately these individuals concluded, with grounds, I suggest, that that is not the case. Rather these are individuals who feel they have been led down the proverbial garden path, and I suggest to you that they have every reason to feel that way.

Let me illustrate. In the throne speech that memorable day — March 9, 1987 — the stentorian tones emanating from the Speaker's chair, we heard that: "Education is the bedrock on which we must build our new economy. My government will introduce a range of new and imaginative initiatives throughout our education system." The first initiative we have seen in this bill, however, is beyond imagination. Indeed, I would suggest that it's — and I wish the Premier were here — faaantastic! Let me tell you what fantastic means, because obviously the Premier does not know what the word means when he uses it. Fantastic means grotesque, imaginary and unreal. I suggest to you that that is precisely what we have in Bill 20: grotesque, imaginary, unreal. Faaantastic!

The throne speech also declares that: "All British Columbians are proud of their public education system which has fared well in evaluation and testing across the land." But the proposed legislation is a frontal assault on the organization that has the primary claim to taking the credit for the performance and the excellence of the education system. In other words, it would seem that the reward for excellence, for good performance, is to attack the individuals who have performed so well. That's the predicament; that's again, I suggest, a reason why teachers and others in that profession feel betrayed.

A third point in the throne speech: "The new economy will demand new skills and new education programs for our people; our educational institutions will be given the tools to do the job." Sadly, to judge from Bill 20, the only tool that's being given is the proverbial shaft. Certainly that is the sense that teachers have of this bill — that they have indeed been given the shaft or the gears. That's the kind of tool.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Education is trying once again — valiantly, I might add — to articulate a sentence. What he seems to be suggesting is that I am confusing this bill with the other agenda for education. Let me remind the minister, however, of the point I made when last I addressed this House: namely, that this government's principal predicament is to restore its own credibility with the people and with the profession. Unless and until that happens, all the protestations, all the claims to the contrary about this government being concerned with and committed to education, do not amount to a great deal at all.

I have already stressed the notion that the government's predicament with this bill — even if we were to give it full marks for good intentions and even if we were to say that its motives are honourable — is that it has indeed a credibility crisis. I am not going to reiterate and restate at this time the last ten years of history that have led to the predicament that the government finds itself in. I think the record is all too clear, Mr. Minister of Finance. Sadly, that's the problem; that the record is indeed all too clear to those who look at it. Instead, I want to suggest that the predicament with Bill 20, besides the fact that it is indeed coming up against its own problem as a government agent or a government initiator for the bill — the problem of credibility — is also that again and again members on the other side of the House have demonstrated pretty clearly that their motive does not seem to be education. The motive seems, rather, to be vindictive. Individuals who tell us that this is not an effort to get the B.C. Teachers' Federation nevertheless devote the great majority of their remarks to comments about the BCTF, about the problem with the leadership, and so forth.

Beyond that reason for our being suspicious on this side of the House about the motives of the government, I also want to suggest that we have problems because those of us who have spoken in the House about Bill 20 have had to listen to comments emanating from the other side. For example, when I talked about my own personal experience working in the system, I alluded to the fact that all of us began — in the community college movement at least — with some sense of missionary zeal, some kind of crusading spirit, if you like. Of course, what happened at that point when I said those things is that members opposite proceeded to break into a rendition of Handel and started singing "Alleluia." Others, of course, accused me of being too " idealistic." I want to pick up on that theme for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, because I want to emphasize what I think is an absolute and basic and necessary truth for those who are charged with the maintenance and establishment of a meaningful education system in this province: namely, the absolute requirement for some idealism. If we don't have that, I want to suggest that our system is doomed to fail in its primary purposes.

Let me just briefly sketch out what those primary purposes are, because I fear, in listening to comments from the other side, that sadly there are so many over there who have never reflected on what we want from our education system.

In very simplified terms, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that we can summarize the demands we have every right to place on our system by making four simple points, the first of which is this: our education system ought to take as its

[ Page 979 ]

responsibility to find and to encourage the individual's talents and abilities. That ought to be a role for the education system: to help individuals find for themselves what they can do and to encourage them to do that to the best of their abilities. That ought to be a method and motive for education.

The second — how shall I call it? — function or purpose of an educational system ought to be to foster and encourage the well-informed critical intellect. We do not want a nation of sheep. We do not want a province of docile yes-persons. We want critical intellects. We want people who are prepared to challenge. Sadly, listening to members from the other side, and listening carefully, one is tempted to conclude that that view of education is incompatible with this government's notions.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Thirdly, I suggest that an education system worthy of that name ought to have as part of its mission to make the world a little bit better and happier than it is when we find it. That is idealistic; of course it is. But it seems to me also that it is absolutely necessary and ought to be encouraged.

Finally — and I would deliberately make this my fourth objective, Mr. Speaker — an education system also has an obligation to provide people with the skills, training and aptitudes required to perform socially valuable and economically beneficial roles in our society. And now I shall yield.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A point of order I find the member's dissertation on the educational system quite interesting; however, I believe it's entirely out of order. This bill deals with the organizational structure of the teachers' organization in the province, and he has yet to comment on that.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could make a comment on what the minister has said. He told us this bill has nothing to do with education and that he's out of order because he's talking about education. Is that the point the minister makes? This is a general debate on second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just draw to the attention of all members, while we let tempers subside for the moment, that the purpose of second reading is to discuss the principles of the bill and really nothing more. There has been a certain amount of leeway allowed during this debate, and the Chair has noticed that those debating have talked from time to time with respect to the actual parts of the bill. I would just remind you once again that we are to be speaking on the principle of the bill. Maybe the member would continue and try to confine his remarks to that.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm intrigued to discover the Minister of Education sitting across the House grinning like the Cheshire cat. I would suggest that the arguments he presents are as ephemeral as the Cheshire cat: they do fade away when one looks too closely.

To the issue raised by the minister, I would suggest to him that what I am trying to demonstrate very clearly is that when we talk about the principle of a bill we surely want to start first with some notion of what this education system is that we are trying to fix up and improve. If that is out of order, Mr. Speaker, God help us all, because then any meaningful discussion of education is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting that for our system to work well, it is imperative that we don't give up our ideals. It is imperative — and I'm going to explain this simply enough so that even the Minister of Education will be able to follow me — that what we do is encourage some kind of enthusiasm, commitment and idealism on the part of those who are teaching in that system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's known as professionalism.

MR. LOVICK: I'll talk about professionalism, because I don't think, with all due deference, Mr. Speaker, that the minister quite understands what that term actually means.

I'm suggesting, then, that what we need is lots more idealism rather than any less.

To leave off this point of my remarks and move into something else, I want to emphasize that I am appalled — apoplectic, almost — when I listen to members from the other side who want to tell us that the only reason we are standing here speaking for, lo, these many hours about this bill is because it's politics, or because we're doing it to protect our friends in the BCTF, or some other such cant. That is simply cant; that is nonsense. It may sound very good; you may want to take it out to your ridings, to tell all your friends: "Boy, we sure showed those guys, and we told them about what was really happening, as opposed to what they were saying." But the truth, as they know and as we know, is that that is so much nonsense.

We're talking about a principle here, called education. We're suggesting that this bill is animated by, produced by, a very bad principle. The principle, specifically, is that what you have to do is boss people; you've got to coerce people; you've got to push them into the roles you want, if you want them to be productive. It says that you don't worry about anything like cooperation; you don't worry about common cause; instead, the way the world operates is that you force people to do things. It's the system that we often called adversarial. It's the system that some economists have called "guard labour," one sustained by "guard labour." Let me explain that term, Mr. Speaker "Guard labour" is the term given by economists to an economy which works on the coercive model as its motive force. It says that instead of having everybody working to produce products, what we need to do to make things happen is to have an army within the labour force whose only function is to guard others and to make sure that they continue to do their work. I'm suggesting that that's what a number of us are reading in this bill; and we can't do otherwise. It's a system of labour-management relations — of industrial relations, if you prefer that terminology — that divides the world into superior/inferior, into dominant/subordinate. It's a system that is insensitive, adversarial and also, I fear, costly. It's inefficient; it's not even good economics.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I think I have already given too much of my time to dealing with the rather inane kinds of comments coming from the other side of the House that are designed, obviously, to throw me off track, Mr. Speaker. So I am going to plunge straight ahead. I am no longer going to indulge the Minister of Education and give him his moment as he wishes.

[ Page 980 ]

What I'm suggesting here is that what we find most repugnant in this bill — and certainly what most people find repugnant about the bill — is the redefinition of the role of administrators. You know, the government has been alerted to this problem. We're not talking about something brand-new. This is no surprise. This indeed has been on the agenda, if you will, for them for a considerable period of time.

Let me quote to you, for example, the letter from the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, which, of course, in the minds of the government will automatically be suspect. The statement says:

"It is that redefinition of the role and the duties of administrators that we most strongly object to, as it will have a damaging impact on education in our schools, and will guarantee a deterioration of the personal and professional relations that are critical to the provision of quality teaching.

"If school-level decision making becomes, as Bill 20 requires, the imposition of management directives in an adversarial setting, rather than educational leadership and the involvement of all colleagues, it will be a tragedy for education."

That's the case that's being presented by, in this case, the BCTF. As I say, I know that the government wonders whether that is indeed merely an interest group speaking. What I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the view that the managerial model outlined in Bill 20 is incompatible with providing good education, with maintaining a good, functioning and effective educational system, is also taken by all of those teachers who have had contact with my office, and I assure you those numbers are considerable. Indeed, I presented some 460-odd letters today, and though I have not opened and read those letters, I am willing to bet dollars that they all indeed are making precisely that point.

The Minister of Education and other members on the other side will tell us, of course: "Only the BCTF feel that way. It's conflict of interest. They're protecting their own careers and so forth. Only they feel that way." And I'm suggesting that is just not the case, Mr. Speaker. I want to suggest that this opinion, the one that has been illustrated by the letter I quoted to you, is also corroborated and substantiated by all those letters I have received and indeed all those phone calls I have had. I want to let members opposite hear something of that testimony, because I fear that what has happened is that the government has not really listened to much of what has been presented to them.

Let me give you a short excerpt from one of the many letters:

" The provisions of Bill 20" — so the letter-writer argues — "that placed principals and vice-principals in strict management roles, in concert with other provisions of the bill, promise a climate of confrontation, along with the worst excesses of elitism and paternalism. I do not want my children who are just entering the school system to be educated in such an environment. I do not want my children prepared for a twenty-first century world by an educational system based on nineteenth-century ideals and values."

Again, there may well be arguments on the other side that are going to suggest: "Well, this is obviously just somebody in an executive position trying to protect his or her role." That's not the case. We are talking here about an articulate, intelligent, reasonable, hard-working, dedicated, conscientious teacher — a well-respected teacher, I might add.

We are not talking about a radical, somebody who is suggesting that we ought to topple the edifice of government or some such thing, not a member of the BCTF executive, not even a member of the local teachers' association.

Let me quote another letter, Mr. Speaker. This one is self-explanatory, I think, and lays out in somewhat more specific form the concerns that these individuals have.

"As an administrator and teacher in British Columbia I have some grave concerns regarding the proposed changes in Bill 20. As an administrator I find it alarming to read that I am to be considered an 'administrative officer' whose job is to manage a school properly. The new laws dictate that I am to be like a businessman, bargain my personal contract with my school board (section 82 (a)....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Two minutes left, Mr. Speaker? My goodness, I am shocked and devastated. I have a number of things I wanted to talk about.

The final paragraph I will just quote directly then.

"Education research consistently reflects that effective schools have educational leaders who work with staffs to achieve a positive school climate, higher academic standings and broad curriculum goals. I consider that Bill 20 is structured to work contrary to all those goals."

I think that's the nub of the argument, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 20 is perceived by so many to work contrary to those goals. It's an old-fashioned model that ought to be obsolete. Let me end by just quoting a line from Edmund Burke, that great conservative thinker who might strike a resonant chord on members of the opposite side, who told us: "The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again...." The government will have its way with this bill, there is no question. The victory, however, will be temporary. This bill is a prescription for further conflict.

[3:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's pretty difficult to think of anything new to say. I'm in favour of Bill 20.

As a matter of fact, I heard the 460 letters mentioned about five times in the last 20 minutes. The letters look suspiciously similar — at least the envelopes do, from this distance. It'll be interesting to see if the letters are indeed mimeographed or some sort of form procedure. That would be customary, I suspect.

The previous speaker talked about betrayal. It's betrayal, all right....

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify.... It seems to me that my integrity has been impugned in those comments. These letters were all in the same envelope, because written at the same time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. That is provided for under the rules, but not at this particular juncture. For you to make a comment....

MR. LOVICK: Is there another mechanism available to me, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 981 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and I'll point it out to you in a few moments.

MR. LOVICK: If you would, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the previous speaker went on at some length on a variety of subjects, some of them pretty remotely connected to Bill 20. As a consequence, he seems to have lost most of the audience in the House. I understand that's not an uncommon occurrence with the previous speaker.

The suggestion was made by the previous speaker that this legislation represents force, and that it therefore becomes a reprehensible action. Surely everyone must understand that after traveling the province, after hearing submissions from every party that could possibly be affected by the proposed labour legislation changes, under no stretch of the imagination could the process be called force. Surely anyone who reads the bill in any detail would have to concede that what the bill does is democratize the system, and that's certainly a far cry from forcing anything upon anybody.

It is true that the intent of Bill 20 is to separate the two functions of wages and working conditions from that of qualifications and internal disciplinary matters. We have seen ample evidence over the last number of years in this province of the desperate need to separate those two functions. It clearly is in the interest of all participants in the process to ensure that there is very clear thinking on the question of teachers' capabilities and qualifications, and also that when it comes to negotiating working conditions or wages, the overall question of professionalism should not be confused with that.

In reading Hansard it's clear that every conceivable aspect of this bill has been debated and every conceivable argument mounted in the last week and a half. We've heard some excellent presentations dealing with the question of student interest. Certainly the interest of the students is paramount in the minds of our government. That's reflected in the increases we presented in the budget. We've clearly indicated our support for the importance of education, the key role we believe education can play in the development of the province, and in the process have ensured that there will be adequate funding for that process — more so than in previous years. I think the question of the students' interest has been addressed by many. The question of the public interest has been addressed by many during this last week and a half. I've heard presentations dealing with the public interest as it relates to the parents' interest. There are many publics out there, Mr. Speaker. There are parents, there are young singles, there are seniors. I've heard excellent presentations from both sides of the House, actually — dealing with those publics' interests.

I would like to talk for a minute about the teachers' interest. I suspect that every member of this House believes with conviction — fervour, if you like — that those individuals who enter the teaching profession do so with the highest of ideals. They do so with a desire to serve and a desire to contribute. In the overall scheme of things, their place in our society is probably more important and influential than even ours in this Legislature. They enter the profession with a desire to impart knowledge, and there can really be no nobler task than to attempt to broaden awareness, improve knowledge and provide an increased opportunity for our young people to assume the responsibilities of citizenship, with all that might imply. Those who enter the teaching profession do so with a desire to help create a new future. That too is laudable. They enter it hopefully, with the objective of teaching our young people how to think independently. To do that, I believe that they must have the wisdom to explain both sides of any argument or any issue, and for that reason I feel that the actions of the BCTF during this debate have been unconscionable.

It's clear from the evidence submitted — we see it on television every evening, and we certainly see it in the daily press — that the students are being used by some teachers and by the BCTF for self-serving political gain. It's clear that some of the information presented is biased and not balanced, and it seems to me that that's a reflection on the profession itself, and does a disservice to the vast majority of teachers who entered that profession believing that they had a valuable contribution to make to our society. Indeed, they are making it — if only the BCTF leadership will let them get on with the job.

I heard a previous speaker here this afternoon try to wrap the role of the BCTF in disseminating some literature in our high schools in some flag of legitimate discussion of current affairs. I found that stretching the point to be almost ridiculous. Clearly, if this is to be wrapped in the flag of broadening the awareness onto the agenda of current affairs, then there should have been a complementary piece of literature issued in that instance, one that would help explain the government's position. That wasn't done, obviously.

I believe, on the basis of phone calls and letters I've received, that there are many teachers — I believe the majority of teachers — who find themselves trapped in the public relations net constructed by BCTF, and find themselves uncertain as to what their legitimate role should be in this circumstance. There was a classic conflict of interest under the current situation of marrying the question of teachers' qualifications with that of wage bargaining. This act attempts to separate that and does so with the best of interests in mind, with a recognition of the history of disputes — the sad history of our existing system's failure to deal with the question of competency and capability in the classroom. For this if no other reason, the majority of citizens in this province are behind Bill 20 and believe it must pass.

The opposition, by dragging this issue out as they are doing, repeating themselves ad nauseam, I suspect are damaging the very institution they claim to want to protect, the BCTF. Because by the dragging out of this debate, the endless daily attention being paid to it, they are providing a temptation for the more adventurous leaders in the BCTF organization to embark on more and more improper strategies. And in the process of embarking on those improper strategies, I believe it inevitable that in the fullness of time the vast majority of teachers in this province will start to stir. Clearly, the legislation is not aimed at BCTF; clearly, we leave it in the teachers' hands themselves to determine the future of BCTF. Any arguments attempting to make the point that it's an attack on BCTF are bound to fail.

After paying a particular amount of attention to this debate, as I say, I am satisfied that the majority of teachers themselves are supportive of this legislation. The majority of teachers themselves are in agreement that there should be a professional body that deals with the question of qualifications and competency. I know from experience, and from

[ Page 982 ]

talking to other organizations, that these kinds of approaches are desired by other, similar organizations in the province.

It is time for teachers to be given full professional status. Parent after parent, in my experience, has criticized and condemned the fact that we do not seem to be successful in creating a spirit of professionalism among the teaching profession. That isn't because of any lack of desire in the teachers. It is clearly because of a lack of desire of BCTF leadership, because it would erode their traditional prerogatives, and in the process, they suspect, might lead to their eventual dissolution. That's up to them. They have the opportunity to show some leadership in this issue. They have the opportunity to inject some professionalism into that profession, which it is, and to hold that organization together and bind it together so it speaks with a unified voice on the question of wage and bargaining rights.

More importantly, the bill allows a peer group to be created to judge teacher performance and qualifications. There can be no criticism levied at that. Anybody who would object to the idea that the teachers would start to police themselves is clearly out of tune with the public mood. It is time for the teachers themselves to come to grips with that problem. It's long overdue.

The creation of the college clearly will allow us to enter a new era in this province, dealing with the public image of teachers and of the education system, and hopefully will allow the politicians to stand back and let those most qualified in the system operate it. The bill does that, Mr. Speaker.

I speak in favour of the bill, and I hope to goodness we can resolve this issue shortly. I have not heard any new arguments for at least seven days.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to make an introduction to the House.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: I would like to introduce Dr. Sydnay Butler from Point Grey. He is a teacher in Point Grey, a professor at UBC and, perhaps more important for today, he is a parent, like me.

MR. GUNO: I'm pleased to be able to participate in this debate on Bill 20, and pleased to join my colleagues in speaking against this particular bill.

This morning I listened to the member for BurnabyEdmonds (Mr. Mercier) talk at great length about the present teachers' work-to-rule campaign, and he characterized it as petty because it was not for freedom. He went on to say that it was really about the B.C. Teachers' Federation trying to save a structure, and therefore they were involved in some political action. In my hoist speech I think I dwelt on the fact that freedom, as we know it, is only possible where those kinds of political activities can take place. I'm certainly glad that we have a system of government where that kind of political interplay is still possible, and I think both sides of the House agree that such freedoms should be cherished.

I've talked to a number of teachers from the north — I have calls from them every day — and there is a fair consensus that particular problems with this bill are unique in the north. I want first of all to state that there is a consensus among all the teachers in the north that Bill 20 needs to be exposed as one that will cause a tremendous amount of turmoil in the educational system, while a number of them feel that the kind of actions taken today may be some problem in the north, because it's at this time of the year that extracurricular activities take place. Generally speaking, travel is not always possible in the winter months because of the severe road conditions and the expense of traveling. So it's particularly hard on many of the students to forgo many of the opportunities that are only available at this time of the year. But again I have word from many parents that they do understand the situation the teachers are in, and that they support the fact that they have to take this kind of action; that it was forced upon them by the draconian measure the government has introduced under the aegis of Bill 20.

[3:30]

As I mentioned in my hoist debate, the matter does not apply to or involve only teachers. There's no doubt that this government is attempting to seize control of education and to put their own ideological stamp on it. The Minister of Education's recent letter sent directly to students is an example of the length that this government will go to in terms of isolating teachers from the rest of the educational community. I think it's fair to say they've dropped all pretence that they are trying, in introducing Bill 20, to revamp or improve the educational system. I would suggest that clearly the gloves are off; that the target of this government is the autonomy of the teachers of this province. The absence of any kind of consultation with the broad communities prior to introducing this bill is proof that that particular revamping or improving of the educational system was never a serious attempt on the part of this government.

I want to dwell on some of the more serious implications that this bill would have for the northern districts, particularly the riding of Atlin, and to concentrate first of all on the college and speak to it in general terms.

One of the first of the obvious problems that we would have in the north is the inadequate representation our communities would have on the college. The four northern districts would have only one representative. In other words, one third of the province would have one representative to speak for them. There is also concern about the whole issue of professional development under Bill 20. Because of the extra costs that many of our northern teachers have to face, in terms of transportation and having to move great distances and maintaining another household.... This would confront them with added costs. They feel that under Bill 20, the realization of these kinds of costs or assistance would simply be impossible.

Another concern I want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, that involves the north is the fact that the principals and the vice principals would have to elect as soon as the proposed act comes into force whether they want to enter into individual contracts with the board as principals or vice-principals, or to return to a teaching assignment. In other words, they can be excluded from collectively negotiating their own terms and conditions of employment. Under this proposed bill, they would be required to gather information for the board prior to negotiations and to make recommendations to the superintendent of schools on reassignments, suspensions and dismissals of teachers.

I think we have to recognize that because of the small sizes of the schools in the north, virtually all of the principals are what we call teaching principals; in other words, they function 50 percent of their time as teachers and 50 percent as principals. In isolating them as some form of management, I

[ Page 983 ]

suggest that this would create cleavage within the school community and destroy the concept of collegiality that is in place in these schools. This would have an inhibiting effect on teachers trying innovative measures to meet particular problems that we continue to face in the north.

For example, we have language arts, which includes the introduction of native content into the curriculum and which is of particular importance in many areas of the north where there is a large native population. This program is still fairly new. It is still in a stage where problems are being worked out, and it requires constant experimentation with developing teaching techniques, in terms of presenting them to a broad range of students. So it is often difficult and requires adjustment.

I would suggest that under Bill 20 these kinds of innovative approaches would be much more difficult. I know that several principals have phoned me and have expressed real concern about this particular aspect of Bill 20. School District 92, the Nishga School District, which is in my riding, was created when the New Democrats were in government in 1975. This particular school district is unique, because it recognizes that the development of local educational priorities rests in the hands of local people. For years the native people in this country, and indeed in British Columbia, had to suffer under an oppressive educational system which deprived generations of our people of a decent education.

In 1975 the Nishga Tribal Council negotiated with the provincial government to create a school district which would have significant leeway in providing the native people in that area the right to include cultural and linguistic content in the curriculum. I think it is succeeding. Whenever I go home, I am struck by the incredible improvement that has taken place there, because I can compare what it was like before and what it is like today. Today the quality of teaching has improved. In terms of attendance, it has improved; in terms of the number of our young people who are now going on and becoming successful in post-secondary institutions.... This is as a result of local people taking the educational priorities and identifying them and going with them.

It is a far cry from the kind of educational opportunities that my generation faced, for instance. Once you reached grade 8, that was it. You had to be sent off, sometimes thousands of miles away from home, to educational institutions that were really more or less institutions that had education as a very low priority. Really, it was to try to transform us, to kind of assimilate us into the larger society, in an effort to try to completely destroy any kind of cultural identity that we had. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many generations of native people are now having particular problems adjusting to the society as a direct result of that kind of educational program. Part of the success of School District 92 is the fact that it recognizes that for someone to succeed in life in our society, they have to have that clear sense of identity that would provide them with a kind of confidence to meet the challenges that they constantly have to face, in terms of dealing with education.

I see, when I return home, in New Aiyansh the fact that teachers and the community have a tremendous working relationship. Just the other day I saw our school band perform at a function, and they have gone on to win music festivals throughout the northwest. I think these are tremendous achievements that are only possible because teachers and parents and the administration are able to work together in a more cooperative fashion, rather than what is contemplated under Bill 20, which would be more or less coercive, and less based on that kind of community-type of approach.

I want to also dwell on certain aspects of Bill 20 in general terms, Mr. Speaker. Under Bill 20, the College of Teachers is a professional body, I would suggest, to regulate, to control the teaching profession. While the government members paid lip-service in their speeches to democracy in the workplace, they are certainly not going to allow teachers the right to determine their own kind of structure, the kind of organization that would represent them. Instead, this government, under this new legislation, will be able to create a body in its own image, for this legislation provides that the college will be governed by a council of 20 members, with two appointed by the cabinet, two by the minister, and one dean of education appointed by the minister. The other 15, of course, will be elected by zone, but the first group will be appointed by cabinet.

This first council will also be able to determine the ground rules. They would be setting in place the bylaws under which the council will operate, and will administer and also implement the powers set out in this act. I would suggest that the powers are largely disciplinary and unnecessarily broad. It doesn't take much insight to see that there is a certain bias discernible in this bill, a disturbing kind of anti-intellectual cant.

It is clear that the main function of this bill is to regulate and control. It is not about representing, or acting for, the teachers. I would suggest that it is evident that the wide powers available under this bill, and the process of applying them, are there to intimidate, to coerce. The bill totally ignores the need for a more cooperative approach among certain teaching professionals. So rather than going in for more collaboration and collegial decision-making, this will result in a more adversarial relationship between teachers in this province, and that would be disruptive and chaotic.

On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, we have a college that is created as an agency of the provincial government, ostensibly to represent the teachers but primarily to regulate and discipline them. On the other hand, we have a federation whose chief role would be to represent and act on behalf of its members. For a government that promised to end confrontation, I would suggest that under this system of relationship, that is geared to create more disruption, more chaos to the public school system. In terms of this bill, the fact that it has this kind of anti-teacher slant. It is evident in looking at the disciplinary powers of the college under Bill 20 that the central purpose is to establish another powerful mechanism for disciplining teachers.

[3:45]

There is a section in the bill that will substantially expand the powers of the school board to fire teachers, to provide for their termination on a 30-day notice for professional incompetency, unprofessional conduct, immorality. mental incapacity or any other cause which, in the opinion of the board, renders the teacher unsuitable.

These are broad powers. What it's saying is that teachers have to be on the lookout. Teachers will have to watch every step that they take. It will inhibit them from taking risks, from taking a professional stand, and I would suggest that it will have a devastating effect on the development of our educational system. Teachers will, under these circumstances, not speak out for more innovative approaches in dealing with

[ Page 984 ]

particular problems that they meet in their particular areas, and it will stifle individual professional autonomy.

So I would ask, in closing, why not cooperation, collaboration, a more broader-based decision-making? Why is the government adopting a more top-down approach that will take away local autonomy, that will make impossible the kinds of innovative measures that need to be taken to deal with the broad range of educational problems that we have in this province?

I have a publication that was published in December 1986 by the B.C. Teachers' Federation entitled In the Wake of Restraint. They do quote certain findings from the B.C. Ministry of Education. One of the findings of this research is that between 35 percent and 40 percent of all public secondary school students — that's between grade 8 and grade 12 — drop out before completing their grade 12 graduation requirements. Their comment, according to this publication — and this is from the Ministry of Education discussion paper "Success Rates for the Public School System in British Columbia" — is that the success rate for the B.C. student is only 60 to 65 percent. It goes on to say that at the beginning of the new school year, 25 percent of all grade 12 students fail to meet the requirements necessary for graduation.

One that's more particular to the kinds of districts that I represent in my riding states that 14 districts were identified as having higher than average student dropout rates, fluctuating or lower grade 12 graduation rates and higher levels of undereducated individuals than the provincial average. These districts are Armstrong-Spallumcheen, North Thompson, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Lillooet, South Cariboo, Merritt, Hope, Central Coast, Prince Rupert, Bums Lake, Nechako, Lake Cowichan, and Stikine and Nishga, the two districts that are located in my riding.

In Stikine, because of the restraint, the people there, the taxpayers, the property owners, are facing 80 percent hikes this year because of the fact that they have such huge overruns in terms of budgets, overruns that are caused by more expensive equipment, more expense in terms of operating the schools, more expense in terms of transportation. Yet those kinds of problems are not recognized by this government. Instead, they call upon local property owners to somehow come up with the shortfall. I say that that is unacceptable in this province, which has so much potential. I think that the only way we're going to be able to recognize our potential is by being prepared to invest the kind of resources that are needed to provide for a first-class educational system in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take a bit of a different tack than what has been expressed today in the House. I'm going to speak to Bill 20, which may be surprising to some. At the outset I think it's important to note that I draw a very definite distinction between the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and teachers in general — and that will be most of the content of my remarks today. I have an awful lot of personal regard for teachers. I know many of them. As many of you may know, I was a school trustee and latterly, a chairman of the board in Prince George. I have a lot of good friends — and quite candidly, a lot of good supporters — who are teachers. So I want to draw that distinction for the record, and to assure everyone listening to or reading what I have to say that I'm not going to embark on any teacher-bashing, but rather, am going to speak to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and their position.

The other concern I have is that my cousin is a schoolteacher and has got a nice truck that I want to borrow this weekend, so I've got to take it easy on teachers.

Mr. Speaker, it has occurred to me and, I think, a lot of people throughout the province that there's a remarkable lack of intellectual courage on the part of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and, I would say, a lack of intellectual capacity as well. What we've seen to date has been a knee-jerk reaction to Bill 20. What we've seen and what we've read has been a lot of misguided concern that indicates to me that in many cases the Teachers' Federation and their executive — and they met with me some three weeks ago now — really haven't read the bill; and if they have read the bill, they've badly misinterpreted what it says. I would even go so far as to say that the legal counsel they retained to interpret the bill for them appeared to be giving misguided information — I won't say misleading, but certainly misguided — and they're misinterpreting the content of the bill.

I guess the first sign that we saw of the BCTF knee-jerk reaction was the ballot that they sent out to teachers some two weeks ago. The ballot was cute. It posed three questions, one dealing with a walkout or job action, the second with work to-rule or teach-to-rule, and the third with a question: "Will you mark government exams?" Now those are all legitimate questions that should be posed to teachers, and I'm sure that teachers would make up their own minds in deciding how they would answer those questions. The curious and interesting thing about that one ballot is that there was only one choice — three questions and one choice: yes or no. That indicates to me that the BCTF really are operating in the knee-jerk mode. They obviously have something they're sincerely concerned about, but obviously don't trust teachers to decide which questions they want to answer and which way they want to answer.

The other concern that was brought to my attention by teachers is that the BCTF had promised that when these ballots were returned, there would be an independent tabulation of the ballot results. Teachers were later informed that the BCTF in fact tabulated the results themselves. So I really have some question as to BCTF motives, and I think many, many teachers do throughout the province. I'm sure a lot of Members of the Legislative Assembly and members of the general public — parents, taxpayers and others — would have questions about BCTF motives.

I think the question about the motives of the BCTF — the knee-jerk mode I'm speaking of — can be answered to some degree by looking at their budget. Boy, it's remarkable. It is big. I have a six-month statement here, and it indicates that they are a remarkably large organization with an awful lot at stake. It's interesting to look at how they spend their money. I can understand why the members opposite might have some concern for the Teachers' Federation and want to see them continue. I note in the budget that the British Columbia Teachers' Federation contributed $86,767 to the provincial election campaign last year, supporting candidates who would promise the end of restraint. I can assure you that I didn't see any of those cheques coming to my Social Credit campaign, and I don't think many of the members on my side....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Did you see any? No? Right. I don't think too many of us saw any of that $86,000. But I'm

[ Page 985 ]

sure other parties might have, and of course, given restraint and that it was a Social Credit package beginning in 1982, it's clear to me who the teachers were campaigning for, and on whose behalf they were spending the $86,000. On the basis of that, I have to conclude that there would be some concern by the members opposite. I don't know if it is totally to do with what happens in the classroom, but rather what happens during election campaigns.

The curious thing about the Teachers' Federation reaction and the incredible resistance to this bill is that when I look at what the BCTF have published, when I look at what their objectives are, this legislation and another bill really answer all their concerns. They want the right to bargain at the local level. They want a fixed timetable for annual negotiations. Those are both items that the bill will accommodate.

Teachers want the right of local teachers to decide whether they would strike if necessary to achieve a settlement instead of binding arbitration. They are clearly given that option in the legislation, among other objectives outlined in the BCTF statement of claim concerning the scope of bargaining. We are really giving them in Bill 20 all the scope in bargaining that they want.

There is one more item that regrettably I can't discuss because it would be subjudice, but members of the public and Members of the Legislative Assembly and teachers should look at the financial statement of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, and an item under "constitutional challenge." That is going on at this point, so it is subjudice for me to say any more, but it does raise some interesting questions.

It is interesting when you listen and analyze the debate. There is great concern over Bill 20 and what it does. The BCTF seems to be saying: "We don't trust teachers to run their own affairs." That really is the only conclusion that can draw. We have given teachers a College of Teachers which will be governed by them. We have given teachers the right to do their own thing within their own district and to bargain with their own employer, either as a union or as an association. Any criticism of those basic principles of democracy has to be telling me that we don't trust teachers, and I believe that is what the Teachers' Federation is saying.

Rather, my good friend from Prince George North commented yesterday that she found it incredible that we could legislate morality and unprofessional conduct. Who determines unprofessional conduct? Well, it is clear in the bill. The teachers themselves do. That's the guiding principle of the College of Teachers. Fifteen members out of 20, the vast majority, are going to decide on the actions of the College of Teachers. When I see comments like that from the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who is obviously well-intended but has not really thought through the impact of what she is saying.... She is saying: "We don't trust teachers to govern themselves." In other words: "Mummy knows best, the BCTF knows best, or daddy knows best; but we just won't allow you teachers to handle your own thing and do your own thing. We don't think you have the maturity, the intellectual capacity or the ability to govern your own affairs. Therefore let us. Daddy knows best. Let the BCTF do your thing for you, and please don't let any government or any legislative initiative get in the way of having Big Brother BCTF manage your affairs."

Mr. Speaker, I find that just unacceptable, really. It is something that people all over the world have fought for. As a matter of fact, we had a delegation in our caucus today, another professional organization asking us for exactly what the teachers are getting in this bill. For your information, the nurses are requesting that we do for them what we have done for the teachers. That is a matter for another minister and maybe legislation, so I won't discuss it much further.

[4:00]

But when you see professions who have in fact set themselves boards to govern their own affairs, their own ethics, their own performance, their own adjudication of members, and when you hear people such as we heard this afternoon pleading for that right, you really have to question the wisdom of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who are stating that they wish to deny that same right to their membership.

I can't understand it. It is ludicrous, and obviously teachers have not thought that through. Why a federation which supposedly represents teachers would go out publicly and say — imply, at least — that it doesn't trust teachers is beyond me. I find the whole scenario so curious, so ludicrous that I am sure teachers are going to have to think about that and wonder what the federation is doing for them.

There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon. The former speaker talked about curriculum and no curriculum and what Bill 20 is going to do for curriculum. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Bill 20 says nothing about curriculum, nothing at all. That is provided for, as all members should know. In other areas and other legislation and other venues, but I would just — parenthetically and speaking from another movie — agree with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) as he spoke about curriculum. Although it was out of order, he did make a good point about the Nishga School Board, and I can tell you that I associate myself with those comments. It's probably one of the best native school boards in North America in terms of curriculum development and in terms of putting the core curriculum into their own language. So I would totally agree with the member on that. It's recognized highly, and I give him and his people, and particularly Rod Robinson, credit, and I'd like to publicly say that now with respect to curriculum guides.

But getting back to Bill 20, I don't see how anyone can criticize the results of Bill 20, the intent of Bill 20 and the democracy that's contained in Bill 20. Here are bargaining issues that the BCTF wanted. Teachers want bargaining rights comparable to other professionals under the Labour Code. Teachers allege that they are denied the right to liberty and security in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Teachers want the fight to strike. Teachers allege that the School Act provides truncated access to dispute resolution and grievance procedures. Teachers want procedures for the appointment of arbitrators. Teachers want the expectations of the compensation stabilization commissioner and mediator. Teachers want the expansion of work-to-rule campaigns. I can't really agree with that but, nevertheless, I guess if they wanted to negotiate that type of thing with their board, they could try their best. Teachers want interpretation of teaching security agreement provisions — again, something that could be negotiated under the scope of Bill 20 when it becomes law.

Teachers want a lot of things. I believe teachers should have it; I believe that Bill 20 provides it for them. I believe strongly that Bill 20 is the picture of democracy, giving them the right to handle their own professional affairs and certainly giving them the fight, as every other employee has in the province, to bargain on a local and individual basis with their employer — all contained in Bill 20.

[ Page 986 ]

I strongly support Bill 20 for the reasons I've given. I'll recap my comments by simply saying that people who are opposed to this, notably the BCTF, are telling me — and I'm sure telling everyone in the province of British Columbia — that teachers can't be trusted to handle their own affairs; they can't be trusted to handle their own professional body; they can't be trusted to negotiate with their employer; they really have to be led around by the nose continually and by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Speaking on behalf of teachers and, I think, on behalf of anyone who believes in the fundamental principles of democracy, I find that attitude by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation is unacceptable, is denying basic human rights and is a position which I reject. Accordingly, I support Bill 20.

MR. STUPICH: As I listen to the members on the government side of the House speak about this legislation, each one of them convinces me again that Bill 20 should not be proceeded with at this time, and I have no hesitation at all in standing with my colleagues and opposing this bill. Each one of them expresses some question, some inability to understand what it is that the teachers and the BCTF are so concerned with and so upset about.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

So, in spite of the fact that member after member, including the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) today and the government House Leader and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), has said on several occasions: "We spent six months traveling around the province and listening to people, listening to everyone that wanted to talk to us about education, and we brought down this bill...." Well, if they spent six months listening, apparently they did not spend any time at all hearing the message, because if the bill that has come down is totally unacceptable to the BCTF, by the minister's own admission, then obviously they were totally surprised when the bill itself came down and the teachers as a whole had no idea as to what would be in the legislation. There's no comparison between the bill that we now have before us and the representations made to the teachers, to their organizations, to everyone. The representations made by everyone to the minister and to his people listening to them obviously were not listened to when the bill itself was written. Otherwise there wouldn't be this confusion; there wouldn't be this lack of understanding on the part of the minister and every spokesperson on behalf of the government.

A few of the members opposite have indicated to me that they really are anti-teacher, and certainly teachers have been made whipping-persons in the province of British Columbia over the years and in the last few years in particular, especially with the restraint program. Teachers were picked on because they were felt, I suppose, to be politically vulnerable. But beyond that — very much beyond that — the BCTF is really being the ogre in this whole picture, as though the BCTF were a creation of some other group of people, some other body, somebody totally separate from the teachers themselves. The BCTF is the teachers' own organization, like it or not.

The government House Leader talked about the democracy in Bill 20. Well, democracy is rule by the majority. Certainly the majority, as we hear....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, he'll have to speak more loudly, or wait until I stop talking, or put up his hand and I'll stop and listen for a moment, because maybe he's saying something that's worth listening to when he's sitting down.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll stand up.

MR. STUPICH: Not stand up — I won't let you get away with that. No, you've had your turn.

Every member, every teacher in the province that's teaching, is a member of the BCTF. It's their organization. When the organization first started over 40 years ago, the teachers had to prove that they were at the point in time when they needed, wanted and had earned the right to have the B.C. Teachers' Federation established, by having 93 percent of the teachers in the province signed up as members before the government gave them the right to establish that organization.

It is still their organization. The executive of the BCTF is not imposed on them by the government or by anyone else. The executive of the BCTF, like it or not, is elected just as is the executive of the Social Credit Party. They have a convention once a year, and I think the Social Credit Party has one once a year. They have a convention made up of delegates from teachers' groups all over the province, just like the Social Credit Party in convention, and at that convention the teachers pick their executive members for the BCTF just as the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party do at their conventions. That's the way our system works. That's the way democracy works. That's majority rule. It's the majority that decides who are going to be the executive members, not the minority.

But in every such organization, and here as well, in this Legislative Assembly, while the majority has the right to rule, to govern, they also have the obligation to look after the rights of the minority, including individuals. Sometimes all of us stray from that. My concern at this moment is that with Bill 20 we are not looking after the rights of the majority at all; we're imposing something on these people that they, to this point, don't want.

The minister may be right: it may be that they don't understand it yet. But if that is his point.... It's been one of the points made by various people on the other side: if they just took the time to read it, to study it, if they had better advisers.... I think it was the government House Leader who said that their legal adviser was giving them improper.... I've forgotten how he phrased it now, but giving them the wrong advice, in any case. If they had the right advice, then they would understand it, appreciate it and support it.

Madam Speaker, to this point that hasn't happened. If that hasn't happened, one of the greatest arguments against the council that is going to be imposed upon the teachers is this: if they can't understand it, don't know how it's going to work and don't want it, then how can it possibly work? How could the executive of the Social Credit Party function if the Social Credit Party membership had no faith in that executive and were not prepared to accept what it was doing? That system won't work. We couldn't survive as a Legislative Assembly if the people of the province didn't support the concept of what we were doing and the way in which we're chosen, and

[ Page 987 ]

the fact that we can stay here for a maximum of five years without having an election. That's all accepted; it's part of our system. But if it wasn't accepted, then it would break down; it just wouldn't work. Anarchy is not a substitute for rule by the majority. It just won't work in our system.

If the college council has no support from the teachers, then I suggest that it's going to have a hard time surviving.

This is not the first time that a Social Credit government has taken on the BCTF and has tried to destroy the organization. Some of us will recall that in 1971 the Social Credit government decided that they had had enough of the BCTF involving itself in matters that the government felt were better left to others. So they took away the compulsory membership in the BCTF in 1971. The BCTF then had to sign up its members, as it is going to have to do when Bill 20 is passed. And what kind of a percentage did they get? The minister is talking again from his chair. Does he recall what percentage of members they got signed up at that time? Sixty-nine teachers in the province did not join. I suspect one of them was the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet); I'm not sure. But 69 teachers did not join the BCTF when the government took away the compulsory membership.

There's no better way to strengthen the hand of the executive of the BCTF, if you don't like what they're doing, than to attack them and to say to the teachers: "We don't like what you're doing. We're going to take away your right to have your organization, and you're going to have instead the kind of organization that we, as government, think you should have." Madam Speaker, that's no way to get cooperation. That's no way to get the kind of organization you want. That's no way to get peace, if you like, between the teachers' organization and the Ministry of Education and the minister.

I heard him this morning, I think....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Remember the ides of March.

MR. STUPICH: He's talking about March now. Madam Speaker, he threw that in this morning when someone was speaking. What did they threaten in March? He took great delight, as minister, in throwing gasoline on the fire that he started by refusing to sit down and talk with them as reasonable people. He said he was listening. After six months of listening, the minister had the nerve to stand up and say that the teachers threatened to walk out because he wasn't listening. He said he was listening; the teachers said he wasn't listening.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That's not the whole story. I wasn't there. You were there.

Madam Speaker, was that listening? Did he really think that he was listening? If he did, the teachers certainly didn't think he was listening, or they would not have issued the threats that they did in March.

I mentioned the Cold War when I spoke in the previous debate on this question. Had either the Russians or the Americans started exchanging nuclear weapons because they didn't like the threats coming from the other side, where would any of us be now? Was that the way to respond to that kind of threat? I don't suggest that the minister should give in when he's threatened by any group, but neither do I suggest that he should exacerbate the conflict by saying: "Well, if you're threatening one thing, then I'm going to come back on you with something harder."

The minister has said that he doesn't understand what the teachers want, because in this legislation before us now they've given them everything they want. There are two ways of taking that. You can say to someone, "I'm going to give you everything you want," or you can say, "I'll give you everything you're asking for," in which case you're determined to do exactly the opposite because you think that person demands the opposite treatment. It can be a threat as well as a promise. I wonder whether the minister, in speaking about Bill 20, is saying that he is not really giving the teachers everything they asked for, but rather that he is treating them in the way that he thinks they should be treated — as a federation, if not as individual teachers.

[4:15]

Madam Speaker, we're not dealing with a foreign organization, one that doesn't have the support of the teachers. Rightly or wrongly — and I have my own comments about the tactics they've used, which I feel will be counterproductive when it comes to winning public support to this point — the BCTF is nevertheless their organization. I don't know how many teachers did not show up in the classroom a week ago in the Langley School District, or in the district represented by the minister, but I do know the figure in Nanaimo: 96 percent of the teachers did not show up in classrooms on Tuesday last. This doesn't bode well for the future of education in this province, and that's my concern. I spoke in my earlier debate about the way my father taught me to value an education, and about the way I had been taught to respect teachers in the classroom, organized or not. I'm pleased to say that in the Nanaimo School District, where 96 percent did not turn out to classes on Tuesday last, the students, the teachers themselves, and the parents have a very high appreciation of teachers as a group and of the educational system.

Three surveys have been conducted in the Nanaimo School District — 1984, 1985 and 1987 — and students, parents, teachers, people in the community, were asked a number of questions. Looking first at the students in grades 3 to 7 — there were 1,135 returns out of 1,237 asked — 86 percent of them answered positively the question: "Do you like your teachers?" If you like the people you're working with, the people who are teaching you, there's a much better chance that you're going to learn something in the educational system than if you resent them or don't like them. Eighty-six percent also said that they liked recess time.

In the group of children in grades 8 to 10 — 638 returns out of 761 asked — 85 percent liked the way in which the school handled English; that's reading, writing, speaking and listening. One of the criticisms of our educational system that I've heard over the past ten or 15 years is that they really aren't teaching English the way they used to, and people don't learn it. But 85 percent of the students in grades 8 to 10 — the highest grade — felt that they were learning English the right way. Eighty-four percent liked the principal, and it was a reflection of the teachers; 82 percent were satisfied with what they were learning, and 81 percent were satisfied with the school in general.

There were some changes from '85 to '87; the figures I gave were for '87. Remember that the schools were under attack in '83 and '84. In '85 the survey was taken. In '87 there had been relative peace. Although there was no improvement between'85 and '87, it didn't get any worse. So in that period when things were a little calmer in the school system, there

[ Page 988 ]

were an additional ten points in favour of the question of liking the principal. The vice-principal and assistant principals also graded very high. There was a marked improvement of 8 percent in those who marked positively the question as to whether or not they felt they were challenged by their school work, and I think that's important too.

I'm doing this because I think people should be aware.... The BCTF is the teachers' organization. As I said earlier, the teachers in Nanaimo supported the BCTF decision not to work last Tuesday. I'm doing it also to show that there is a very high regard for teachers, in the Nanaimo School District at least — I can't go beyond that — a district where there was a very high acceptance of the decision not to report to classrooms last Tuesday.

Grades 11 to 12: 83 percent said yes, they do like their counsellors — those are teachers. I think it was suggested by one member sometime in this debate on Bill 20 — I'm not sure who or when — that maybe the counsellors should not be teachers; they should be some other profession.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Someone did suggest it, and I would disagree with that, perhaps because my sister was a counsellor as well as a teacher, and was very highly regarded in both ways by students that she taught some 20 years ago in both capacities, who are still coming to me. So I think it's important that they are teachers. The students will relate to the teachers that they know and like, and I think they can function better as counsellors.

In grades 11 to 12, where counsellors became much more important in the system, 83 percent of them said yes, they liked their counsellors. I guess the only thing that one might ask about that is why so many knew the counsellor in that capacity; one would hope that didn't mean that they were all going to the counsellor, but I don't know. Eighty-two percent said yes, they liked the way in which the school handled English; again, in reading, writing, speaking and listening, 82 percent said yes, they were satisfied with how much they were learning. And the improvements: there were an additional 14 percent in favour of the way in which the school was handling science. That's from '85 to '87; '87 is that much better.

MR. REE: This is on Bill 20, is it?

MR. STUPICH: This is on Bill 20, yes, because to this time.... Madam Speaker, there's an interjection asking: is this on Bill 20? To me, Bill 20 is an attack on teachers to some extent, and more an attack on the BCTF. And by attacking either teachers or the teachers' own organization, an organization that they proved was acceptable to them....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Another interjection: "They can vote for it." That's something like the Minister of Education saying he has given them everything they want — not he, but in companion legislation we're doing away with the Compensation Stabilization Act, with the Public Sector Restraint Act, and with essential services disputes. One of them has not yet been done, but we're told it was missed and it's going to be done. All those things are going to be done away with, so the teachers are getting everything they want. They're getting the right to strike, as I pointed out in an earlier debate — as much as they may want it. They don't want to go on strike; nobody does. They're getting all those rights by virtue of the companion bill, but, Madam Speaker, Bill 19 also denies to teachers every one of those rights. So saying you're wiping out the legislation that denies the very rights that the minister says are being made available to them, and then including in companion legislation restrictions that deny those very rights at the whim of a commissioner who will have much more power under Bill 19 provisions than he has currently under the Compensation Stabilization Act, is certainly giving nothing. It's taking away rather than giving. It's making it harder than ever for teachers and the BCTF to be able to satisfy the purposes of the organization in the beginning: they were established over 40 years ago so the teachers could work together to follow common ethical standards. That's the reason they were organized.

People have talked about their budget. Madam Speaker, I'll say one thing about the BCTF.... I haven't seen their budget; I heard some of the figures today. But I'll wager, if it were possible to do so, that their budget is balanced, in contrast to what the provincial budget has been since 1983. They're doing a better job.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got a deficit.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I haven't seen the budget. You say they have a deficit; send it over and let me look at it. I know that there's a deficit provincially — I'm satisfied with that. I'm not satisfied, but I know it; there's no question about that.

The question is: what has all this to do with it? The point I'm trying to make is that, in spite of this BCTF — this nasty ogre that was created by someone from Mars, or wherever; or from some other country, nation, world — the people in Nanaimo at least.... I'm not sure about North Vancouver-Seymour, from whence the member who interjected comes.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, I had the wrong one. North Vancouver-Capilano.

The teachers in Nanaimo are respected and liked by the students. The students are satisfied with what they're learning; whether they're the best to judge is another question. I was reading about the students. I could go on and quote from the parents, in the same vein, with similar responses. They feel the same way about education and about the teachers. I could speak about members in the community....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: She's in Burnaby now, isn't she? Another interjection, Madam Speaker. There was someone by the name of Joy Leach who was in Nanaimo quite some time ago, but has been at Simon Fraser University. I've not seen her in Nanaimo for quite some time.

In any case, members of the community were canvassed as well. Similar questions were sent to them. The school teaching staff, the school administration, clerical support staff — all of these groups were asked, and they all responded positively to questions about education in Nanaimo and to questions about the teachers. So the teachers in Nanaimo are highly regarded, and there is no concern in Nanaimo about the fact that there is this terrible organization, the BCTF. As

[ Page 989 ]

far as the people in Nanaimo are concerned, whatever is happening, it's good for education in Nanaimo, apart from and this does come out, too — that they're not satisfied with the provincial level of funding, which has changed dramatically in the past few years; there's no question about that.

The minister tells us that they wanted bargaining rights. Well, they've wanted that for quite some time. But it's not just to get more money for themselves. They've wanted the right to be able to deal with school boards and to deal with ministry staff, and to talk about what they're doing, how they're doing it, what they're achieving and what they could be doing better They have very little input into that now. That's one of the things they wanted.

There has been no mention of whether, in any of the deliberations, the minister listened to the teachers talking about how they felt, as an organization, they could improve teaching in the province, could improve our process of education. That's one of the things they have always talked about lacking in their rights to bargain. Sure, they bargain for salaries but precious little else, and of course do not have a great deal of influence on that.

The right to strike, again, is the last weapon that anyone would want to use, as is the right to lock out. No one wants to use it. They want it, yes, but I don't think they want to use it.

Procedures for appointment of arbitrators. The minister tells us that it is in the legislation now, but precious little good it is going to do them, if we look at the provisions of Bill 19.

There was something more that I wanted to say about the BCTIF as an organization: the fact that the executive is democratically chosen from among its own members at its own conventions, just as in so many other organizations; also, the fact that they meet as an assembly, with representatives from every school district in the province, three times a year. I expect there is a similar organization in the Social Credit Party, in the New Democratic Party and in other organizations.

Again, the government House Leader said: "What do they want? What are they concerned about? Why do they have so little faith in themselves as individuals?" Madam Speaker, that is not the question. The point is that they do have faith in themselves. They have faith in themselves to produce the kind of organization that they want. The minister said that he met with a delegation today that was asking for and wants to have the same kind of organization as is being offered to the teachers. But the difference is that the group that was meeting with the minister in his office wants the kind of organization the ministry is imposing on the teachers, and the teachers want the kind of organization that they have built up. There's the difference. To hand something to somebody that they don't want and say, "Aren't we doing something great for you?" unless you can convince them that they want it....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They can have it voluntarily.

MR. STUPICH: They can impose a second organization on top of the first. They can have what they want voluntarily, but why do they have to have what they don't want by your edict or by the force of this government? By the fact that you have 47 members and we have 22, you're going to say: "Yes, you will take this whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, whether you can work with it or not." That's not the point. "We think you should have it, and you are going to have it."

That's not what the nurses are saying. The nurses are saying: "This is what we want. Give it to us." I think the minister is positively inclined to give it to them. But the teachers are not asking for this organization that is being imposed on them. Certainly they want the other one, and I think that the teachers will once again prove to this government that by attacking the very organization that they have built up and have supported, to the extent, as I say, of getting in Nanaimo a 96 percent "yes" in favour of a BCTF action.... That's a very high percentage. I know that as members in this House we would be pleased with much less than 96 percent. Some of us are here with less than half of that percentage of the vote in our constituencies, I would guess.

[4:30]

Ninety-six percent is a very high turnout, and that in itself.... Even if some of them did not feel comfortable about what they were or weren't doing, to go out with 96 percent shows to me that they do support their organization. They may want to make some changes, but they are determined to do that at their timing, in their conventions and with their own ideas, rather than because the minister has imposed upon them something that he thinks would be good for them.

In all of this, where is education in the province? I mentioned earlier that the minister seemed to be determined, when he talked about March — he keeps talking about the ides of March — that the way to deal with what he perceived to be a threat to himself or to government, because he talked about the political attack, was to throw gasoline on the fire, regardless of the cost to education, to student careers; regardless of the student activities; apart from the classroom work, their social activities, the music, the sports and that sort of thing. Regardless of all of that, because he felt he was being politically threatened.... And that has come from member after member on the other side: the BCTF is no good because it is working as a political organization. No one has really said "partisan'' political.

The government House Leader has suggested that there was money that came to parties other than Social Credit. If there was, I didn't see any of it. I suspect that the money went to putting ads in the papers, ads that I did see urging people to find out who among the candidates running in that constituency was prepared to stand up and speak against restraint, and then to vote for them. I think that was what was meant by political money. I doubt very much that there were cheques. There might have been; I don't know.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The implication that it went.... Well, if it did, Madam Speaker, I can certainly say that I never saw one of those. Not that I saw all the money that came in, but I think I would have heard of anything substantial coming from a source like that. So I believe that was advertising that they did that may or may not have had some effect.

Nevertheless, the Minister of Education felt that the BCTF was engaging in a political attack, with the threats they made in March, so regardless of what happened to the education system, what happened to the students, what happened to the parents, regardless of everything, he was determined to get into the fight right up to his elbows and to take them on and to see if he could bring them to heel. And Bill 20 is the result — legislation that the minister tells us came from six months of listening. Yet every time the minister opens his

[ Page 990 ]

mouth, and whenever we hear from cabinet members in particular, I cannot help but be convinced that there was no hearing. There might have been sessions. There might have been sessions when people talked at each other; but there would seem to have been no time at all during that six months when people listened to each other.

The teachers, the Teachers' Federation, the School Trustees' Association — everyone who was supposed to have been taking part in those negotiations except the minister and maybe his staff — were totally surprised when Bill 20 came down, and most of them have reacted negatively against Bill 20. So if they got what they were asking for in all of those discussions, then what happened between the time they asked for it and the time it was printed?

Madam Speaker, until this confusion is cleared up, until we can once again start talking and meeting with people and discussing relatively amicably, as we have been able to do in this chamber in this session, to a greater extent than we have since 1972, until we've been able to do that, this bill should not be passed. We should wait until there is some real communication between the minister and the people being affected by this legislation, because the ones really affected, the ones who are really paying the price of what the minister is doing — of the war in which he is engaging with the BCTF — the ones really paying the price in this province are the students. And the students, remember, are our future. We depend upon them more than they depend on us. I urge the minister to back off, to wait until there is some real communication; not just listening one way but real communication between the minister, the teachers and their own organization, the BCTF.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've got my own private cheering section here with me now.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the members from both sides of the House on the manner in which they've conducted this debate. As one who's been around here for a little while — not as long as some — I find the new style of debate is refreshing. I'm very pleased.

I'm always pleased to follow my good friend, the Hon. first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He's very logical. I don't agree with his philosophy, obviously — not in all things, at any rate — but he makes a logical debate even when it's very difficult to put the pieces together from time to time. I do appreciate it.

One of the members a while ago, however — I believe it was the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) — stated this was an anti-teacher type of legislation, and he quoted someone as saying that they ought to take the gloves off. Well, Madam Speaker, I honestly believe that we've had the gloves on on all sides of this issue for far too long. I believe that the whole issue of education in this province has been politicized far too long and it hasn't done any good for the educational process in this province, it certainly hasn't done any good for the participants, and it certainly hasn't done any good for those people we are trying to protect and to help through the educational system, and that's the students, who are sometimes forgotten in this whole melee.

There are some points to be made, Madam Speaker, and I'd like to make those points if I could right now. Bill 20 grants teachers a recognition of both their status as professionals and the right to organize as a trade union.

Bill 20 establishes a College of Teachers, the professional body that will be responsible for the control of the teaching profession, similar to that which exists now for doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professionals anywhere in this country.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Bill 20 also grants teachers full collective bargaining rights. They'll have the right to form unions at the local level or remain as a non-union association, and if teachers in a school district decide to form a union, they'll have all the rights and responsibilities of any other union anywhere in this province. Bill 20 clearly separates the collective bargaining authority from the body responsible for professional standards, a separation that exists in all other professions as well.

I was speaking with another group earlier on today, Mr. Speaker, and that particular group mentioned to me that the separation of functions that they were looking for and something that they were requesting is what is embodied in Bill 20. I don't for the life of me understand how on one hand you can be a profession, with all of the rules that embodies and sometimes the discipline that also embodies, and have the same body on the other hand being that organization which is supposed to protect you. Mr. Speaker, that would be akin to sending a chicken over to Colonel Sanders asking for some kind of aid and succour. I don't for the life of me understand how in the world you can have a professional organization and then have that same organization saying they'll protect you when you get in trouble with your employer, and indeed with the other arm of that organization that is supposed to be protecting you.

They've talked about consultation. The minister has had consultation with the BCTF; he's received briefs from them. But you know, I honestly believe that the reason that Bill 20 is being introduced at the present time is that the present system is really not working. Furthermore, over the past several years teachers have been requesting full collective bargaining rights. As late as January 1987, in a brief submitted to the government the BCTF presented three main requests, and they are as follows: the right of teachers to bargain on all issues — and this bill provides for that; the right to mediation options and the right to strike; the right to bargain under and with the assistance of neutral, independent agencies such as the former Labour Relations Board — and that's embodied in both this bill and Bill 19. To achieve these rights the BCTF recommended that teachers come under the Labour Code; Bill 20 grants teachers that right.

Both the BCTF and the school boards have argued that bargaining should remain at the local level; Bill 20 grants that right. The BCTF and other groups have argued that labour relations reforms were needed immediately, not to wait for a Royal Commission on Education, even as good as that might be; but these reforms are granted and they are embodied in this particular bill.

We hear a lot of talk about who will control this teachers' college and how will it come about? Well, teachers will control the college. The operation of a college and its dealings with its members will be controlled by teachers who will elect 15 out of the 20 members of the college's ruling council. They'll be controlled by their peers, the same as they are in any other professional organization that you can find anywhere in North America, no difference. If they want to have the right to full collective bargaining and they want to have the same rights to certification other members of the public

[ Page 991 ]

have, then it must follow that in regard to compulsory membership by any particular bargaining unit, if they do not want to be part of that particular bargaining unit, they should have that option as well; and that's granted under this bill. Employee groups in B.C. choose to form a union or they choose not to form a union, as the case may be.

The BCTF may continue as an independent organization setting its own rules and its own policies, and if they wish they can also go out and organize every school district in this province. That's their option but it's also the option — and I believe it should be the option in a free democratic country — to have the right not to join that union and not to form that association if the majority of the bargaining unit opts to do that. That's always been the case in collective bargaining and that's what's embodied in this package of legislation.

They talked about teachers and will they be treated fairly by the college when complaints are made. Review procedures will be controlled by the teachers themselves. I don't know what you could get that is more fair than that. The college will develop, in consultation with its members, specific procedures that will be perceived to be fair by its members because those people, the peers, will be voting on those things themselves with the members of the college. The procedures currently used by doctors, lawyers, nurses and accountants ought to be used as a guide by the college.

You will remember an amendment to Bill 20 had been proposed that would require that on a hearing on suspension there must be conclusions and decisions made within 60 days. Due process from disciplinary hearings through the courts is also available.

There has been talk about firing teachers without cause, and the answer to that is that that is pure nonsense. A board may only fire a teacher for cause, and furthermore that cause would have to be definable and defensible in subsequent appeal proceedings in the due process that might follow. There is an appeal process also for teachers who happen to be fired for whatever reason.

If you're going to have full collective bargaining rights, then it follows that you must have a management within a system. Bill 20 grants teachers the right to organize, and in severe instances the right to strike. Hence government believes it essential that principals and vice-principals be part of management to ensure that the health and welfare of children are guaranteed in a strike-lockout situation in each and every school. We must have a system available to continue education for the students, regardless of what the combatants may do and whether they decide to strike. We have to have a management force in place, and that's available in any other system or function where collective bargaining is the case in the province of British Columbia. Administrative systems are, of course, considered part of management.

[4:45]

I remember that earlier in this debate they talked about sick leave benefits, and somehow or other the teachers were going to lose these benefits. Well, the minister clearly pointed out in a press release a little while ago that he promised teachers affected by the new Teaching Profession Act that amendments to legislation would be introduced to ensure existing rights to sick leave would be protected until at least June 30, 1988. The minister also said that he expected boards to honour existing rights to accumulated sick leave in next year's negotiations under the new act. This announcement was made in response to questions from individuals in the Legislature, and I believe that has been dealt with. They talked about pensions, and pensions are not covered under this. Pensions are covered under the Pension (Teachers) Act, and there will be no changes whatsoever to existing pension benefits.

I believe that there's been far too much debate on how this particular matter will affect teachers and their interrelationships with students. I honestly believe that if there is any interest here, it's enlightened self-interest. I honestly believe that if this particular legislation is put into effect and you gauge its effects a year from now, you'll see we're better off for it. I believe that all of this talk about how the BCTF will lose or how the teachers will lose or how somebody else will lose.... We're not in a "lose" situation. We've got to stop talking about taking off the gloves and start talking about "win-win" in education for a change, and forget this nonsense altogether.

The BCTF takes in about $11 million annually in dues — somewhere in that area — and if there is any interest, I would suggest that it's the interest of some officials within that organization who may feel that their tenure is slightly threatened in some way or other. I don't see that that ought to have anything at all to do with setting up a professional organization, with granting the teachers the right to go to whatever organization they may want and form a collective bargaining unit or, indeed, with the way we teach our children in the school system. It has nothing whatsoever to do with.... If there is an interest, it's enlightened self-interest, and it ought to be taken out of the whole debate here today. We've got good teachers.

You know, I read in the Province the other morning — as I do some mornings — that one senior member of the BCTF was criticizing the media for their not being able to sell this particular bill to the public. They said the media was responsible for the public not really giving them one whit of support in the current debate. I don't believe, much as I'd like to have it happen sometimes, that the media went out on a one-day illegal walkout. At any rate, I haven't noticed that recently. I don't believe it's the media at all. I believe that the position taken is indefensible, that the people of British Columbia are not going to buy it, and that they want to get on with the legislation. They know that the system up until now has not been working very well and that every time there has been a dispute, an illegal walkout or an illegal strike, it has been that very system of education these people say they're protecting that has suffered.

That's the problem. I firmly believe that Bill 20 is a good piece of legislation. I believe that, once and for all, it clearly defines the separation between the collective bargaining and professional sides of teaching. Once and for all, it enshrines the fact that teachers are professionals, and that if they act like professionals and if those people operated like professionals, the public will respect them for that, and they will regain the respect that they feel is waning as the result of what they describe as media hype.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of hope for this bill. I have a great deal of hope for the teaching profession. More than that, I would wish that we would get on with it, that we would pass this legislation, that we would get it out of the way and get on with the job of education. That's what it's supposed to be all about.

I appreciate the arguments that have been given. I appreciate when a new piece of legislation such as this — an extensive piece of legislation — comes out that there has to be debate. I think the concerns have been answered. Now is the

[ Page 992 ]

time to get on with the job of developing a better educational system in the province of British Columbia.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to recognize that once again in all that sea of polished marble across the way, and even that expanse of polished marble behind me, the minister has been very faithful throughout this entire discussion, just as the member for Okanagan North (Hon. L. Hanson) was before him in discussion of Bill 19.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a common thread through the remarks of many of the speakers across the way. I don't want to dwell too long on the previous speaker, but I find it somewhat curious that having virtually finished making his remarks to this assembly — telling us why he supports Bill 20 — he then said: "I think there has been enough debate on this issue." I think every member of this chamber — and there are 69 of us — should have equal opportunity, and none of us should think that our particular remarks are superior to any others, and none of us should make a presumption that once one individual has spoken all debate should end. I'm glad that you're protecting us on this side from that sort of philosophy that wants to use a guillotine on rational democratic discussion of Bill 20, or any other piece of legislation that should come before this House.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some coloured rhetoric. I suppose the reference to getting the gloves off.... We should get the gloves off when it comes to education. We should get down to work. That's what we should do. We should get down to work to improve the education system in this province, because that's my concern and that's what I want to speak on this afternoon.

My belief about the fact that Bill 20 is not going to improve the quality of education services offered to the young people of Rossland-Trail is my concern in this assembly here today. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. I would like the members on your right, Mr. Speaker, to perhaps reflect upon the fact — or at least the report; we won't call this a fact; we'll call it a report — that was made a few weeks ago by someone who does occupational polling who said that 46 percent of the teachers in his view voted Social Credit in the last election. Far be it from me to quibble one way or the other with that statement, but I would ask why the members across the way want to attack that 46 percent that supported them. I can understand the Social Credit Party's occasional pettiness and occasional shrill small-mindedness in dealing with people whom they perceive to be not their best friends politically, but why are they attacking a group in which many of them voted Social Credit? Why lump that 46 percent of teachers in with those teachers you don't like? I would like them to think about that.

The morale of teachers out there, at least in my constituency, is rather low, I'm told by teachers. I'm also told by students, who quite correctly have said to me and in some other parts of the province.... This is dangerous ground, but if news reports are to be believed, some students around the province have been asking who speaks for them. I would like to think that some members of this House do speak for the young people of this province, and particularly in my constituency, because that really, in the final analysis, is what is important.

Mr. Speaker, of course the BCTF executive is not totally representative of all teachers on every issue. After all, only a certain number of teachers are in any event prepared to give up four or five days of their spring break and go to a convention once a year. But most teachers in this province, and I am speaking of the non-partisan ones, feel as though for the last five or six years they have been under attack by a number of Social Credit Ministers of Education and by many spokesmen for the Social Credit Party. They felt that their only strength and redeemer, perhaps — to use ecclesiastical language — was the BCTF, whether they agreed with it on every detail or not. They felt: who speaks for teachers, who defends the integrity of teachers, who defends the profession, if not the BCTF?

This legislation before the House has united teachers in one thing — maybe only in one thing. But it has certainly united teachers in my riding, because they don't like the legislation. Members opposite could argue that perhaps the legislation is misunderstood. Perhaps they could argue that it might have been misreported. But the teachers in my riding are united in that they don't like it. I have had an impression — most unscientific, I would say — from discussing it with many teachers, that they have different ideas as to how they should be fighting the legislation. That's why I think that some of the arguments across the way about whether 70 percent or 50 percent or however many went to work last Tuesday, and how many didn't.... I think all those arguments are rather specious.

The fact is that on the principle of the bill, the teachers don't like it. That is the key in the final analysis. If that large group of taxpayers, that large group of citizens — the professionals in the education field in British Columbia — is not happy with a piece of legislation, surely this House and the minister should consider withdrawing the bill in its present form. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I am opposing the bill and asking that this chamber vote it down, if the bill is not withdrawn. Join me in voting down this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just refer briefly to some of the remarks of the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan), where he said that he understands the situation out there in Prince George because he was a school trustee. Things have changed a whole lot since 1979 and 1980. Any school trustee can tell you that. Even without referring in a perhaps somewhat partisan way to what Social Credit governments have done to the school system or to the school districts since that time — even without any of that — the demands and the expectations of the public on the school system in my riding, and I think in every riding, have escalated and changed dramatically since 1980. There's no question about that.

[5:00]

The expectations and legitimate demands of employers as to what they would like, and the kind of training and ability to cope that they would like the young people who have come through the school system to have before they are given an employment try-out or employment training, have changed dramatically. I think that is in part a reaction to a general evolution and adaptation of society, but also because of the fact of the much more difficult economy we have had in the last seven or eight years in British Columbia. Yet with all of those changes and increased demands, there has been an expectation on the part of government that the school boards, the teachers, the physical plant facilities that are the actual school system and the equipment in them should produce more and more and provide more and more, but with less and less input in actual terms, in real terms.

[ Page 993 ]

This bill does not address that problem in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I had an impression throughout the winter months from the education community in my riding that, while things were tough in their field, things were gradually improving; that the program of enforced economic restraint which had affected education along with most other aspects of the B.C. economy and society had bottomed out; and that, slowly but surely, and perhaps in a different form than had been known before, things were improving and were bound to improve.

When Bill 20 was tabled, it absolutely shot down that feeling that many teachers, trustees, parents and children within the educational system felt. It's rather like someone feeling more and more shut in, more and more concerned, having more and more difficulty coping, and then being given some hope over a period of several months and all of a sudden having that hope taken away and an even more stringent regimen of economic restraint forced upon them.

Mr. Speaker, some good things have happened in recent months and years in the education community, particularly in my riding. There has been a lot of professional curriculum work, a lot of professional development, in part funded by the teachers, in part by the districts and in part by the provincial government. There has been careful curriculum adaptation and implementation applied to the particular needs of the two school districts in my riding.

Of course, we all know that no two school districts or two communities or even two schools are peas in a pod, and that's one of the strong things about our system. The system has been allowed to be adaptive and to conduct an evolution in changing times, as I mentioned earlier. This feeling of adding new things to the system, of doing more with less, of working hard to produce a productive school system in terms of the quality of education, I believe, is altered by the mere tabling of this bill.

The bottom line is that if this bill cannot improve education, it shouldn't be before the House and should be brought back in a different form.

I have spoken with educators and administrators who have some experience in other jurisdictions where there is a clear-cut management division between administrators and supervisors — i.e. principals, vice-principals and superintendents — and the teacher on the line. Universally they have said that there is a very wide gap in place when there is that enforced division.

One of the principles of this bill that I oppose is that it does drive a wedge between the basic teacher and the department head and the administrators. Now anyone who has been in business or industry knows that being a first-line supervisor is a very difficult position. Supervisors are torn between responsibility and loyalty to the management above them and, at the same time, loyalty to the people below them. It's quite clear that this enforced change, which.... To my knowledge, certainly from my riding, there was no apprehended demand for change in administrative definitions.

It clearly does not help that rather difficult situation that first-line supervision has always felt and will always feel, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. So the imposition of what some people have defined — I am not sure correctly — as a factory aspect is not going to help that concern that both administrators and on-line teachers have about a proper, smooth functioning of each school individually.

Now that does not mean that that difficulty cannot be overcome. I am constantly impressed with the way individuals in society can adapt, through team effort, to difficulties foisted upon them. But there are enough things that happen out there that no one has any control over without us in this House or the government on that side of the House creating new problems or aggravating existing ones.

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects that this bill does not address is the need in my riding and, I suspect, throughout the province for special counselling at the elementary level. We're all familiar in this House with the fact that there have been counsellors at the secondary level for many years in school districts of British Columbia. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in his very thoughtful and well researched presentation, referred to that. There is a need for a great deal of counselling at the elementary level; there is a need for child care workers at the elementary level. This bill does not address either of those needs.

There are a number of children in my riding at the elementary level who do need special assistance. They need special assistance not only for their own needs, but so that they will not be, perhaps through no fault of their own, a disruptive force on so-called more normal students — a disruptive force within the classroom. Mr. Speaker, we know very well in this chamber — we've all observed it — that any individuals who can be assisted to cope with the world around them at a fairly young age not only are of much more value to themselves as they carry on through life, but they are far more productive and far more valuable to society, and do not meet with the difficulties of coping with a rapidly changing world whose opportunities very often are somewhat limited, especially for young people in British Columbia.

In short, counselling at the elementary level and child care workers, while not addressed in this bill.... If they were addressed, I'd feel a lot happier about the bill. Not having them is, quite frankly, penny wise and pound foolish.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of misplaced optimism throughout the system before this bill came in. When I say "the system," I think there's been a concentration in this discussion here about teachers specifically. We should look at the education community as part of the very important larger community that is British Columbia.

I ask why the government has to force on that one group something which that group of professionals does not want. I'll just quickly — before you declare me out of order, Mr. Speaker — refer to another bill before the House which involves the engineers. The professional engineers are happy with that bill; they were consulted. The teachers are not happy with this bill. But I do say it is not too late in British Columbia for a true consultative process that is indeed credible. When I say "credible," I mean credible with trustees, teachers, but most importantly the students and the public in the educational field.

I ask why the government is afraid of some sunshine coming into the schoolrooms of this province. I don't believe the system out there has anything to hide. The government, in particular, should open their eyes, get out of this ivory tower that is the Legislature, and actually go out there in the field. Let's find out — as Mr. Sullivan is doing, I think — what teachers, trustees, students and parents are talking about on the line.

Unfortunately, there is a low expectation of what the Royal Commission on Education is going to do in British Columbia. There shouldn't be, but unfortunately there is. I

[ Page 994 ]

think the terms of reference are good. I have confidence in Mr. Sullivan, and I like the way he is aggressively going out and asking people's opinions. But coming on the heels of the "Let's Talk About School Work" process, where the interested public did go out and provide a whole lot of useful input, only to have nothing happen except more cutbacks and more economic restraint, the public has a somewhat jaded view of the royal commission process, which could be very useful in British Columbia.

Of course, we know in most of our experience governments tend to use royal commissions to take a long, very comprehensive look at issues — at great expense, I might say, to the taxpayer — and then disregard the usually quite learned and quite practical recommendations of those royal commissions. We can remember the royal commission on the B.C. Railway; we can remember the royal commission on.... I'm not going to mention uranium mining. We certainly think of the federal commissions on the economy. I suppose an accurate analogy would be the Forget commission on unemployment insurance, which, while it was conducting its hearings, saw major changes in UIC legislation and regulations passed through the House of Commons.

So here we have the same process: we have a major bill affecting the quality of education being discussed in this House, and essentially forced through the House by the government. As I mentioned, government speakers have a tendency to say: "Well, I've spoken. Let's end the debate." But at the same time a very eminent British Columbian is out there talking to the people, to bring in recommendations regarding the education services available — bought and paid for, I might say, by the taxpayers of British Columbia. That is not conducive to public faith in the judgment of the government or of this chamber, or public faith in the commission process, and I think that's most unfortunate.

It has been suggested here that the confrontation out there is somehow the result of opposition to this bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know this may sound to you, because you're quite an intelligent person, as though I'm belabouring the obvious, but I want to suggest to the other members across the way that the teachers and the kids and the parents of B.C. did not bring in Bill 20. The Social Credit government brought in Bill 20. So if confrontation arises over that, let's remember who brought the bill in and where it came from, because it is not what the public wants. I'm not sure that the public understands Bill 20, and I'm not sure....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not saying they don't; I'm saying I'm not sure that they do. But one thing's for sure: the public does not want confrontation and the public knows very well where Bill 20 came from. It came from the Social Credit government in British Columbia. Certainly the children of this province know that they didn't bring in Bill 20; so do the trustees and the parents, and of course, most importantly, so do the teachers.

Teachers I know personally are dedicated to the quality of education in British Columbia. And I ask again: what value is this bill to the quality of the services needed by the taxpaying citizens of British Columbia? I include the young people, the children, as taxpaying citizens, because they're the most important part of our province. They're the ones who are really going to make the economy of B.C. work, and they're the ones who are really going to produce the wealth in British Columbia over the next few decades.

[5:15]

There is a need for the system, as well as our economy and the people, to be adaptive and to work in an evolutionary way with the changing economy of British Columbia — not just the changing world economy and the changing North American economy, but also the changing economy in British Columbia. We all know that the resource industries, which we have so relied upon for the first two centuries that people of European descent have been in British Columbia, are not providing the same number of highly paid jobs that they used to. Quite clearly, I don't see that as a major ongoing, long-term problem, but certainly there is a.... For British Columbians to stay in the productive mode that they have been in throughout my lifetime, and no doubt before that, giving this great province the strong economy which it has, we are going to have to have an adaptive and evolutionary education system which is strong, has a high morale and is doing those things for young people which their reasonable expectations demand, and which their potential employers demand as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was Mark Twain who advised young people to not let their schooling interfere with their education. When they come out of school — hopefully, when they get their post-secondary training, but certainly when they finish grade 12 — the most important thing young people can have is the ability to cope with this highly imperfect and in some ways inadequate world that the rest of us, their elders, have created for them. If the system isn't providing that, it does not do a young student any good to have graduated summa cum laude in all of the academic subjects if they can't cope with the world around them. That means that they must be suitable to employers on a short-term basis without needing a whole lot of on the-job training. That also means that they must be able to cope with the requirements of post-secondary training, whether that be academic, technical or in the trades field. It's tremendously important that we in this House realize that young people in the system must know and understand and feel comfortable with the world beyond the schoolroom and the schoolyard. They need to be trained to have something to offer, to be productive, and in my view, this bill does not help the school system and the young people of this province.

I urge hon. members in this chamber to give careful consideration to this act in its present form. I believe that if they do, they will realize that this bill should be turned back, and that what we need in British Columbia is some patience. They will not assume that members of this House have all the answers — or even any of the answers — and will wait until the people out there who are paying the bills on education, the professionals who have to deal with this every day, and the employers who have to deal every day with the young people who have been graduated from the school system have made their comprehensive report through Mr. Sullivan's commission, and that is translated into recommendations back to the minister and to this chamber, so that the people of British Columbia cannot only see that there has been an adequate consultative process going on but so that process is credible to all the people who have made their concerns felt.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I hope that the minister is giving this bill a very thoughtful review, because it is my strong opinion that it is most inadequate in its present form

[ Page 995 ]

and should be brought back in a completely revised form which is going to be useful to all of the people of British Columbia over many years.

MS. CAMPBELL: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 20, which will not surprise anyone sitting in the House this afternoon. I'd like first of all to look at what Bill 20 does.

First of all, Bill 20 gives more power to the school boards of British Columbia. This is in response to requests to the minister by the B.C. School Trustees' Association to give boards more management control. The result of this has in fact been to decentralize to a considerable degree educational management in this province.

Bill 20 also gives more power to teachers. It gives them for the first time in this province free collective bargaining rights. In particular, it gives teachers for the first time the fight to negotiate their working and learning conditions, which is a very significant development. I noted that in his speech on the hoist motion, the Leader of the Opposition, I believe it was, said that this bill didn't address the question of education in this province and in particular it didn't address the issue of class size. What he neglected to state was that this bill for the first time gives teachers an opportunity to negotiate class sizes. And there are many school trustees who are unhappy about that, Mr. Speaker. This is a considerable victory for teachers, and in fact what we face as a prospect of Bill 20 is the possibility of teachers striking over class size. That I think is a very considerable development, and one that, as I say, is not greeted with universal favour among school trustees.

Moreover, this bill gives power to teachers in the form of creating a self-governing profession. It gives them the power to regulate entry into their own profession, to regulate its standards and to discipline its members to make sure they adhere to those standards.

Then what is the opposition to this bill? Basically, the opposition is that this is not what teachers wanted and that we didn't consult with them. I want to say that I believe that those criticisms reflect a basic distortion and failure to understand the role of government. The government of British Columbia consulted extensively with the BCTF and the BCSTA, but other factors were also important in drawing up this legislation. For example, over the last few years there has been a rather bitter conflict within the B.C. Teachers' Federation between the BCTF and administrators. It has been BCTF policy to reduce the management function of principals in schools. The BCTF initiated a task force to deal with the complaints of administrators, who felt they were being harassed by their professional organization when they tried to perform the functions of teacher evaluation and other duties required of them by school boards in their management role. The report of that task force came up with a number of rather reasonable and moderate recommendations which the BCTF executive did not choose to implement. This heightened the conflict between the BCTF and its principals. So we were faced with the question of whether the administrators would leave the BCTF or whether they would be expelled.

I had a number of principals speak to me about this, in great distress. They said to me it looks inevitable that they're going to have to leave the BCTF, because they won't let them do their job. But they don't want to leave, for two reasons. First, if they leave, a very moderate faction leaves the BCTF. Principals and vice-principals have, by virtue of the jobs that they perform in the school system, a broad and global view, and they represent a moderate element of the BCTF. But a principal also said to me: "We are teachers, and we want to have a professional link with the teachers we work with. It would be a great regret for us to have to leave the BCTF and not have that professional link." So that situation between administrators and the BCTF was one of the factors in the environment in which this legislation was drafted.

Another factor is the character of the BCTF itself. The opposition is fond of saying we're out to get the BCTF. Conspiracy theories are wonderful when you don't have any good, hard arguments. I can't deny that in the past the BCTF has supported the New Democratic Party and not the Social Credit Party. I have no choice over that. In the 1986 election their political campaign was explicitly non-partisan, but in 1983 the BCTF endorsed the New Democratic Party. Although their bylaws forbid them from contributing directly to political parties, their own audited statements show that their election campaign that year cost them $195,000, which I think is very supportive of the New Democratic Party. So the politics of the BCTF are relevant, not in terms of anyone out to get it, but simply in terms of the type of organization that it is. It is political, and it is certainly entitled to be political if its members wish it to be that way.

It also has in its executive an influential group that is committed to militant trade unionism. It is relevant that key members of the BCTF have this very strong left-wing militant trade unionist orientation. My colleague the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) was viciously criticized in this House for making reference to the existence of an organization called Teachers' Viewpoint, which has explicitly espoused this left-wing militant trade unionist orientation. But it is a fact. Those members of Teachers' Viewpoint are not a radical fringe of the BCTF They include people like Larry Kuehn, who was the president of the BCTF when I was chairman of the Vancouver School Board. They include Al Blakey, who was president of the Vancouver Elementary. School Teachers' Association. These are not fringe people; these are people who have a key input into the policy of the BCTF. That is a reality: that the BCTF responds to this legislation in part with the view of a strong, militant trade union orientation. So that is one of the other political factors that has to be considered; in other words, the character of the BCTF itself.

A third factor which has to be considered in the government's drafting of this legislation is the government's own philosophy on labour relations, and in particular labour relations and workplace democracy. A great deal of the trade unionist opposition to Bill 19 relates precisely to these provisions. Bill 19 includes, among other provisions, provisions which strengthen the rights of individual workers relative to union organizations. This may not meet the approval of militant trade unionists or members of the opposition, but that is the government's philosophy. It is a philosophy that was made explicit during the election, and there is no better proof of that than the fact that members of the opposition and the trade union movement feared that proposed amendments to the Labour Code would in fact include right-to-work legislation, which they did not.

So there was nothing secret about the government's philosophy. It is a philosophy that has been endorsed at the polls. There is no deception, and I believe that government has a right to legislate according to its own philosophy.

The government did consult; it consulted widely. It consulted in great depth with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and

[ Page 996 ]

the B.C. School Trustees' Association, but it responded to the requests from those organizations in the light of other factors and its own philosophy.

Teachers were given the rights to full collective bargaining as they requested. But they were given those rights according to the government's philosophy of workplace democracy. In other words, our government will not legislate the certification of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. There is nothing in Bill 20 to prevent the BCTI` from certifying every district in the province and from creating the situation they asked for, which was that they be the bargaining organization, and that the bargaining take place with local affiliates in each school district. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing that. But if they get it, they will get it by the wishes of the teachers, not by legislative fiat.

[5:30]

Those committed to militant trade unionism won't like the strengthening of individual union members' rights as compared to the union leadership. But militant trade unionists did not win the last election. Even the NDP is edging away from militant trade unionism. So the government responded to the B.C. Teachers' Federation request but consistent with its own philosophy.

The question of the administrators had to be resolved. But the administrators wanted to be part of a teachers' association. The BCTF wants to weaken the management role of principals. The B.C. School Trustees' Association wants to strengthen it. Was it lack of consultation because we favoured the B.C. School Trustees' Association view? I don't think so. We resolved the problem of administrators according to our own principles and the request of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, not of the BCTF.

The BCTF asked for control by teachers over their own certification and accreditation. Now as I mentioned before, the B.C. Teachers' Federation is very political. It doesn't matter whether it's right-wing political or left-wing political; it is a very political organization. It is committed to political action and has a strong influence favouring militant trade unionism. Therefore, in responding to the BCT17's request for control over certification, we said yes. But we said:—-The BCTF is not the appropriate body to carry out that professional role and function. It is too political. It is not the kind of body to be disciplining teachers and representing teachers in their professional function."

The creation of a College of Teachers responds to the BCTF request to give control over their accreditation to teachers. It responds to the principals' concern to be part of a professional organization of teachers if they can't stay in the BCTF It responds to our government's own philosophical view about the importance of separating bargaining and professional functions. The scheme of Bill 20 reflects consultation, but it also reflects the circumstances of today's teacher organization and the government's philosophical view.

Now concern has been raised regarding the confrontation which, it has been said, has arisen as a result of this bill, and there has been criticism with respect to the method by which the government introduced this bill. But, you know, it's a myth that we could have any significant change without tumult. I think it is one of the great myths that have been circulating around this House that you can introduce such an innovative and significantly new scheme without that kind of tumult, because no one accepts change easily, and change takes a while to get used to.

I would like to give an example from my experience on the Vancouver School Board. In Vancouver we had a school in a very prosperous and nice area of the city which suffered from declining enrolment. They'd had some difficulties in that school, and finally we were able to put a principal in that school who brought it to life again. It was an elementary school, and the parents were absolutely ecstatic in the change with the introduction of this principal. But regrettably the enrolment in this school was dropping below the 200-student level, at which point, according to the policy of the Vancouver School Board, it was no longer entitled to a full-time principal.

The trustees knew that the school needed a principal, that it needed that leadership because it was coming out of difficult times. But we were in difficult times also, and we had a lot of other demands in the system. So we thought: how can we keep this school alive? How can we keep the enrolment up so that we can justify putting a principal in there? We always look to district programs, and one of the most popular district programs is French immersion. There was demand for another French immersion school on the west side. There was plenty of space in this school, and it would have solved the problem of keeping the principal in the school.

Well, by the response of the parents you would have thought we had wanted to move a troop of Nazis into that school. I attended many public meetings where parents — the interesting thing was that many of these parents were people that I had gone to school with — were violently opposed to the introduction of this program in their school. "Just leave us alone," they said. "You're going to spoil our school. We don't want it in there. It's going to ruin our programs; we hate it. Go away. We're never going to vote for you again."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If we were weak-minded, if we weren't operating on the basis of a firm philosophical foundation, principle and policy, if we didn't really believe that what we were doing was in the best interests of the school, we would have backed down, because certainly the public outcry was outrageous. But we stuck to our guns, and we said: "Well, okay, maybe they won't vote for us next time, but this is in the best interests of the children of Vancouver. This is in the best interests of this school, and we believe our decision will be home out."

The new program wasn't in there more than three months before there was a love affair between the parents who had opposed it and the new program, its teachers, its students and the new parents. They were ecstatic. It livened up the school; it strengthened the core French program. Now the complaint is that the program is only in from K to grade 3, and they want it to go further. They want it to go from K to grade 7. We were right to take that decision.

Last weekend I was in Campbell River talking to the conference of Canadian Parents for French. One of the parents whose children went to that new French immersion program laughed with me about the public meeting we were at, because she had said to me at this public meeting, when vituperation was being heaped upon my head and upon all of the other trustees on the Vancouver School Board by the parents.... She had asked me: "What are you going to do if they don't approve it?" I had said, jokingly, to her: "We'll shove it down their throats." She laughed and remembered that, because it was a very dicey situation. But she said: "You

[ Page 997 ]

know, you were right, because you were elected to make decisions."

Mr. Speaker, our government is elected to make decisions. The opposition to Bill 20 is quite understandable. It is understandable in terms of the BCTF policy and view: that they are not committed to the principles of workplace democracy in the same way that we are and in the same form. They do not share our view that teachers should not have a legislated certification, that if they are going to come under the Labour Code, they should have the full benefit of the Labour Code, including the right to decertify if they are unhappy with their bargaining union. They do not relish the prospect of having to go out and earn that certification, and why should they? That's human nature. I don't blame them. Their opposition is understandable. The opposition of those who are apprehensive about change and a new order is also understandable. But, Mr. Speaker, I and the other members on the government side of this House believe that the value of this legislation and its merit will be proven out when it is in place, and that the opposition has to be dealt with sensitively and responsively.

Government is elected to make decisions. That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I support Bill 20.

MR. BARNES: I would like first of all to commend the speaker who just took her seat. It is always interesting to listen to her remarks. She is clearly a very learned person, especially in the field of education, where she was once, I think, quite an effective chairman of the Vancouver School Board. I certainly don't doubt her sincerity in light of the remarks that she has just given us the opportunity to hear.

However, I think that she was of great assistance in clarifying the government's particular agenda with respect to politics, stating quite clearly that the B.C. Teachers' Federation as an organization was one of the objects that Bill 20 attempts to address.

I had hoped that we would be here to commend the government for having carried out the letter of its commitment during the last election with respect to consultation and an attempt to get some agreement and consensus around an initiative as large as this. The speech of the member who just took her seat would have been an excellent statement to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and all others who are interested in this issue — to the public, in fact — to allow the time that we were requesting just recently to have the bill hoisted in order to provide the input that clearly is needed. It is very difficult to be speaking in a situation where it is pretty much a closed door, and we know it is a fait accompli as far as anything we are doing here this evening is concerned.

The government is going to win the vote, and we may win the debate.

However, the question is not that there are not problems in the public school system, and I think that it would be really irresponsible on the part of either side of the House to suggest that there are no problems in the public school system and that there is no need for improvement. But, Mr. Speaker, the most salient point that we're trying to make on this side of the House — and really it's the main point which seems to keep escaping the government, and I think quite deliberately — is what good government is all about and what bad government is all about.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), I believe, spoke about the B.C. Teachers' Federation not having the duty to hold the hand of the teachers, that it should make up its mind whether it's a political organization, a professional organization, or whatever kind of organization it might be. It should be clear. It should have the courage to come out and stand for one aspect of service to the teachers.

That is really the question. When did the government decide that it would take on the teachers, and why the teachers? Why the B.C. Teachers' Federation and why not some of the other professional organizations? We've gone through these. The Leader of the Opposition went through a whole list of occupational organizations that had had their bills developed through consultation, many of them private members' bills. But in this instance, where to my knowledge there is no parallel in terms of the initiative of the government in Canada, where this is a new approach to arriving at consensus.... That is the issue.

MR. BLENCOE: In the Socred tradition.

MR. BARNES: In the Socred tradition, obviously; the second member for Victoria is quite correct. But this new Premier has said things differently. We're hopefully not going to be faced with traditions of the past, be they Socred or otherwise. We're looking forward. We realize that there have to be more effective means of providing government for the people of British Columbia. It's the process. We could spend some time on that, because I think that's what really concerns us the most. The government has set itself up pretty much as a judge and jury. It has decided that it knows best, and in a democracy I think that's a dangerous thing. Even though the government may in fact have sufficient information to justify a particular initiative. It should always be cautious about proceeding without at least appearing to be interested in the views of others, and in sufficient time to allow the public to accept and adopt that concept.

So what are the teachers to do? This is a bill by decree. It's as though the government has in effect declared war on this particular occupational group. In a recent Vancouver Sun article — May 4 — the Premier is quoted as having said that teachers are perennially a problem, back to the days of W.A. C. Bennett, and perhaps even back before that. He says the teachers are militant. When you take another took at the comments by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), I think she has very clearly laid out the government's concerns and reasons. Politics being what they are, I don't begrudge the government the right to identify what it perceives to be its enemies, but I think the government is here to govern everybody, not just its friends.

[5:45]

What we in the opposition are saying is that fair is fair; due process should always prevail, The teachers themselves are law-abiding, despite what the Premier is saying about them going on a study session. In a democracy, when your back is up against a wall, you have to expect people to find some course of action that's open to them. But even as they're doing that, Mr. Speaker, even as they decided to take this one day study session to protest the way they're being treated, they spent considerable time trying to ensure that certain activities were not interrupted; looking for alternative ways of dealing with, for instance, the long list of services that do not fall under the contractual arrangements they have with the school boards. I'm sure most of us in the House have seen this special edition No. 2 of "Action Update" put out by the teachers, which is entitled "Instruction-Only Campaign."

[ Page 998 ]

The thing about this debate is that in our desire to straighten up a problem that, I'm sure, we all could make a contribution to in terms of ways to make things better, we should think about what the teachers really have been doing for society. We talk about the youth as the most important resource in our society, as the builders of the future, the leaders of the future, the ones that we have to rely on to be able to carry the ball in the future. But what are we doing to enlighten them on what's really happening in their lives? Some students are of the impression that the teachers are being negligent and irresponsible because of this protest action. But if you were to take a group of students and let them hear, for instance, the speech just made by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, let them hear her arguments and solutions to problems, and then ask them — many of whom, in fact, may be planning to become teachers — whether, in fairness, they feel, by virtue of their desire to become teachers in the public school system, the private system or in whatever quarter they decide, that they should be singled out as an occupational group, different from all others — which is the case with Bill 20....

Bill 20 is saying that there is a class of professionals that the government must deal with a heavy hand, differently than it does with any other organization in this country. This is the point of this bill that disturbs me. I'm not suggesting that I'm an expert on educational matters, as the previous speaker obviously is — and sounding very impressive and confident, I'm sure, in terms of details. I'm not a particular expert when it comes to labour-management relations or teacher-administrator relations, or any of those things. But I do feel very strongly about due process, about fairness and about the principles of democracy, and I believe that they are the cornerstone of any government in a free society. That is the first thing you do, especially with teachers, especially with people we are asking to have an influence on the lives of our young people — the ones we say are our most important resource. We're asking them to stand before a class day after day and express themselves and become role models and to represent the very best that our society has to offer, yet we kick them around as though they don't matter — like they're second-class citizens. And we wonder why they are upset.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Among all of the workers in this society, they are probably the most reasonable, the most committed to their work, the most caring, and some of us have even said the most unaggressive — you know, timid — because they don't like to go out on strike. They want to apologize at the same time they're going out on strike. They're not militant. They are not political, despite what this government is saying. They would like to have peace and tranquillity, goodwill and above all some appreciation for the work that they're doing. I have no hesitation whatsoever in defending those principles.

I know as well as anyone else in this House that there are teachers who are not toeing the line the way they should. There are people in every profession that you could identify as not doing their job.

MRS. GRAN: Politicians too.

MR. BARNES: And politicians — not to name myself, of course.

I want to share with the House what this instruction-only campaign that the teachers have devised has to say about some of the responsibilities of teachers. What do you think some of them are, things that we take for granted?

We think of teaching as instruction — reading, writing, arithmetic. I don't know everything that they teach these days, but it's a lot of the so-called basics — the Socred basic program. But it's a very complex thing. There's a lot more going down, and it's changing every day. The whole idea of information availability, the computerized lives that we're having to live.... It confounds most of us who were educated a generation ago to understand just how people are going to be able to keep up.

There has to be a sense of communication, enthusiasm, encouragement, and humanity in those classrooms. They're becoming very high-test situations. There's a lot of pressure on everybody. Teachers not only have to upgrade themselves or maintain themselves at a high level of competence, but they are being expected to carry on things that they've always carried on traditionally but which are non-contractual. That's why they say they have an instruction-only campaign. But you know what that excludes — and this is what I think some of the students are upset about. This is why I say, why don't we tell the students the politics involved? Let them understand that these teachers — whom the Premier is accusing of being irresponsible for going out on a one-day study session in protest, and being apologetic all the way — have been giving voluntarily as much time to programs that have become essential and vital to the public school system as to the ones that they've been contracted to provide. That's what's got the students upset, because they're saying: "What's happening to our parties, to the events that we have?"

Listen to some of the things that the teachers do that they don't contract to do. Fundraising: some of those are probably for very essential requirements in the classroom; maybe others are for excursions, you name it; but there's a major commitment on the part of the teachers in the school system to assist by raising extra funds, drives of all sorts. Intramurals, exchange trips, yearbooks, drama, various clubs and athletic teams, dances, band or music practice, field trips, science fairs, concerts, the student council, the choir.... I'm sure this is just a very brief list. And the teachers do this with great enthusiasm, great desire and great will — as they should continue. I don't think they really are saying they want to negotiate for those things. Those are the things they do because they care. I'm sure even the Minister of Education himself, when he was in the classroom, was doing the same thing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Were you not doing the same thing? You didn't have to do it, but when the government gets heavy-handed with you and starts making demands, you say: "Okay, if that's the way you guys are going to treat us, if that's all the thanks we get and you're going to call us a bunch of criminals for going out on a one-day study session, saying we're breaking the law.... We're trying to say, hey, listen, we matter, we count. We're the ones who stand up in the classroom and talk about democracy and the principles of democracy. Now what do we get? You know what we get." And that's wrong. Not only that, you're telling some of them that they're better than the others.

[ Page 999 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you are. You're telling some of these classroom teachers who are doubling up as principals that they should be administrators and that they should be telling tales on their teachers out of class. That's what you're saying. Fire them when they have to go. You're trying to separate them, and they should have collegiality; they should be working together and not opposed to one another. Mr. Minister of Education, you know I'm right. You've been doing it because your heart's on the right side. That's why you got into education in the first place. You wanted to help the young people. Now that you're in government you're starting to get heavy-handed because you're impatient. You want to save democracy for everybody except those guys who are not voting the right way.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. DE JONG: I move that a bill entitled....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member would like leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have to get used to these procedures.

Introduction of Bills

COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

Mr. De Jong presented a bill intituled Columbia Bible College Act.

Bill PR403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, gee, I hate to adjourn. It was so much fun. But I guess the time has drawn nigh, so we will. Mr. Speaker, I now move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.