[ Page 1011 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Provide For Canadian Ownership Of Hydro-Electric Utilities (Bill M202).

Mr. Clark

Introduction and first reading –– 1011

Presenting Reports –– 1011

Oral Questions

Health care for women. Mrs. Boone –– 1011

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Smallwood

Deputy ministers. Mr. Harcourt –– 1013

CNR abandonment of Vancouver Island linkages. Mr. Bruce –– 1013

British privatization program. Mr. Rose –– 1013

Delisting of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 1013

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Mr. Dirks –– 1014

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 1015

Division –– 1022

Tabling Documents –– 1023

Dentists Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 2). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 1023

Mrs. Boone –– 1023

Boundary Act (Bill 3). Committee stage –– 1023

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Appendix –– 1024

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce residents and visitors from West Vancouver. I'd like you to welcome Beth and Dave Mathieson. For the information of the assembly, Mr. Mathieson was a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, representing Charlottetown from 1947 to 1951. Furthermore, Mr. Mathieson's father was Premier of Prince Edward Island from 1911 to 1917. Would all members please welcome the Mathiesons to our assembly today.

There's one more — sorry about that. The Speaker's got a lot of friends. Hon. members, also from the Speaker's riding, would you please welcome Mr. John Gregory.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the Legislature this afternoon a person who was the mayor of Vancouver's communications assistant for six years. She was also the film commissioner for the city of Vancouver, and worked very closely with her counterparts in the provincial government to bring about 47 feature films to British Columbia and to Vancouver last year — Ms. Jane MacDonald.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the members' gallery today Mr. Mike Sone. Mike is the author of Pioneer Tales of Burnaby. This book, which was initiated in 1981 when I was the mayor of Burnaby, has grown to over 500 pages, with extensive use of historical photographs, and will be published this month. I would ask the House to recognize Mike Sone and congratulate him and the many others who contributed to the publication of this book.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming the former CCF MLA for Mackenzie from 1952 to 1966: Mr. Anthony — better known as — Tony Gargrave.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are 180 students from Jericho Hill School for the Deaf in Vancouver. I believe one group of those students is in the House at this very moment. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the precincts today are my daughter Kim and her husband, Mark Chaisson. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. JONES: I would like to introduce a constituent of mine today, George McLaughlin, who works at UBC and is a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Would the House please make George welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting the Legislature today is a young lady from Kamloops, now residing in Vancouver. She is visiting friends here in the buildings and I'd like the House to welcome Michelle O'Reilly.

MR. S.D. SMITH: On behalf of the first and second members for the great constituency of Okanagan South, I'd like to ask the House to join me in making welcome a gentleman from that constituency, Dick Stewart.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC UTILITIES

Mr. Clark presented a bill intituled An Act to Provide for Canadian Ownership of Hydro-Electric Utilities.

MR. CLARK: This is a simple bill which amends the Utilities Commission Act to prohibit the sale of hydroelectric utilities to foreign interests. The current act contains no such prohibition. The immediate impact of the passage of this bill would be to disallow the sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to Missouri-based UtiliCorp United Inc.

The purpose of such amendments is really twofold. First, effective regulation of a foreign-owned utility is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible; at the very least, the costs of regulation rise with foreign ownership. Secondly, and more importantly, electric power represents a vital and strategic section of the economy. The provision of abundant and inexpensive electricity can and has been utilized historically in British Columbia as a catalyst for economic development.

This, of course, was the cornerstone, as members opposite know, of W.A.C. Bennett's provincial economic strategy. The purpose of this bill is to ensure the possibility of continuing such a strategy in the future.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Crandall, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, presented a report, which was read as followed and received:

"May 7, 1987. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows:

"(1) That the preamble to Bill PR402, intituled Victoria Foundation Act, has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported as amended.

"(2) That the preamble to Bill PR406, intituled University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, Amendment Act, 1987, has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. CRANDALL: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

MRS. BOONE: The question is to the Minister of Health. Women have consistently been denied their fundamental right under the Canada Health Act at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, as you're well aware. The minister claims to have

[ Page 1012 ]

received no request for an investigation, even though many citizens, including members of the Royal Inland medical staff, have written with complaints. The official opposition has repeatedly requested an investigation. Can the minister confirm that he is stonewalling an investigation because of his own personal and religious convictions?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that I'm not stonewalling. I would like the member to know also that I do not investigate Vancouver General, who perform abortions pretty nearly on demand, and I'm just saying to the member for Prince George North that the act is very clear. The Criminal Code of Canada spells out very clearly what my role is as the minister in reference to abortions, and I'll repeat it, just in case the hon. member has not heard me the last four or five times. Under the Criminal Code of Canada an accredited or designated hospital may appoint a therapeutic abortion committee. This committee shall consist of not less than three physicians. They will make the decision whether in fact an abortion may be performed or not. Are you asking me as a layperson to second-guess a physician and say: "I will overrule. You must perform abortions." Come on, you don't really mean that.

MRS. BOONE: What I mean is that the medical staff contends that the committee is making moral rather than medical judgments. The minister has continued to ignore the situation in Kamloops because of his beliefs. He has clearly failed, to uphold the rights of the women in that particular area, Will the minister now do the proper thing and resign so that someone unbiased can do the job?

HON. MR. DUECK: I have said in the past, and I'll say it again: my responsibility as Minister of Health is exactly what I spelled out to you earlier, and I will not take any action in regard to the letter from the doctors in Kamloops. Yes, I have received that letter, and in that letter they state very clearly that they have no confidence in the board. That does not tell me those physicians are not operating properly. That does not tell me the hospital is not functioning properly. It tells me the board has chosen — this therapeutic abortion committee, who are physicians.... I'm not second-guessing them. I'm not saying that the three physicians who are in favour of abortions would do a better job. I don't know. That's not up to me to decide. I'm telling you we have an abortion committee in place; they are functioning. Health care is not being jeopardized, and therefore I have no reason to take any action whatsoever.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health: if the doctors have no confidence in the board, shouldn't the minister be taking action forthwith?

HON. MR. DUECK: If I may again, to the opposition, I believe there are 130 doctors in Kamloops, and 60 of them decided they had no confidence in the board. That doesn't tell me the hospital is not functioning. It also doesn't tell me.... These physicians who are not in favour have no confidence in the board on one item only, and that's abortion. They are doing their job properly, as physicians would; that's the oath they took. I understand they're performing their duties excellently.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House how many doctors it would take for him to finally take action? Would 66 be enough?

HON. MR. DUECK: If you ask me how many it would take, I haven't got the answer and I'm not going to say.

MR. WILLIAMS: It could be the whole 130. What the minister is telling us is that his own religious beliefs are interfering with the administration of these statutes in this province. Is that what he's telling us?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the board has been duly elected; the therapeutic abortion committee has been properly appointed. There's an election coming up in June. If the people of Kamloops do not agree with the present board, they can elect another one.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Minister of Health, Dr. James Dewar of the staff there has said that the guidelines established by the board should be accepted by the medical staff. Would the minister agree that that's a reasonable request?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the member that we do not run hospitals; we fund them.

MR. BARNES: I just want to ask the Minister of Health one question. The minister has suggested that the board was elected; that the abortion committee is duly appointed and is carrying out its duties; that he does not want to interfere. Would he make a distinction between the functions of that board and the Vancouver School Board, which is also duly elected, and which was fired by a minister of this government? Is there a difference between when you use your power and when you don't?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I believe a lot of these questions are not to get answers; these questions are just to show their bias. They say I'm biased, but everybody's biased. I'm telling you again that we have a system in place, and that is to elect people from a society that is formed. This is historic. If it is changed in the future, it may well be that it's an election at large, but at the present time it is not, and therefore we abide by the system that is in place.

Furthermore, I'm really amazed how much effort is put into performing abortions rather than keeping someone alive. The effort is just I can't believe the pressure that's put on to make sure that every women gets an abortion. Really, I do not understand it. Why aren't you equalizing it? I'm not witch-hunting in Vancouver General. I'm not going in there and saying: "You have 100 percent abortion.... Everyone that requests one has an abortion." But you're accusing me of being biased because I am not taking action in Kamloops. For goodness' sake, keep it straight. I am not biased. I am being equal. I am being neutral on either one.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has made reference to the amount of effort that has gone into preserving the rights of individuals to safe health care. The point of our concern is that we have a 14-year-old in this province who has had to go through a stillbirth. Mr. Minister, at what point does the health of the people in our communities

[ Page 1013 ]

raise enough concern in your mind that you will go in and investigate it?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am being loved; otherwise they wouldn't be picking on me.

I must tell the member again: I am not the abortion committee. We have a system in place, and you want me to overrule that. That is not my job. How many times do I tell you that?

DEPUTY MINISTERS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about deputy ministers and the Premier's office. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) and the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) have confirmed publicly that the Premier's new centralized system requires that deputy ministers report directly to the Premier on administrative concerns, staff levels and review of ministry programs. Further, the deputies have been expressly forbidden to discuss these concerns with their ministers. To quote the Minister of Agriculture: "The deputies are the employees of the Premier. There are a lot of discussions with the Premier; that's not my responsibility."

The question is: can the Premier confirm that this absolute centralization of authority is the reason for the ministerial incompetence we have witnessed in recent weeks leading to, for example, ministers introducing bills they have not even read?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this question. I was beginning to think for a moment that the only thing that mattered to the NDP in B.C. was abortions.

Having said that, however, I want to answer the question, because I think it is of importance that the Leader of the Opposition and other members across the floor be aware of how the system works. The deputy does report to the minister. There is that line of authority, and obviously there is ongoing communication. However, the appointment of the deputies is by order-in-council, on the recommendation of the Premier.

CNR ABANDONMENT OF
VANCOUVER ISLAND LINKAGES

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. CN Rail has applied to abandon a number of linkages on Vancouver Island, particularly one in my riding of Cowichan-Malahat. Many of these linkages come down to tidewater and are extremely important, I believe, for the economic well-being of Vancouver Island. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he's aware of the abandonment process by CN Rail, and what he is intending to do about it if he is aware of it.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The answer is yes, I am aware of it, and I have protested the proposed abandonment to the Hon. John Crosbie, Minister of Transport.

BRITISH PRIVATIZATION PROGRAM

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a question of the minister of intergovernmental affairs and privatization. Yesterday the minister was asked about the study of the failure of the British privatization program to resolve worsening unemployment in Britain. The minister indicated that the main reasons for the failure were "poor white trash and 10,000 immigrants in that country." I notice the minister winces, as he should. I wonder if these comments are reflective of the minister's attitude towards unemployed British Columbians as well as British workers. Can he advise how it's appropriate to refer to anybody as "poor white trash"?

[2:30]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'd like to certainly see the quote that you quote from. I don't take credit for making those remarks at all. I would be prepared to speak at length in my estimates on my discoveries on privatization in Britain and other items that were brought forward, but I don't associate myself with the remarks you made. If someone has said that I had made those remarks, I categorically deny it.

DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL
TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. On April 3 of this year the Vancouver Stock Exchange delisted a company by the name of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. It was done only after it became evident that the company had ripped off hundreds of investors, and only after $172 million in stock certificates were rendered worthless. I'm sure the government now has had the opportunity to investigate this matter. My question is simply this: can the Premier now assure the House and the public that this was an isolated incident, and that steps have been taken to prevent a sin War scam in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question on notice and refer it to the Minister of Finance, and he will provide the proper response.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. It's a generally accepted principle in our society today that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees. For example, if a government employee does something wrong, the government is held responsible for those actions. This concept is known, of course, as vicarious liability.

Is it the policy of the government that the principle of vicarious liability ought to apply in stock market dealings, in matters with brokerage houses and their employees?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's a question of legal opinion. I can't respond to that.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of law that I'm asking the Premier. I'm asking him about government policy with respect to the directives that it passes on to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. What is the government's policy with respect to the vicarious liability of employees working for brokerage houses?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will take that as notice as well, and provide it to the Minister of Finance, and he can incorporate that into his response.

[ Page 1014 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued debate)

MR. DIRKS: I'm pleased to rise this afternoon in this debate and speak in favour of Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act.

I listened to the debate this morning with great interest, and really, I'm quite amazed at what I heard. This bill has now been available for study for over a month, yet in spite of all the ongoing debate, in spite of the media attention to this bill and its provisions, the Leader of the Opposition this morning revealed to me that he still doesn't understand either the meaning of this bill or its provisions. In his speech this morning he deplored the B.C. class sizes and the lack of support services in our schools. Does he not realize that for the first time in British Columbia's history, when this legislation is passed, the teachers will have input as to class sizes? They will be able to negotiate those things as support services. This is a right presently denied the teachers under the School Act. At the present time, teachers are only allowed to negotiate with school boards on salary matters. This has been an irritant to the teachers and one of the reasons the teachers, in their brief to the labour review committee and the brief submitted by the BCTF, requested full bargaining rights. They wanted to negotiate all matters concerning their workplace. Bill 20 will give them precisely this opportunity.

I would therefore urge that the Leader of the Opposition, while he is making his jaunts around this province, might take Bill 20 with him. It is good reading on the airplane. I believe that if he studied this bill in detail, he would see that it gives the teachers precisely what they have asked for, and the right to negotiate class sizes.

But it wasn't just the Leader of the Opposition. Listening this morning to the other Hon. members opposite, and listening to the pronouncements of the BCTF over the past several months, I get the funny feeling that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The local teachers' associations in their briefs to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson), wanted immediate action; they did not want to wait for the royal commission. They wanted full bargaining rights, they wanted to be treated like any other public sector employee, and they wanted it right now. This was also borne out by the BCTF` brief. On page 33 of that brief they state:

"We hope you will act quickly to implement them, because the problems we have described are aggravated by the passage of time. The provision of a basic system of collective bargaining between teachers and boards has been on the agenda for too many years, has been sought in too many briefs, has eluded the action of too many ministers."

The announcements by Elsie McMurphy through the media of March 17 and 18 on behalf of the BCTF threatened job action prior to the end of this school year unless they had their demands met. The urgency for change certainly came over loud and clear. This was before this legislation was introduced into this House on April 2. Yet when this legislation was introduced two weeks after McMurphy's statement — two weeks after McMurphy had stated there would be job action this year if they did not get these rights — we see the BCTF again calling for job action, when the fundamental rights, the basic things that they asked for in their brief, are found embodied in this legislation. On March 17 the BCTF said: "Give us what we want or we'll walk out." On April 2 they were given that, and we still had job action. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Of course, this is certainly in keeping with the Leader of the Opposition's statement this morning. He is obviously damning this government because of class sizes, yet he condemns the very legislation that will allow teachers to negotiate class sizes.

I know both sides of this House deplore the disruptions that are happening in education today. Education is our future, and these disruptions that we see are being played out under the present legislation. Our present system is not functioning properly. The BCSTA, the BCTF and the minister all agree on that point, that changes are needed. Yet the opposition would like to delay changes that will bring about a better, harmonious situation in our educational system.

You can't ask for things today and then, when you are being granted them, say: "No, we don't want them." You can't ask for government to act quickly, and then when it does act in an expeditious manner say: "Whoa, we need more time."

Why is time being requested? It is my understanding that time was necessary in order to come up with amendments so this legislation would be satisfactory and would create the desired results. And yet listening this morning to one of the Hon. members opposite, because some amendments are now being contemplated he stated that this legislation is obviously flawed. Again the old idea of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The whole idea of debate, which will allow time for the opposition and the public to make themselves aware of this legislation and suggest specific areas where changes might occur for better legislation — that's the consultative process. That's the process that the minister has carried out. That's the process that he has been using with the BCTF over the last several weeks, Now, when the possibility of amendments is being brought up, the opposition says: "Well, if the amendments are needed, it can't be good legislation." You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

Not having it both ways, I think that's a key problem. I believe that that is the crux of the debate that is going on on the outside today. Up till now, the BCTF has been able to have it both ways, and I believe that's a fundamental problem. Up till now, whenever it suited its purposes the BCTF was able to don its professional hat and appear as a professional organization. Whenever it suited their purposes, off came the professional hat, on went the union hat, and they acted as a union.

This debate has gone on in the BCTF for years. Which side would gain precedence, the professional aspect or the union-type aspect? They have been able for years to keep their association fair and healthy and do whatever they wanted to do, whenever they wanted to do it, by maintaining that debate rather than having to commit in one direction or the other. This legislation, however, brings the local teachers' association and hence the BCTF as an association to their hour of decision. The BCTF will now have to decide whether it will remain as an association and represent those local associations of teachers who wish to remain outside the union, or whether it will want to form itself as a true union and compete with other unions for the local teachers' associations that wish to go the union route.

[ Page 1015 ]

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the essence. This is why this debate is raging on the outside. This is why there is hesitancy out there. This is why the BCTF is opposing this legislation. It has nothing to do with the rights of the teachers that BCTF is worried about. It's not the classroom situation. It's not the education of the children that the BCTF is worried about at this point but rather which way the BCTF should go — association or union.

[2:45]

I don't think at this point the BCTF executive are clear in their minds as to which way they can jump and maintain the majority of teachers under their wing. Even if they do jump in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, there is no certainty that they will be able to maintain those teachers under their wing, as they have in the past with mandatory membership, unless they are responsive to the wants and desires of the local association or union of teachers, whichever way they go. The local teachers' association or union could opt out. This is the hesitancy — which way to go, union or association — for the BCTF Which way will they be able to maintain themselves? But just as the teachers at the local level are now going to have to decide whether they want to form local associations or organize into a union, the BCTF has to make that decision, a decision they haven't been forced to make before.

In my discussions with a pro-BCTF teacher just last week, I asked him at one point: "What would have been the reaction of the BCTF if the government, by a stroke of the pen, had simply declared the BCTF to be the teachers' union and that the mandatory membership clause would remain in effect?" He looked at me for a moment and then said: "It would be quite different." I'm sure it would be. But we don't do that to any other employee in this province. We don't do that to the public sector employees; why should we do it to the teachers? The teachers asked to be treated the same as any other public sector employee and they are getting that treatment under Bill 20.

Much too much, in my opinion, has been made by the teachers and the opposition about the College of Teachers: that this is something the teachers did not request, that there is no basis for it, no need for it. But local teachers' associations will now have the opportunity to either remain an association or go union; should they go union, they will no doubt have a choice as to which union they would prefer to go with. The BCTF chooses one or the other. There will no longer be that one body in this province that is responsible for the professional development of all teachers.

When you combine professional development with some of the rights and privileges that are now vested in the minister — such as certification, decertification, quality of education of teachers — and when you put those new rights and powers into the College of Teachers and also give that college the mandate for professional development, I believe that for the first time in the history of B.C. the teachers of this province will have a truly professional organization that will be able to determine the destiny of teachers professionally. I believe this is an exciting time to be in the education field. When you couple the College of Teachers and the professional development that can occur, that professional association, and when you separate completely the salary negotiations in those matters dealing with local school boards and give that to a separate body, under this new legislation teachers really will have rights and privileges that they never had before. They will be able to bargain or to negotiate with their school boards on all matters that they feet are important in the education of children. Teachers have talked about class sizes, teacher aides, preparation time; these things have been brought into the public eye a number of times. But teachers were helpless to negotiate with school boards on those matters. Now they will have the right to negotiate those things. They will have the input into the education of the students of this province which they have requested in the past and were denied.

I would urge that we move on in the debate of this bill to the next process, where we can debate it section by section and see some of these amendments that may come forward to create better legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping to keep my comments relatively brief, but there is a fair bit of material to cover. So in the event that I need the extra time, I would like to indicate that I will be the designated speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we've had some interesting discussion on Bill 20 and the hoist motion for, I guess, the best part of two weeks. Presumably, much of the discussion was to be on the philosophical aspects or points of view presented by Bill 20. Unfortunately, much of the discussion and criticism was about things that were neither directly stated nor even implicit in Bill 20. I suppose you'd put it in the category of creating straw men and then slaying these straw men that did not exist and were not intended to exist; some of us can't find them anywhere in the legislation.

However, while this public debate has been going on, we have been meeting with the representatives of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B. C. School Trustees' Association. We have also had considerable input from parents, students, teachers, superintendents, administrators, school boards — from almost everywhere. We've had a lot of input: some expressing concern; some expressing misconstrued concerns; and a lot of discussion and debate actually fomenting the misconceptions that have created a lot of unnecessary anxiety. We have done our best here in the House and through the media, through whatever avenues were available to me, to try to correct the misconceptions. I fully appreciate that there may not be full agreement on some of the philosophical aspects of this legislation; but we had certainly hoped that people would at least react to the legislation on the basis of correct information, which was certainly available to anyone who wanted it. If some of the things that teachers and students were told were in fact true, I could certainly understand much of that anxiety. Unfortunately, it was, as I said, unnecessary anxiety, because they don't exist.

However, I'm pleased with the progress made in those negotiations. I think we're going to end up with a better bill, a more clearly understood bill. Those discussions have resulted in a number of amendments, and I'll be commenting more on that later. I can tell you at this point that many of the amendments are technically perhaps unnecessary. But we were looking at going as far as we possibly could in cooperating to make sure that what was intended in the legislation was what was in fact understood by everyone — and perhaps I'll give a few examples later on in my comments. Our objective, therefore, was to clarify, to improve, and to alleviate any concerns that might come from misinterpretation of the wording of the bill.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think that as teachers, administrators and the general public recognize what is actually intended by this legislation,

[ Page 1016 ]

much of the furor can die down, will die down, should die down, and we can get back to what this is all about: serving the best interests of the students and the public in this province. I think there are many people who espouse that view. Unfortunately, we get wrapped up in a number of things. For instance, going back just a bit....

I have been meeting, since I was appointed Education minister, with the BCTF and the BCSTA. I think I met with some 45 or 47 school boards in the province, almost all of them through the regional zone meetings, in that interval. I asked a lot of questions, and heard a lot of presentations and what I consider to be worthwhile discussions. I can remember saying on numerous occasions, yes, I can appreciate your impatience, but judge me in two years when I've had an opportunity to deal with some of these things that you're concerned about. I might point out that we had many good achievements come from these discussions in that period of time. We had the child sexual abuse prevention program that from the report, to hiring a coordinator, to putting a program in place and getting it out in a system in less than six months — which I consider not bad, considering the system.... We were able to put together in less than six months an early retirement program that had been proposed. We discussed that and agreed on it, and that was again to serve the best interests of the students by rejuvenating the teaching force. We did get a royal commission in place, not to everybody's satisfaction but certainly underway and operating, and I think as it evolves we'll find out that it has a broad mandate and an opportunity to really look at what needs to be done in education and what direction education should take in the future.

I also consider it a considerable accomplishment that in that short period of time, with all of the views that prevail in our society about sex education, we have been able to put together a program that is for grades 7 to 12 in the schools in September. That is out, and actually to even procure extra funding for that over and above our budget, as we put more things into the school system.... I think we can't keep doing that. So that is on its way and other steps are being taken. In the meantime, the regular process goes on of monitoring that program and eventually incorporating it into the original design of a family life and sex education program, to be fully in place in this province by September 1989. So that is going along very well.

It might be interesting for many members to note that committees have been meeting, discussing that and dealing with that while all the furor is going on. So I use that to illustrate that there is a common bond among educators, the government and the people in this province, and that common bond is to try to serve the best interests of the students and society.

[3:00]

I can tell you that we've made progress in simplifying the Fund for Excellence program, and that is in the process now of being sent out to school boards. Many of these things we have accomplished in that short period of time. We had a problem about textbooks; we were able to deal with that — not to the full extent, but certainly $600,000 in one year — by cutting back other functions of the ministry, which I think is somewhat of an achievement.

On special education, the Leader of the Opposition made the point that we have ignored special education and ESL — the English-as-a-second-language program. Just from 1984 to '85-86, the budget for ESL in this province went up from just over $28 million to over $33.5 million in that year, and it's up considerably again this year.

There have been many improvements of and extensions to special education, not only the funding that has been accomplished; but I have said repeatedly that a few years ago this government made the decision to deinstitutionalize many of the mentally and physically handicapped students and to incorporate them as much as possible into the normal streams of society. That has been accomplished in a very short time.

Yes, and the credit goes — as practically everything that happens in the school — to the professionalism of the teachers who function in those classrooms. I have never questioned that; I have commended them and I think they deserve the commendation of our total society for the way they have incorporated, involved and included some of these very severely handicapped.... If some of you had the same opportunity, and I hope you do, to go into some of the schools where you see people who are almost totally and completely paralyzed except for head movement, and with the help of equipment and a computer word processor, actually tapping out and writing stories and communicating with me as I was standing there — no mean achievement.... Certainly costly, but imagine what it must do to those people.

So all of these things are going on. Perhaps that's setting the stage. However, what I was faced with was that while we were making all these accomplishments or achievements together and for the common purpose, there was continually the underlying fight for full bargaining rights. I would have a good meeting, come back and be blasted: "Unless you do something, we're going to take job action. We wanted the royal commission." We said: "Okay, we're going to appoint a royal commission immediately." The B.C. Teachers' Federation and others said: "And don't you dare bury this business of bargaining rights for teachers under the royal commission. We'll not have that; we'll not tolerate it, because we've waited too long already." Yet we've heard a lot of comments here about: "Well, why not now leave this to the royal commission?" I suppose in a sense it's because I was responding to.... The royal commission report and the implementation of that report could be two years away, and in the meantime we were threatened with constant, continuing and escalating disruption in the school system in order to deal with the full bargaining rights. Now I'm told: "Well, why didn't you just leave this to the royal commission?" Because I didn't want further disruption for another two years in the education system while that fight went on. Neither did this government.

So what we needed to do was get that settled, the bargaining rights issue and all of that, so that we could get back to what we're 0 here for — and I say "all of us" in the education system — and that is to make it the best possible education system, so that we could concentrate on that. Believe me, it was not easy to be negotiating all the time, to be talking and trying to get these improvements in curriculum, in funding and all of these things where we're saying let's work together, and then the fight. Well, you know, that was a difficult role. I chose to play it, but I suppose I'll have to take the blame for it, if you like. I guess I lost out on that one.

My last attempt at that was just before the annual general meeting of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, when I asked them if they would at least invite the Minister of Education to their annual general meeting and let me talk to them. Maybe the battle plan was drawn, or whatever, but I was assured that I

[ Page 1017 ]

would not get a proper hearing. I said: "I'm willing to take that risk. At least hear my side of it." The answer was no. To me it was astounding that the organization that claims to be the primary organization with an interest in education in this province would not let the Minister of Education speak to the annual general meeting — and hadn't for a few years — even though I was willing to take the risk.

I can assure you that that is not why this legislation is here — as sort of an "Okay, if you wouldn't have it that way, you can have it this way." The reason this legislation is here is to try to meet the needs and the requests of the teachers of this province in that they said they were entitled to full bargaining rights and there were little arguments left to say that they weren't. If you go to the full bargaining rights, then certain other things were triggered from that, and that decision was made. The Labour minister went around the province, and I went around the province. We all heard this from trustees and from boards: that we can and should be able to bargain between our local association and the board, the employer, because that is the actual fundamental relationship of governance of teachers and boards in this province.

I might digress for a moment and say that a lot of the discussion here has been that this legislation, Bill 20, does not deal with curriculum concerns. I have to commend the members opposite, the ones who did that, for being very astute. It does not deal with the budget for education, with curriculum, or with special education. So I have to grant you that fully. And why so much discussion went on attacking what the bill wasn't doing.... This bill was dealing with the teachers' organization in the province and how it functions, and collective bargaining. Once in a while the discussion got back to that; and perhaps, in that vein, I should get back to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. I'm just getting back to it.

If I could outline some of the rationale, once the decision was made to allow teachers full bargaining, as I've indicated, there was quite a divided opinion among teachers — not just from my opinion, but from votes they had taken and that sort of thing — about whether they really wanted the right to strike or not. We felt that the diversity of opinion should be recognized. It's somewhat unique that we have been able to do that: to provide for teachers full bargaining rights, including the right to strike, and at the same time retain a choice for those people who didn't want it. Therefore we have the two types of association, the union route or the association route, and both of them covered.

Once we decided that and allowed for the fact that they then had to be included under the old Labour Code or the new Industrial Relations Act, and the fact that the choice was there and the demand.... Really, the only option is that if the union option is available, then they have to be able to organize at the local level, which is your basic unit. From that, in effect, flowed the removal of compulsory membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

If people would set aside their bias and prejudice for a few moments and just recognize what was happening here, we were going to give the teachers the right, at the local association level, to form a union if they so chose. You could not, by any criteria, then say, without any reference to the teachers: "Here is your packaged, sealed, signed and delivered list of members." If that right is to be exercised and the choice is to be exercised by teachers to form a union, then you can't have a pre-delivered list before your members even have a chance to vote on it.

So the compulsory membership in the BCTF is for that reason, not to destroy the BCTF, as has been thrown at us on many occasions. Because under what we were offering and the choice that we were offering: whether the local association formed up as an association without the strike-lockout provision, but full bargaining rights; or whether they formed up as a union, which makes them eligible under the Industrial Relations Act.... In either case, it seemed to me eminently logical that they would still want a central coordinating body. I suspected, in my naivete, that that would probably be the BCTF, rather than CUPE or the Operating Engineers or any other structure, because the common bond was teaching. So I did not see this as a method to get even with or to destroy the BCTF As a matter of fact, with this system the BCTF by choice rather than compulsion could have a much stronger membership. But remember, it wasn't just the individual choice of each member to belong or not to belong. That was decided at the local level. So then the local association by proper democratic vote could decide whether to belong.

There has been so much said about this destroying democracy in the education system and destroying the democratic rights of teachers. I for one, and I am sure many others, can't possibly understand. When you give people a choice as to which route they want to go, or to whom they want to belong, or whether they want to stay with the organization that they are familiar with and are fond of and that has done a great deal for them over many years.... When you have given them all of these choices — and, if you like, one more extension of democracy, so that pressure can't be the tactic, which is a secret ballot so that every member in the quiet of his or her own conscience can actually vote to decide what route they want to take — somehow or other that is translated and thrown back at us as removing democratic rights. That one is a little difficult to swallow.

As I mentioned, the removal of compulsory membership serves a purpose in this total package of legislation. The college aspect is one that, yes, is a little different than it is in any other province, but we were trying to recognize another interest that had been brought forth, and that is professional control, professional autonomy of the teachers in this province. There have been many proposals about the setting of standards and qualifications and the issue of certificates which are now the prerogative of the minister. I suppose we decided that if we were going to go to the full bargaining rights.... You know, there wasn't 100 percent agreement. There were still some people who are leery of that, certainly in the public. "My God, why are you giving the teachers the right to strike when we have already been faced for two years with work-to-rule, and depriving, and some of these things?" They didn't want it, but we felt that teachers, like any other group in society, were entitled to it. So okay, let's go with the whole package at this one time. Let's give them the professional autonomy over certification. So that meant then that they said, as they have said in the past: "We can do both." I don't know. I suppose history will tell whether they could or couldn't. But there was certainly a strong feeling here that as you extended the right.... And in many discussions and meetings that I had, I said: "Can you deal with just disciplining the few members who need disciplining in the profession by dealing with them?" I continually got back from the

[ Page 1018 ]

BCTF: "No, these members are paying a fee. We are obligated to defend and protect them." Yes, I do have some difficulty with how you can say: "We will deal with you professionally, or we will set up a committee that will look at misconduct on your part as a teacher, and then we will hire the rest of our organization to defend you to the umpteenth degree." That is the thing that we felt could not be done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We are talking now about professional autonomy. The school boards always have had and under the new legislation still have the right to deal with incompetence or any of those other things. There is no problem that way; that goes on. What we are saying is that teachers were also asking for professional control over their membership.

MR. ROSE: By boards.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Boards can deal with the incompetence part of it; they can deal with misconduct; they can deal with many of these things. But one of the things too that you have to recognize that happened in this province is that a board could deal with that and dismiss a teacher, and if somehow or other that leaked through the cracks, that teacher could, in effect, teach anywhere in this province and have to go through the whole routine again.

[3:15]

So yes, there have been some preventive measures that have been taken, and yes, the minister is to lift a certificate now to prevent that. Well, how can you say that we want to take over that function from the minister? Now they are arguing that no, the minister should do that. But they wanted to take this function. That was in their submissions. They wanted to take over that sort of thing. So the professional control over the membership.... And not just control; remember that much of the debate always ends on these few. The vast majority of teachers in this province never will face an incompetence hearing or a misconduct hearing because — I don't know what the percentage is — 99 percent or 99.5 percent of these people will function professionally. Many of the things that have been debated here are to deal with that small minority, but you always have to have the vehicle to deal with them. So we felt that this could be done effectively by separating the collective bargaining side so that it was there and upfront and clear-cut, leaving the common bond between all educators in this province under a college.

I know these have been proposed in other areas, have come forward, have been moved back, and all of those sorts of things. We chose at this time, when we were taking some of these major steps towards bargaining and all of the other things, that it might be an appropriate time to do this, and include other people in the province who were not necessarily members of the BCTF, but who held professional teaching certificates. Why not? They're all members of a profession, and that is their common bond. Of course, once you give the college or the professional organization — like the lawyers or engineers in this province — the authority to set the standards and to issue or remove certificates, then everyone who has a certificate must in effect be a member of that college. So you have, then, compulsory membership in that college of teachers.

So probably it's a lengthy step, but I think it was necessary to clear up some of these things that ... this is a political move, this is a political attack, this is an attempt to destroy the BCTF. The BCTF can remain and could even be stronger under this system. There's nothing to take away the BCTF here. The only thing that is removed is compulsory membership, which, through their local associations, they can enjoy the support of once again. So when I take these things in — choice, full bargaining, professional autonomy, and the right to do this by ballot, by their own decision-making, and run by their own members — I feel that this has been a very democratic process.

I have touched on the royal commission. I don't know how often I can say this: despite the fact that the royal commission was set up earlier this year, now I and the government are told: "Why do you not leave the bargaining issues, this whole issue of governance of teachers, to the royal commission.... T' Despite the fact that the commission was there, at their annual general meeting the BCTF laid out a battle plan of escalating job action, including withdrawal of services by June 8 as one possibility, in order to attain full bargaining rights. Now all of that job action, which was already planned, predicated and organized, is being blamed on the legislation, which gives them full bargaining rights and democratic choices as to how they make it.... So it's a little bit hard to accept that this legislation is what has brought all of this about.

We have had work-to-rule, instruction-only — whatever name you want to call it — for two years in this province. For two years we have had that in this province, and then it was being threatened as of this March that it was going to spread across the whole province, under instruction from the BCTF, that everybody should get on this, because as I think their president said.... I have a lot of respect for their president as an individual, so I've tried to stay away from any personal attacks, because I know she's dedicated to her cause, as I am to mine. Both of us, I think, have been dedicated teachers, and I still consider myself a dedicated teacher. But from the organizational spokesmen, we have things like: "B.C. teachers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday on a course of action that could see them on strike by June." In their own newsletter, we have things like: "The annual general meeting, in a dramatic demonstration of teacher frustration, has endorsed an escalating provincewide job action plan aimed at ending wage controls and achieving fair contract settlements." To achieve that, while no right of strike existed, threatening and promising strikes and withdrawal of services from students.... I could quote ad nauseam, I suppose, on some of these things to defend the point, but that's not the point of this.

This morning in debate we were again accused of the legislation being very faulty, because now somebody has come up with 35 amendments. We had said that there were 38 items for discussion on the table in our negotiating meetings, and that we would bring forward amendments to improve that, and we were told that the legislation obviously must have been awful, because it has to have so many amendments. I've already indicated that many of these amendments are only there in a sincere attempt to cooperate: to make sure that what people are reading into this, even though I don't feel it is there, is actually not there.

For instance, let me give you one example without getting into a clause-by-clause debate now. The legislation says, in one section, that those excluded from the bargaining unit are

[ Page 1019 ]

superintendents, assistant superintendents and administrative officers, which by definition means principals, vice principals and directors. The question arose: "You have not said that supervisors and head teachers are included in the bargaining unit." I can't for the life, of me see.... When you say that these are excluded, my logic tells me everybody who isn't named is then included, but you wouldn't believe how long the discussion went on. But a reference some other place in the act, which could be a reference to teachers, doesn't mention supervisors, which could actually mean they are or are not included. In a spirit of cooperation we said fine, we'll say that teachers includes supervisors and head teachers, and they are not excluded.

Those are some of the types of amendments that we brought forward, which I feel don't really need to be there other than to get the cooperation of all the parties concerned.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be this great objection to compulsory membership in the college. While the BCTF is saying that it's evil and wrong to insist on compulsory membership in the college, it is good and just and fair to insist on compulsory membership in the BCTF When you juxtapose them, they are a little hard to understand. It's actually a bit disturbing how people can translate something into a problem when a problem didn't exist. For instance, in the legislation, if they form a certified union under the Industrial Relations Act, then all of those things apply. So set that aside for the moment. But if they form an association, there's a clause that says the association and the board may bargain fully — all terms and conditions and everything else — and they may sign an agreement.

When the technical people got working on that, they said: "But you haven't said in the legislation that an agreement binds the parties to it." I didn't think, when two people voluntarily signed an agreement, that you had to say: "And each of the parties shall abide by that agreement." But would you believe that that was used as: "Yes, we said they could sign an agreement, but we haven't said in the act that the agreement has any meaning"? When two responsible groups of legal age sign an agreement, I just take that as a given; but apparently it wasn't so. One of the amendments is that when they sign an agreement it shall, in fact, be an agreement between the two parties. So you can see that some of these amendments are nothing to do with sloppy legislation; they are simply to say: "My goodness, if that is not understood, then we'll do that."

Other people have said — I suppose in the partisan debate which often goes on here — that this legislation is going to damage the education system in the province. It's going to damage kids, it's going to damage all of these things, it's going to create ongoing confrontation forever. I for one don't believe that. I think this legislation provides the opportunity to get on with the collective bargaining, to resolve that issue once and for all and say: "There you are. By democratic vote you can decide that you are all united for a professional cause in this province, and they will deal with that." Then we can get back to what I would really like to get back to, which has been my approach to a lot of things: to solve the problems in education. Some of it is funding, some of it is curriculum, some of it is other things. But we can work on those and solve problems if we work on them together.

A lot has been said about the fact that the taxpayers in this province overwhelmingly, poll after poll, agree that more money should be spent on education. I think that is fine, but whenever somebody, locally or provincially, ups the taxes, they seem to change their mind, at least for that fleeting moment, about spending more money on education. My approach to this is that as teachers, as trustees and as a government we can work together, make the case for education and say to the public that there is a cost. Somebody pays the bill, and all we're really thrashing around is who takes the blame for it.

So we can work on that, and I think the public is willing to spend more money on education. But I don't think that the public is interested in spending money on education when, as they do so often to make their point, members of the opposition or some others say: "Our education system is rotten and no good; now please pump more money into it." I guess that is one approach. My approach has always been to try and find the positive side of it — that we have a good basis here and that costs us some money. Education is a. good investment. We have some problems, and those problems can be resolved if we put more money into it. I've always felt that taxpayers are willing to put money more readily into something that they feel is worthwhile and good and a good investment than they are into something when they are told it's horrible, it's a disaster, it's all of these things — pump money at it.

In that sense, when the furor dies down here we can really get back to that approach and accomplish a great deal in this province. Maybe not to the satisfaction of many people in here, but in this climate of educational deficits and everything else, in relative terms the Ministry of Education has done very well in the budget this year, and that didn't just happen. We had to make the case in each case. Then when as a government you are facing a deficit, you say the sex education program is important but we can't just keep stuffing it into that, so we need extra money. That has been achieved.

For people to say that I don't care about education, and don't fight for it as I should as minister, is absolutely erroneous. Second, to say that the government ignores education and doesn't care about it when they do.... Despite facing deficits, despite having demands from every other angle, they have provided money where we have been able to make the case for it, and I think that happens. In many districts, if you like, the same thing is happening, With the option of going to their taxpayers,, many boards in this province have now said: "What we're doing is not enough. We think we need more, and we're willing, as the elected representatives of our local taxpayers, to ask the people for more money — to increase the taxes." You don't hear.... Well, anybody hates increased taxes, but you actually don't hear that much. I commend those boards who have taken that route.

[3:30]

I must come back to so many things that were attacked and are being attacked out in public. So many of the anxieties that teachers seem to have about this legislation are not about the legislation but about misinterpretations of it. As an experienced educator in this province, when we look at this legislation.... One of the things was that since all terms and conditions can now be negotiated, therefore all terms and conditions, including class size.... For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, that's now negotiable. It never has been. It's now negotiable between the board and the local teachers' association, so they can reach those agreements. That is negotiable, and anything else is there and can be negotiated. We've given a great deal of rights to those boards to bargain.

[ Page 1020 ]

I know the phrase that's been thrown at us so many times about teacher-bashing, and that is a neat little.... When we said, I guess a few years ago, that we're facing hard economic times and teachers should be part of that, you can see how in propaganda terms that could be turned into teacher-bashing, and then anything that you say fits that role. We've had that from the opposition; we've had that from some of the BCTF propaganda machine. Once you get that emotional term out there, of teacher-bashing, then even the facts don't seem to want to make the case with some of those people.

For all of this teacher-bashing and holding down wages and so on, as I've indicated before, the average teacher's salary in this province in the last four years has gone up a thousand dollars per year.

MR. ROSE: You know why that is, don't you? Because you've got senior people....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Member, I can also show you scale-by-scale comparisons, and show you that since 1981 they have gone up. They have not gone up at the rate that people want, but they have gone up. The spending on education has gone up, and all of those sorts of things.

I might just touch on three things that the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech this morning, and in his previous speech as well. It's kind of handy when you can use the same speech on two occasions. I guess many of us in this House do; he's learning quickly.

MR. HARCOURT: The truth is worth repeating.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would have been nice, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, if you had dealt with the truth. Unfortunately, you created your own version.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You didn't deal with the truth — is that what you want me to say?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That word is a dangerous word in this House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: "Truth"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's the context in which it's used.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would not accuse the Leader of the Opposition of using the truth, then, if it's a bad word.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister mind resuming his seat. He suggested that he wouldn't accuse the Leader of the Opposition of stating the truth, which is another way of saying that he's a prevaricator, or that he's misleading the House. I suggest that the apologetic course for the minister is to say that he withdraws any accusation, or having imputed any motive to the Leader of the Opposition. That's the parliamentary thing to do at this point, not to take a cheap crack at him on his way out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair heard very distinctly what was said and how it was said. There was a withdrawal; it was done in a bit of an unusual way. But perhaps the minister would just clarify that withdrawal, and then we can proceed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I will withdraw that statement. Let me approach it in another way, Mr. Speaker. I was intrigued by the imaginative descriptions of what was neither implicit in the legislation nor directly stated in it. Okay?

The statement the Leader of the Opposition made was that this breaks the promise of restoring peace. If the Leader of the Opposition had been listening to the attacks that were coming here, and the fight, and that sort of thing that was done.... I think this legislation has every opportunity to deal with this issue, and to restore peace and proper action to the education system.

It attacks education? I cannot see how it attacks education. It basically deals with the structuring of the collective bargaining process and the subsequent amendments that flow from that. So therefore I think that it has every opportunity to provide a proper climate in which we can get back to education.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about class sizes, made quite emotional statements that they will not tolerate large class sizes. I'm delighted that you feel that way. I feel that now that they have the right to negotiate the class sizes.... That is part of all the other terms and conditions.

The favourite phrase of the Leader of the Opposition was that the working conditions of the teachers are the learning conditions of the students.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good line.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Good line, very well put, and I think it completely confirms what we're trying to do in this legislation: give the teachers the right to bargain and put on the table all of the terms and conditions for their workplace. So we are governing for all, as we've been asked to do.

The disturbance in schools is doing harm, people have said. Yes, any disturbance like this that somehow or other implicates the students in the school system does harm. I don't know of anything that I have said that is creating that disturbance in the schools. As a matter of fact, the opposition even attacked me for sending a letter out that said to the students: "Please stay in your classes. Your marks will be assured. You will not lose your year because of these activities. If you are a grade 12 student, your exams will be set. They will be marked, and you will get those marks so that you will have the opportunity to enroll in a university, rather than lose a whole year because of some of this nonsense that's going on."

When students were starting to walk out of the schools, when students were starting to do some of these foolish things which could only jeopardize their education and their year, by disobeying the law, I said to them: "Don't do it. Stay in the classes. Concentrate on your education. We'll assure you of the basic elements." The letter also said: "I can't assure you of the extracurricular activities, because I don't have the power to do that." That letter has been labelled as blatantly

[ Page 1021 ]

political, Some people have even said that the minister has no right to send it out, and the students have no right to hear that message — that their year will be protected, that their grade 12 graduation exercises will be protected, that their tests and marking procedures.... I don't even consider those extracurricular activities, and yet I am told that that is somehow or other wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the members said something about our having said that self-interest in teachers is wrong. Everybody has to have some self-interest; it is the process used to achieve it, I suppose, that is the problem. I could go on and pick out quotes from many of the members.

I can assure you that I really believe that as the correct information becomes known to people.... For instance, this legislation nowhere restricts the professional techniques and methods of teachers in the classroom. It was not intended to, and as a matter of fact, because of my experience in the classroom and the resentment that I would feel if someone said to me that beyond, say, the basic things, such as a program of studies, some intended objectives and something to achieve, which it would be my job to do, so that the kids mastered these skills, shall we say — if it was a skills course — or these concepts.... I would have no problem with that; but I would have a considerable problem with someone coming in and saying, "and here is exactly how you must do it." I consider that to be under professional techniques and methods. In other words, if I want to go through that unit sideways, forwards or backwards, that is my professional right in the classroom. As a principal I have seen enough teachers who do things completely differently.... Sometimes you even scratch your head and wonder why. But you have to wait for the results at the end of the year, and if those results are there, then you don't care if they teach standing on their head.

Because of that background and because of that experience, I did not want government to be able to do this, nor any agreement to be able to do this. So we specifically put it in the act that there shall be no provision in an agreement that regulates the professional methods and techniques of a teacher in the classroom. Somehow or other, somebody turned that wording around and said, "This legislation will control the professional techniques and methods of teachers in the classroom," when it was clearly intended not to do that. I don't know whether even an amendment will clarify that, because it was certainly not intended, shouldn't be, and never will be if I can have anything to do with it.

So there were those sorts of things out there. The other major criticism, I suppose, was that because 15 of the 20 members of the council would be elected and five appointed by the minister.... I felt that 15 out of 20 gave control to those who elected, and they were the teachers in this province. Then there was a working committee that could be made up of three members. Somehow somebody translated that into: "Therefore, since the minister appoints five, he can take three of those, put them on a discipline committee and get rid of any teachers he doesn't like." In the first place, the act specifically says the 20-member council shall appoint these committees. So I don't think they would tolerate the minister coming in and saying: "But I want you to pick these three." It seems so obvious, when the council, three-quarters of which is made up of elected teacher representative, picks the committees, that they would pick the committee. So okay, we are doing an amendment to say that if that is such a concern, and you don't understand how that control works, we will change that to make it the elected members, so that the people appointed by me are out. We will include that in the amendments coming before you.

[3:45]

There's another amendment we are changing. We said that appeal from a council decision to the Supreme Court should be on legal and jurisdictional items. I felt quite comfortable with that because I didn't want every case to go to the Supreme Court — to judge how the person was brought up, how he was trained, what university he went to, and all of these things that have been used in some of the judgments. We felt that were the teacher properly or improperly dismissed by the college, that should suffice.... I had complete faith that the judgment would be made not by the three members but by the whole council, if and when the member challenged it — and only if the member consented, so he was not likely to challenge it. Since that council was made up of the teachers' own professional colleagues, I did not anticipate even the possibility of a capricious or silly dismissal, or cancellation of a teacher's certificate to remove him from the college. I did not even dream of something of that nature. To me it was clear-cut. However, they say: "But in effect, in the worst possible scenario, you could do that and then the member has only the right to the jurisdiction." So we said okay, we'll expand that, and that constitutes one of your amendments.

So those are the sort of things that mean that we end up with quite a few amendments that in many cases are simply to clarify those sort of "well, if you do that...." And believe me, I can tell you one of the amendments as well. In one place we used the word "bylaws" and in another place we used the word "rules." To me they're somewhat synonymous — the rules made by the council or the bylaws made by the council — but when the legal and technical people got at them they wondered what my Machiavellian plot was behind changing the wording from "bylaws" to "rules." So we've done everything we possibly can to make sure the word "bylaws" fits in every possible reference in that act. To me, I would not waste a lot of time on that, but once you get people trying to pick holes in something, I suppose they can find holes.

MR. ROSE: They don't trust you, that's why.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: So what if they don't trust me?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What we're talking about is the trust that they've been asked to place in 15 of their elected colleagues — their own colleagues, not me. I didn't ask them to trust me. I asked them to trust their own representatives. And most of these amendments are nothing to do with whether they trust me or not. Most of these amendments are.... For some reason or other they don't seem to have any trust that their colleagues won't, when they get to the council elected by them, turn on them somehow or other and do all sorts of capricious and nonsensical things.

Anyway, as I said, we could go on and on indefinitely. I have one little interesting gem that I must put before you. I think it's worthwhile, and then I will wind up, I promise you that.

I have here before me a document from November 1974, submitted by the B. C. Teachers' Federation to the Minister of Education at that time. It says it is a proposed Teaching

[ Page 1022 ]

Profession Act. This is, remember, a proposal from the B.C. Teachers' Federation to the Minister of Education. Just a few selective.... I'm using your tactics now. I will admit this, that they did say that they wanted all of it controlled and governed by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. But remember, those were the days before work-to-rule, work stoppage and illegal strikes, and things of that nature. So I can understand.

Anyway, they wanted it all under one umbrella. There are some interesting phrases in this: "We believe that legislation governing the teaching profession should be separate from legislation governing the school system." Would you believe that?

"A teacher certification board independent of the Department of Education should be established with major representation from the BCTF." What is the college but a board with major representation from the teachers of this province, rather than the BCTF? Independent, because they're going to take over the certification role from the minister. So there are some interesting little gems here.

Another one: there's been so much push now for the primacy of the local association, and there were submissions to the Labour minister and everybody else that that had to be it, and there has to be compulsory membership in the BCTF Their proposal says: "The BCTF should retain its right to establish, suspend or dissolve local associations." Interesting — at the same time as they are supporting local associations. There are more things about a teacher certification board and teacher competence.

And here's a really nice one. Here's a really interesting little gem about the discipline committee. The BCTF was going to do everything. "The BCTF discipline committee should authorize one or more panels on the discipline committee, each panel to consist of three or more members of the discipline committee to act on behalf of the discipline committee. The discipline committee should have all the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act." Fairly close wording to what we have in our legislation here.

Appeal procedures are covered: "The local association should be authorized to negotiate the salaries of teachers and all conditions of employment and learning conditions, which should include, but not be restricted to, hours of work, procedures for grievances, transfers, appointment of principals, head teachers, vice-principals...." And on and on it goes.

"Professional responsibilities of teachers"; I like this one: "Every teacher employed in a public school should be held responsible for the students assigned to his/her charge and for the education programs and learning situations designed for the pupils assigned to his/her charge. In discharging his/her responsibilities the teacher should be required to consult, if practicable, with colleagues, students...."

Here's the other one: "Professional staff of a school should be held responsible for all aspects of the teaching and learning activities conducted by the school, including: assisting with the provision of a satisfactory learning environment for all students; the general conduct and discipline of pupils on the school premises and, during school-sponsored extracurricular activities, off the school premises; the quality of teaching services offered by the school; the placement and program of all pupils...."

The concluding paragraph is a real gem in view of what we have heard now about lack of consultation after all the discussion and consultation we had. This is a dandy. This is the prize. "We realize that the writing of actual legislation is the prerogative of the government. We submit our working paper, therefore." So it's a rather interesting little bit of history. If you had a copy of it, you could find out that you could probably selectively say, "But the BCTF was going to control this," and I acknowledge that, but it's rather interesting. I even did a parallel of clauses in this one for my own interest, and you'd be amazed at how many parallels there are, which probably, if nothing else — despite the lightness of the moment — points out that some of the goals of teaching in this province have not changed.

There are professional people operating. They can do it. They can do it under the system that was proposed then. As somebody said, what really happens in education in this province is going to be in the final analysis determined by the teachers at the school level. I fully agree, and I think that once we can get this war over bargaining rights and these things settled and out of the way so that everybody is clear on those rules, then we can get back to the basic purpose of education in this province, which is to serve the best interests of the students.

Now I will conclude. It has been an interesting two weeks — sometimes a little boring when it got repetitive, but certainly interesting — and I'm sure that many members will agree. I will, as soon as the House provides me the opportunity here, table some amendments to Bill 20 — proposed amendments, I guess I should say. Just a brief explanation: we've broken these amendments into two parts. We've dealt with the concepts of them, but we have been able to put the section on the college from sections 1 to 41 in the legislation. Those amendments are ready and prepared to go. The others are also ready in conceptual form, but we still have people cross-checking them — trying to get all the cross-references out of the way — and they will be tabled as soon as we possibly can. And in the interest of making this information available to members as quickly as possible, I'll table one with the House as soon as I can, and make copies available to members through the Sergeant-at-Arms so that they'll get them this afternoon rather than having to wait until they're printed in Orders of the Day. So those will be there before you.

Thank you very much for your great attention. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill 20.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

[ Page 1023 ]

NAYS — 17

Bill 20, Teaching Profession Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled proposed amendments to Bill 20.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, prior to introducing the next piece of business, I would advise the assembly that tomorrow, following members' statements, we will be calling the committee stage of Bill 20, which I'm sure will last for some time.

Now, it gives me great pleasure to call a bill that we'll all find extracting, I'm sure: Bill 2, the Dentists Amendment Act, 1987. In charge is the Minister of Health.

DENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the Dentists Act was first passed in 1917. Under the act, the College of Dental Surgeons has the authority to govern the practice of dentistry in British Columbia. Over the years there have been minor amendments to the act, but no significant changes. This bill now before the House represents a thorough and comprehensive review of the act. The proposed changes will meet the needs of the college in regulating today's practice of dentistry. The college and my ministry's staff have had lengthy discussions toward developing these amendments now before you. I emphasize that most are of a housekeeping nature. There are a number of provisions, however, that are worth highlighting, and I draw your attention to them.

First, the proposed changes would give the college a wide range of specific rule-making powers. These powers are currently exercised on the basis of a very general and unspecific authority under the present act. In addition, rules made by the college would have to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. At the present time, such rules automatically come into force unless disallowed within 90 days.

The bill repeals existing provisions dealing with inquiries, suspensions and cancellations of registration. These would be replaced with updated provisions. The most significant of these is a provision for search and seizure of a dentist's records and the basis of an order by the Supreme Court. Application for such a court order would have to be made by an authorized officer of the college.

The bill's provisions would allow for any orders of the college's council or committees to be appealed. The council will be authorized to determine whether a person may continue to practise, pending an appeal of a suspension or cancellation of registration.

This major overhaul of the Dentists Act reflects the present-day requirements for self-regulation of a major group of health care practitioners. I look forward to the debate of this bill. I move the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, the minister — although he looks forward to the debate on this bill — will be getting a short debate, as the opposition entirely agrees with it. In fact, it goes back to 1979, from my understanding, and at that point it was given high priority. I can only wish that some of the things that are given high priority today were given the same sort of high priority in 1979. This is something that the dentists have been waiting for in anticipation since that time. The opposition has no objections to anything found within this, and we will be voting in support of it.

HON. MR. DUECK: I thank the opposition for being so congenial, of course.

Bill 2, Dentists Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 3.

BOUNDARY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. MILLER: Thanks for the applause from the other side; I don't often get that.

I have no intrinsic opposition to section 1, but I want to use the opportunity to highlight what I think is a serious problem. Others may not think so.

This country is engaged in some dispute with the United States with regard to an international boundary. I realize this bill deals with the Alberta or contiguous boundaries, but nonetheless I think it is important, because as I've done some research on this, I've discovered at least two occasions where publications put out by the B.C. Ferry Corporation clearly give the Americans what they want in terms of delineating the boundary on a map.

I could just take a moment to highlight the importance of Canada's retaining the existing boundary — in other words, the AB line — in terms of the value of that particular area both for fisheries, which is of considerable value to my community of Prince Rupert and the fishermen who fish out of that port, as well as the possibility of some mineral value beneath the sea.

I bring that to the attention of the House. I would hope that the minister responsible for this bill would instruct the minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation to be a bit more accurate in outlining that boundary, particularly on tourist brochures that may go to the United States.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I welcome the member's comments. Regrettably they don't have anything to with Bill 3, but nevertheless they are well taken, and I can assure the member that the matter has been addressed by the government of British Columbia and is of some concern to us as well.

The matter of the AB line — of course, it's a line of some history, really, and drawn before the turn of the century by an English judge. My knowledge of that tells me that we sort of gave away the whole Alaska panhandle to the Americans. It was always the position of Canada that the 60th should run

[ Page 1024 ]

straight across. However, that was not the opinion of the court of the day, and regrettably Canada came out the loser.

The member's comments are well accepted. The AB line itself is a matter that he might refer to the estimates of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who is in charge of negotiating this type of thing with Canada and also further negotiations with the U.S. With respect to the maps of the B.C. Ferries fleet, that would be referred to the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael).

With that said, I thank the member for his cogent and time-consuming debate, which we all need.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Boundary Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that all Members of the Legislative Assembly are really intrigued with the amendments to sections 1 to 42 of Bill 20 and will want to get into these immediately and begin digesting and comparing them so they can enter into scintillating and informed debate tomorrow in the committee stage. Also there is a wonderful event beginning shortly hosted by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) in which all the Vancouver Island members have been invited, so on the basis of that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Maybe your deskmate can take you along as his date.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you winking at me?

In any event, given the important business of tomorrow, and the important events of this evening, I move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

Appendix

12         Mr. Clark asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

For each separate discount granted under the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act —

1. What is the projected power which will be consumed?

2. What is the projected revenue accruing to B.C. Hydro as a result of the discount agreement?

3. What is the revenue which would accrue if full rates were charged on the discounted power?

The Hon. J. Davis replied as follows:

"1. The following table illustrates the total projected consumption of power eligible for discount under the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act, as approved to date.

[ Page 1025 ]

"2. The following table illustrates the total projected revenues accruing to B.C. Hydro as a result of the separate discount agreements.

¹ These exclude water rentals which accrue to the Province.

"3. The Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act was designed to make greater use of B. C. Hydro's surplus. To qualify for a discount under this Act, a company has to show that electricity on which discounts apply is incremental and that operations requiring this incremental power would not have been undertaken without the discount. Therefore, no revenues would have accrued if full rates were charged."