[ Page 1047 ]
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Delisting of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 1047
Funding for the arts. Ms. Edwards –– 1048
Section 88 credits under Forest Act. Mr. Kempf –– 1048
Downie Street Sawmills Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 1048
Royal Inland Hospital therapeutic abortion committee. Mrs. Boone –– 1048
Tabling Documents –– 1049
Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage 1049
Mr. Jones
Mr. Rose
Mr. Clark
Hon. Mr. Strachan
Ms. A. Hagen
Mr. Miller
Mrs. Boone
Ms. Marzan
Mr. Lovick
Appendix –– 1073
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two good friends from Vancouver who are visiting here for the day: Miss Jenny Fogg, and Ms. Vicki Frimmer. Would you make them welcome, please.
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I would like the House to join me in welcoming 140 students plus five teachers who are visiting us today from the largest senior secondary school in Langley, Brookswood Secondary.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce two friends and supporters of mine from Prince Rupert: Harry Dhillon and his wife Rani. They're in the members' gallery. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today I have three visitors in the gallery from the eastern gateway of the Hope-Princeton Highway; from the town of Princeton, Mayor Gloria Stout and aldermen Randy McLean and Ron Goodwin. I would ask that the House bid them a warm welcome.
MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today Pastor Alfred Lennox, who is the director of religious liberty and public affairs for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Abbotsford. I ask the House to welcome Rev. Lennox.
MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I introduce Mr. Paul Roston, a Canadian businessman whose residence is now in Santa Barbara, California. He wanted to see Victoria in the rain, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.
Oral Questions
DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL
TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. On April 3 the Vancouver Stock Exchange delisted International Tillex Enterprise. Could the minister advise this House whether or not he has ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the collapse of that company?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I notice that in my absence last week the question was put to the Premier. I must say that on this question it's my perception that the Vancouver Stock Exchange itself acted quickly, immediately upon their being made aware of some inconsistencies in the presentation of the financial data of the firm in question. As a consequence of the question put last week, I've asked the staff for a more current update, and I've been assured that that will he provided tomorrow. Sufficient for the moment to say that, given the history of the matter, I am satisfied that the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors acted responsibly and in accord with their role and mandate.
MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary on that matter. The minister said they acted quickly; they waited six months after they received the December 1985 financial statements before they moved on June 27, 1986. Is the minister satisfied that as a result of those actions there will not be a similar situation, and that the Tillex situation was an isolated incident?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the question as phrased clearly indicates that the questioner doesn't properly understand the role of a stock exchange. The role of a stock exchange is not to protect the interest of one party over the other; it is to provide a market of exchange. And the market itself is to judge the worth or otherwise of individual listings. We have ample evidence of stock exchanges around the world suffering embarrassments as a consequence of transactions with specific stocks. In that respect, the Vancouver exchange is not unique.
It would be absurd for anyone to expect that any government, particularly a free enterprise government such as this one, would attempt to guarantee investments made in a free market situation such as a stock exchange. So the question clearly is from the point of view of not understanding the respective roles. It is proper and appropriate for government and its agencies to ensure that the investors' interests are protected to the degree that they can be protected. I'm satisfied, on the basis of the information provided, that the Vancouver Stock Exchange monitoring agency itself was internally on to that particular stock. I think the complete report will be provided tomorrow, and it's my understanding that when that is provided, you'll be satisfied that the issues at debate were considered — and gravely considered — by the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, the role of the securities exchange commission in this whole affair. I personally at this point find nothing to criticize in the actions of either agency. Both of them clearly perform their duties as they are expected to perform them. At this point in time, I have no reason to doubt that everybody's interests, given the nature of the Vancouver stock market, which is....
Interjections.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver stock market is the world's premier venture capital market. It is world-famous for being able to provide seed capital and venture capital for most ventures. It follows that given their dealing with new firms, firms with no track record, there would have to be some different assessment of risks than you might experience on a different type of stock exchange.
[2:15]
We are proud of the role played by the Vancouver Stock Exchange in providing seed and venture capital in this province, and we will do everything we can to ensure that its past practices and its past market segmentization are pursued aggressively by this government.
MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary. We'll find out over time who understands better the operations of the stock market.
The question to the minister is this: what specific steps has the minister taken, in light of the Tillex affair, to ensure that the small investors in that market are protected?
[ Page 1048 ]
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I tried to explain it at some length. Maybe I didn't do it well enough; I'll have another go at it.
It is not the role of a government or a stock exchange governing body to guarantee the investments of people who choose to play on that market. That is not the case on the New York Stock Exchange; it is not the case on the London, Hong Kong, Singapore or Montreal stock exchanges. I know of no stock exchange that is in a position to provide any sort of guarantee to those who may wish to play the market. Vancouver is not unique in that respect.
But more than that, Vancouver is a junior exchange. Now in the vernacular of the trade, what that means is that you are normally financing firms and corporations and concepts that have no track record in terms of earnings. They are basically new, first-time offerings, and as a consequence, the assessment of the risk factor is one that must be brought particularly to bear in the case of a junior market. Because of that, the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange have adapted and developed a very thorough procedure to ensure that investors are protected to the maximum extent possible. But it's not the role of government or any agency of a stock exchange to guarantee investments. The questioner seems to be expecting that kind of answer; he will never get it.
FUNDING FOR THE ARTS
MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. British Columbia arts organizations and artists made submissions to the Canada Council last week, in which they highlighted how this province spends less per capita on arts than any other province. What steps is the minister taking to rectify this government's record of ignoring the arts and the contribution they make to the economic and social well-being of the province?
HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I'm pleased to say that the contribution we're making to the arts can probably be more strongly emphasized by one of your own colleagues. We were in Prince Rupert on Saturday night, where we had just contributed $500,000 to the riding of Prince Rupert to help with the arts and culture, and that's the kind of thing my ministry is doing continually across the province. We have a tough time in this province competing with CBC's employment factor in both Toronto and Montreal, and because of that we can't match up the provincial expenditures.
MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I believe the figure stands that British Columbia spends less on the arts than any other province does — that's per capita. The arts are Canada's eleventh-largest industry. What study has the minister done on the impact of arts funding on employment growth, and if any study has been done, would you table that study in the assembly as it exists?
HON. MR. REID: Yes, in answer to the question, we're currently doing a further study on the arts funding in the province of British Columbia, and I will table it in the House when the information is available.
MS. EDWARDS: With regard to arts and culture, and generally, has the minister decided that he might refer the issue to one of the all-party committees that exist? There's the Committee on Tourism and Environment which might be suggested. Has he decided to refer to a committee the question of how to better encourage and take advantage of the activity in the arts?
HON. MR. REID: Well, insofar as the reference to the future policy of the ministry.... When the information is available and when we've researched it far enough, we will refer it to the committee if it's the decision of the House.
SECTION 88 CREDITS UNDER FOREST ACT
MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Forests and Lands. Last week and the week before I questioned the minister with regard to section 88 of the Forest Act, and rather than answer my question the minister gave me a lesson on what section 88 is. Well, I know what section 88 is; it's what it isn't that I'm concerned with, and it isn't a benefit to the people of British Columbia.
My question: in light of the fact that multimillions of dollars arc paid out yearly in the form of section 88 credits.... There was $4,064,000 alone to Westar — a company which the minister is very familiar with, I'm sure — from 1980 to July 1985, enabling them in that four and a half years to pay a paltry $143,850 to the Crown for the resource they harvested, compared to the $4,207,666 that they should have paid. My question to the minister is: has he now decided to do away with section 88 of the Forest Act?
HON. MR. PARKER: No.
DOWNIE STREET SAWMILLS LTD.
MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. In the case of Downie Street Sawmills, people have been advised that they would have to do the silvicultural clean-up if they were to take over the licence with respect to their activities in the Revelstoke region. Could the minister advise if people have been advised of that in the Westar case in the northwest of the province, where there were much more serious problems in terms of non-performance?
HON. MR. PARKER: I haven't heard of anything on Downie Street, but I would be pleased to look into it and bring a written reply back to you. Nor do I know of any such direction for the northwestern portion of the province. I'll look into it and bring that answer back to you as well.
ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL
THERAPEUTIC ABORIFION COMMITTEE
MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health. Section 251 of the Criminal Code requires that there be a minimum of three doctors on a therapeutic abortion committee. One of the three doctors still sitting on the Royal Inland committee has indicated that the board's new restrictive policy will make it impossible for him to remain. Does the minister still claim that there is a functioning committee in Kamloops, and has he decided to take some action to ensure that the spirit of the Criminal Code is enforced in this province?
[ Page 1049 ]
HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not even aware, except from the news media and now from the member for Prince George North, that in fact one doctor has resigned from the committee. No information has come to my attention other than through the news and now through you. However, I'm sure that if that's the case, they will probably appoint someone else to that committee.
MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to not be aware of many things. Is the minister aware that the South Central Union Board of Health, which is the advisory board for the regional health unit, decided last Monday to ask the minister to review the degree to which the situation has affected the delivery of health care in the region? Has that unit asked you to look into this? Can the minister confirm that he has had correspondence? Verbal or telephone — I don't care. Have they contacted the minister with regard to this issue?
HON. MR. DUECK: No, they have not contacted me. I would think that if there's a problem in the Kamloops hospital, the first person they would contact, rather than contacting the news, would be the Minister of Health. I was home all weekend. I was close to the phone. I got many calls from many people, but not from the Kamloops hospital. It could have been that it was Mothers' Day and they didn't want to talk about abortions.
MRS. BOONE: It appears that there's some kind of lack of communication. I would think that the minister should take it upon himself to contact the board and the union board of health to find out what their situation is.
Will the minister take this on his plate to look into the matter and investigate this issue and not wait for people to come to him? Will you please look into this issue for the people of the province of B.C., for the women in Kamloops?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I have been on this same question now for half a dozen times, maybe more. Something that the opposition does not understand is that the Minister of Health does not go around to hospitals checking whether in fact they are doing the things that hospitals have to do; that, in fact, is the business of the board and the administrator.
There are roughly 130 hospitals in British Columbia. I do not contact Vancouver General or St. Paul's and say: "How are you this morning? How many abortions have you had? Have you had any problems? Is someone going to resign from your therapeutic abortion committee, or have you got problems with the nursery this morning?" I don't do that.
I am available; my staff is available. For heaven's sakes, we have 6,900 people working in the ministry, and surely people can contact someone with any problems they have.
Another thing I must tell you — and I have told you before — is that the act says that they "may" have an abortion committee and "may" in fact perform abortions. What do you want me to do?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the rest of the proposed amendments to Bill 20 and inform members of the House that copies will be available to them as soon as the Sergeant-at-Arms can distribute them.
Mr. Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library, 1986.
Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the statement of borrowings, loans and special payments as required under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Financial Administration Act.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.
TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
On section 4.
MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I wonder if the minister would care to introduce the officials assisting him with this debate, that we might make those officials welcome.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, hon. member, with questions on section 4.
MR. JONES: I would like to welcome those officials, in any event.
On section 4, we have a college being established. That college is going to set standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of those members. Through all of these standards, we are going to ensure that the college encourages professional interest in those education responsibilities and competence. I think we're all very interested in these standards, and the standards being established by the college are going to be a great challenge to that college.
[2:30]
Certainly the responsibility of establishing standards of competence and professional responsibility, not only for teachers in the public schools but teachers in the private school system, for principals and vice-principals, superintendents, directors of instruction, in fact for all members of the college employed in the public school system.... We have an incredibly complex job to establish those standards. The relevant body of knowledge, in terms of the law governing such standards, goes back to the 1840s in this country and in the United States, and back to the 1760s in western Europe. While many sections of this bill are spelled out in great detail, right to the specific day of the year when elections are to be held, this section of the bill is very general and is silent on the question of whether it will take into account — and how it will take into account — the historical, legal and philosophical bases for these standards being established in the teaching profession.
I know these standards are important to the government and to the Minister of Education, and I'm very anxious to know how the minister envisions that these standards will be established. Does the college simply invent these standards? Do they draw from past practice of history and law? Do they merely propose some and try them on for size, and see what happens in the courts? I know that the minister, because he is
[ Page 1050 ]
interested in these standards, will want to respond. I hope the response isn't merely by saying it's up to the college to determine what these standards will be, because the government has the responsibility for creating this college. This college was not really asked for by anybody in the province. The minister has the responsibility of drafting regulations to cover this college; in fact, the minister also approves the bylaws that govern the college.
As I mentioned, he has spelled out in detail many areas and yet has given no direction in this area, which I think is one of the major raison d'etres for the college. Would the minister care to respond to how he sees these standards being developed — the process and the government's role in establishing these standards?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, this is a general description of the object of the college. How they do what the college will do, and what they do, is specified throughout the legislation. I don't think there's any intent in this to reinvent every standard that has ever been set or established. Reading the last part of that, which I would recommend to the member, it will simply be with that object: to encourage the professional interests of its members in those matters. So yes, this is a general statement of the objectives for the college, which are then subsequently spelled out in the rest of the legislation.
MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I don't see that the standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of teachers are spelled out. The minister does say it's general. I guess, when we're looking at this legislation, it's nice to try to get an idea, in some degree of specificity, of the kind of thing that we're considering, to understand how this legislation is going to impact on the teaching profession and on all those who will be members of the college. And to one of the major sections — to not have a clear idea, as I don't think we do from reading this bill, of what those standards will be, by what process they will be established, and what the criterion used to develop those standards will be.... So I am concerned that this section will be approved and we still won't have any idea as to how those standards will be developed.
We do know, Mr. Chairman, that the standards that will be established will be done "having regard for the public interest," and I'm curious about that phrase as well. It's a nice-sounding phrase and probably an important one, but if it's important to include in this act, I wonder why we don't see it in the Barristers and Solicitors Act, the Engineers Act, the Accountants (Certified General) Act, and the Medical Practitioners Act. If it is an important phrase, and if it is a standard phrase, then why don't we see it in those acts as well as this act? When asked this question last Friday, the minister responded by suggesting that the questioner was planning on removing this amendment and was suggesting that education has nothing to do with the public interest, and went on to comment that "gross misconduct" is in the public interest. I don't think anybody would disagree with that, and I don't think anybody was suggesting the removal of this section.
My colleague the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was merely asking why teachers appear to be singled out in the creation of this legislation and in this particular section. It's not a standard phrase to include in professional acts. The member for Prince George North was saying that this section is not necessarily wrong to be included in the legislation; it's just different from other acts. The question was: why are teachers being treated differently than other professions in the inclusion of the public interest in setting up their standards?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to read the phrase and see how it becomes ominous — I really am. You're saying, if it doesn't have some ominous intent, why is it in here? It simply reads as it reads,"with regard to the public interest" — an acknowledgment that there is a public interest associated with education — I can't tell the member why it is not in every other act in this province. I think it is important here. As the member says, it's a nice-sounding phrase. It doesn't spell out here what the public interest is. It simply says: "keeping in mind the public interest."
The member says it's different. I haven't checked every piece of legislation in this country or province, so I don't know whether it ever appears in another act.
I don't see any harm in here. It doesn't say "primarily with the public interest," but "with regard to the public interest." I read it in that sense. That's the way it's intended. If the member sees it as simply a nice-sounding phrase without any legislative teeth, then I don't see where he has a problem.
MR. JONES: I don't have a problem; I just have a question, and I think the minister has answered the question. Perhaps the member for Vancouver South answered the question better: that the government may do well to include this phrase in all acts governing professions. Certainly all those professions have an impact on the public, and those acts should respond to the public interest.
I wasn't suggesting that it was ominous — I was suggesting that it's strange or unusual to have it in this act and not in the other acts that I mentioned. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, a better phrasing would be.... It's an education bill and there is mention of the public interest, but no mention in terms of the objects of the college of promoting the welfare of students or education in general. It would seem to me that if we're looking for phrases that would be pertinent to include in this section of the bill governing the objects, some reference to children or students or education would be more germane. If the establishment of this college is really there to improve education or to improve the learning conditions, then we should find in here some indication of commitment to that as a goal so the standards should be relevant to the children of the province and to education.
In reference to the public interest being involved in these standards, I'm curious to know how that interest is ever going to be defined. I'm wondering if the college will produce its own definitions of what the public interest will be, whether the teaching profession will do so, or whether the minister, through regulations or through approval or disapproval of bylaws, will determine that. I'm curious to know how that public interest is going to be defined.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's interesting that the college is a group to govern its members in the interests of the students, which to me are included in the public interest. So it seems that on the one point you don't want the phrase in there.... To me, "with regard to the public interest" certainly is applicable to the students. That is part of the public interest, and I don't think the act needs to define that — what the public interest is — because it will vary from situation to situation. I've got a feeling that at the local level,
[ Page 1051 ]
at the provincial level, very often the public interest is made known by the public.
MR. ROSE: That phrase "in the public interest" bothers me somewhat.
AN HON. MEMBER: The local level.
MR. ROSE: No, because of its lack of definition, because that can really be anything that the minister or the local people or the college determine the public interest to be. There apparently are no guidelines or anticipated regulations that might cover the public interest. The public interest might have to do with overcrowding in the local school system. The public interest might have to do with the substandard teaching of a particular teacher. It might have some connotations for child abuse or any number of things.
It might be in the public interest to remove an oppressive principal who is.... There are lots of oppressive principles; most of them are in this bill. But we're past second reading. I wonder if the minister would consider standing this clause with a view.... And I say this in all sincerity; I'm not just trying to eat the clock. I know he's an expert in that himself, but I wonder if he would consider standing the clause with a view to maybe....
He says it's implicit, and I'm wondering if part of our problem is that it might be explicit here to give us more of a handle on what is defined as the public interest. I think it's well known to all of us that certain acts can be oppressive and can be administered oppressively. Now there is a provision under the practice recommendation — I've forgotten its number, but the government House Leader will tell us — which would give him an opportunity right now, if it's a serious concern, and it is to me, where perhaps the minister and his officials might be interested in bringing this back later today or at some other time. I will guarantee that they will get leave to do that.
If we get leave to stand this clause, to have a serious look at what is going on in terms of the definition under section 4, there might be more elegant language, more explicit language and better language that might be put in to save all kinds of confusion later on. Because I can see the college taking some stand somewhere down the road, and it covers its stand because it's "in the public interest." I am afraid of things like that, quite frankly.
It may not be a problem with this minister — and I'm not suggesting that it will be — but we don't know what's going to happen later on. It might be a minister from this side of the House — who knows? — who might have to grapple with this. I'm confident about the people I see in front of me, whom I know, but some future czar down the road might take this and use it excessively against what is the perceived interest of a particular individual in the school system, be it a student, a trustee or whatever.
[2:45]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think the public interest is determined by me, by this government or by, heaven forbid, the other side; the public interest will be determined by the public. The other thing I'm a little concerned about is that there seems to be some reading into this that the minister can direct the college as to what the public interest will be. I think the point that may have been missed here is that the college will be run by the teachers, by their elected representatives; and they will give passing regard, if you like, to what the public is interested in in this province.
There are many other ways to determine that. When I was a school principal, the public interest I got was from parents, from the students, from the community and what they saw as the public interest. Again, the college will he run by professional teachers who will have regard to the public interest. In no way could I or my ministry or the government or anybody say: "We will define the public interest for you."
MR. ROSE: Well, do it.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: In which situation, of millions?
If the member had been listening, I said that when I was a principal I determined some of the public interest from my students, from my staff, from my parents, from the community at large, and that gave me some indication of what that community saw as the public interest. That could vary in a 60-mile range. In this case, we're not that specific, so how could we possibly define the specifics of public interest? All we're saying is that those people who will be elected by their colleagues to run the college will, in effect, give some consideration to the public interest — not mine, yours or anybody else's — as they see it.
MR. ROSE: I can see now that "It is the object of the college to establish, having regard to the public interest...." And then it goes on to list them. So the public interest here, obviously, talks about the public interest in regard to "standards for the education." Actually, it's a phrase, really, modifying the things that follow. It doesn't stand by itself, upon rereading it. It goes on to list them: "...professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership and consistent with that object to encourage the professional interest of its members in those matters." That part of it is covered. So I'll agree with the minister on that point.
But the point that was raised by my hon. friend for Burnaby North a little earlier has not been addressed, in that the college seems to be doing everything. It has terms of reference for standards, professional responsibility and competence of its members. It deals with applicants for membership, whether or not, I assume, they are qualified; and consistent with that object, to encourage professional interest of its members — I imagine that's professional development and reading and keeping up to date, and all that stuff. The member for Burnaby North is right: there is no mention at all about the public interest in terms of what the college responsibility is towards the pupils in the public school system — if any.
MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour the point too much, but I really do have difficulty with the question of the public interest, as a professional planner, because we're supposed to plan in the public interest. It's a very similar problem. It seems to me, in this kind of act.... There's a contradiction in the minister's statement. On the one hand, the minister says that it's not for us to decide what the public interest is; and on the other hand, he says that it is for the college to decide what the public interest is.
Quite properly the decision should be left in the hands of the legislators, who are at least elected by the public at large and not by a college. It's very difficult to define, but at the
[ Page 1052 ]
same time, if you're going to put it in the act, then at least there should be some attempt, it seems to me, to put guidelines or to codify specifically what is intended by the government with respect to using the term "public interest." In other words, what you're saying is that by putting it in, you're letting the college decide how to define the public interest. And it's very difficult to do at the best of time, but at the very least there should be an attempt. I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has made a very good point. If we could stand this section, in seriousness, we could attempt to come up with a way of defining it a little tighter. It might be worth trying, at the very least. I just leave that for consideration.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to interrupt the debate briefly. For the information of the committee, the standing order is standing order 84(2) — and I'd be agreeable to it, if the minister were agreeable.
But in this case, let me offer some political argument with respect to the section itself. Throughout the second reading stage of this bill, and throughout the committee stage, and of course all the foofaraw that happened in the press and elsewhere, the government was accused of being heavy-handed in dictating to the college what we were going to do. In this case, in section 4, we clearly state that the government does not want to be involved in the business of the college; that in fact it's democratically elected by all members of the college, and they should have the right to establish what they sense to be public interest. I think it would be contrary to the interests of all members of the Legislative Assembly for us to inject ourselves into the establishment of the public interest and the standards of education, to inject our opinion to this college. So on the political basis, I would certainly reject any argument that we stand down for, or in any way try to modify it or codify it.
MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to ask a question of the minister about this matter of public interest. In regard to education the minister's primary responsibility is the interest of students in our school system. Could the minister please advise us, if there were a conflict between the college's interpretation of the public interest and the minister's understanding or perception of or plan of action for the public interest, what would prevail in this particular regard? Given the wide-ranging powers that have been accorded the college in this bill, how would the minister deal with conflicting views of the public interest? Would it be his own perception of the public interest, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, or that of members of the college, in this loosely defined matter of public interest?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that maybe the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) inadvertently gave me part of the answer to this, because he mentioned professional planners. I would hope that they don't plan edifices or communities just for their own interests, that they would certainly consider the public interest as well. If you don't have it in your act, as a planner, Mr. Member, I would suggest that it become paramount that planners should be planning for the people, not for their own monuments. All we're saying here — and I would suggest that members undertake a careful reading of this section to see what it actually says.... It doesn't say the standards for education. It says the standards for the education, the professional responsibility and the competence of its members; and all that is with regard to the public interest, not their own selfish interest alone. Here I'm sort of trapped into, I guess, saying something that could be thrown back at me. If people have no regard for the public interest in politics, they don't get elected. In this business, if you have no regard for the public interest, how do you possibly ever expect the public to support you? So I don't see much of a problem with this.
Somebody mentioned the applicants for membership. Well, if you're going to deal with the standards, professional competence and qualifications of members, then you also have to do that with anybody who applies for membership. Having regard to the public interest, it's the college that is to do this. Look, if you consider the public interest.... If the college, whoever the group is, went against the public interest, then it wouldn't fly.
MR. JONES: The minister keeps suggesting that this side doesn't want that phrase in there. I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), although you've chastised him, said it much better than I did. It's not that we don't want it in there; but if we're going to consider this clause by clause, and look at the wording of legislation that's going to affect the working lives of 30,000 or 40,000 people, then I think we want to be able to appreciate the meaning with some degree of specificity, and the suggestion of a better wording — that it might be "in the interests of students" or "of education" — would give it more meaning and specificity. But when the minister says that the public interest will be determined by the public.... I guess, if you want to consider Social Credit governments getting re-elected. I don't know how well that works in this province.
When I think of the public interest in education, I think specifically of school trustees, who are the only people elected to really represent the public interest in education. Those same people, or a vast majority of them, have considerable reservations about this legislation. If we're going to look at the public interest in education, and put this clause in the bill, then I would suggest that there needs to be some mechanism for public input and public accountability. There is neither. There's really no method for public input, in terms of what the standards will be for this college; neither will there be any public accountability. According to my reading of the bill, no school trustees are going to be members of this college. I know that one of the reasons school trustees in this province have reservations about the legislation is that they have a sincere interest in education standards, particularly in terms of teacher education, and they have been omitted.
So I would like to ask the minister, because I really think the government appointees that the minister and cabinet will be appointing really represent central authority and don't represent the public interest.... How, then, if we are going to have the public interest represented here, are we going to have input and accountability in terms of the public interest?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member, I believe, has been a teacher and a trustee, and should be well aware of the ample opportunity for input that the public has in both cases, how the public interest can be served, and the accountability that is there in various ways. I suppose, in looking at it another way, that if the member says.... And I hope he will apologize to all council members, MLAs and others for
[ Page 1053 ]
saying the only people who represent the public interest are school trustees.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know you perhaps didn't mean it in that context, but certainly there are others. If that is the case, if you accept that in education the trustees are the ones, then I would be sure that the college is going to have to set standards — professional competence, etc. — by which school boards will hire. That gives you a fair degree of input.
[3:00]
MR. JONES: Well, if there was any misunderstanding of my statement about school trustees, I would like the opportunity to clarify that. My point was that school trustees are the only people in this province who are elected by the general public to represent the public interest in education. Certainly the government of the day has that responsibility, but they have many other responsibilities. School trustees are the only elected officials who specifically represent education and the public in education, and that was my point there.
I don't see — and I don't think the minister clarified it for me — how school trustees are going to have any input into the college. It seems to me that the college is the province of two bodies: the members of the college and the government. The government does reserve the right to create regulations to the act, to approve the bylaws of this act and certainly to spell out the operations in this act. So I think it's the government and the members of the college who are going to have input, certainly not the public, and certainly not the school trustees.
Because we haven't had a college before, I don't see how the minister can suggest to me that I would understand how a school trustee would have input into the college. The college is the government's creation, and I really don't see how they are going to be accountable to the public or how there's going to be input in terms of the public interest.
The last phrase in this section, Mr. Chairman, suggests that we do these things — that we establish these standards of education of members, professional responsibility of members and competence of members — in the public interest, and also that we encourage the profession to have professional interest in these matters. I don't see anything wrong with this statement either. It's just that I do have one concern, in that again, in terms of duplication of service, there is an organization in this province which for many years has done that job, has encouraged the professional interest of its members. I know the minister is very familiar with the professional development work done by that organization, and I'm wondering if it is the intention of the minister that this college will replicate what that organization is already doing. Are we creating a competitive organization by the establishment of this college?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how much more I can say on the first part, and now I think the member has me puzzling about what the concern is in the latter part. There are further sections in the bill that deal with the permissive right of the college to engage in professional development; all it a says is "to encourage the professional interest of its members." Just a bland statement — again, nothing ominous.
Section 4 approved on division.
On section 5.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
On the amendment.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, just a slight diversion here. he member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) was asking about he advisers behind you. It's been the practice in the past for ministers to introduce their advisers. That was nothing more ominous than that. I wonder if the minister would care to do it. I happen to know at least one of them personally, and perhaps it would be nice to know that these people actually do have names and are not just faceless bureaucrats.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the House Leader of the opposition for giving this wonderful opportunity to me to introduce my assistant deputy minister, Jack Fleming, and Cliff Watt, and to also tell the House of how diligently and how valiantly these people have worked in order to bring these amendments forward as quickly as possible, and how competent and knowledgeable they are in advising me in this legislation. Did you get the names?
MR. ROSE: No, I missed them.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Jack Fleming and Cliff Watt. Cliff Watt is a legal-trained person, and Jack Fleming is an expert on education and legalities.
MR. ROSE: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I hope that Mr. Watt is helping you on the revisions and wasn't responsible for the first draft, because in that event you might wish to....
Anyway, I am glad that the minister has brought his officials here to be with us today. I am acquainted with Mr. Fleming from years gone by and past wars. It is nice to be ere with these two estimable gentlemen to help the minister lean up his act. With that, I will proceed with my little section of the business of the council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was hoping you'd say that.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is well known that it s difficult, really, to be very positive in criticizing or suggesting or amending something that you don't agree with in the first place. However, as my hon. friend over there would be leased to point out in a hurry, we've had the debate on approval in principle. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with it clause by clause, it sounds a lot like you are nitpicking, and perhaps there are some times when that could be a just criticism. I hope not, because it is not our intention to nitpick about this legislation. We are opposed to it, but we know the movement is in favour of it, and they are determined to push it through. The question is: are we doing our jobs collectively n this side of the House if we do not seek every avenue to clarify and to amplify and elucidate on the various sections and their possible implications? Their possible implications e just that, because we really don't know, since we haven't ad a chance to try the legislation out.
The council is something that has not been a factor in any jurisdiction in Canada that we know about. The minister has
[ Page 1054 ]
got an amendment before us which essentially removes his power to appoint members of the first council. We will be dealing with this same subject matter later, in section 9, Mr. Chairman, so I would invite you to be very patient with us, because sometimes when you are dealing with one clause and confine yourself to one clause — as you well know, because you are a learned and very experienced member of this assembly — sometimes the implication of one clause dovetails with something else. It is very difficult to be just on one clause alone.
Subsection (1) says that there are going to be 15 zones. Some other people are going to have some suggestions about zones and their balance. Certainly they are geographic in nature, but they are not equal in terms of one person, one vote. My friend from Vancouver East, I understand, has got some serious concerns about the proportion or weight to that whole Vancouver district and its teachers and their one appointee to the council. There may be similar anomalies or lack of equities with some of the others. I haven't had an opportunity to give a head count on them and the number of teachers with the power to elect a college member, because I just simply haven't done the mathematics. But I think that what we should do in this business of the college — if we've got to have it — is do the same thing we were attempting to do, I hope, with the new redistribution of the provincial House so that there would be, by and large, so far as it is possible and taking some reasonable look at geography, one person having one vote, in terms of electing an MLA. You know yourself, Mr. Chairman, how skewed and distorted an election campaign and its results can be if you do not have essentially one person, one vote. This House is a perfect example of how that has happened. I don't know who did the last redistribution, but I think his name was Mr. Mander; I'm not sure if his first name was Gerry.
So I would like to ask some questions, but that is the general question about the zones. If we have to have a college and have to have each college member in that zone electing one member, so far as possible mathematically these individuals should be elected on the basis of one person, one vote, and there should not be great weight given to some areas and far less weight given to others. I can think of all kinds of suspicious things I could say about why that might or might not happen, but I won't say that.
Now there are some other questions here. I'd like to know the distinction between the designation of "persons" under 5(1)(b) and 5 (1)(c), and "members," mentioned in the amendment that the minister has proposed. So we've got persons being appointed, and persons being appointed, but this amendment removes the power of the minister to appoint the members. Now "members" is used in other places as well. What is it? Is there any distinction between persons and members? Are these "persons" persons other than college members? Is that why that designation is used?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, that is correct; these can be other than college members. As I think I indicated, the intent of the legislation was to make room for possible lay representation and possibly representation from the ministry in clause (c). Clause (d), of course, is spelled out — that is to represent the teacher-training institutes of the province and most of these people who do get together. So yes, that was the intent.
As far as the zones are concerned — and I think the member indicated that there would be further discussion on that — I know of no way in this province, with its great geographic diversity and its pockets of population and that sort of thing, to come up with any one system that gives one member one vote. I don't think it's possible.
If the member would look at the zones as they were distributed, a sincere attempt has been made to allow representation by areas that are heavily populated where you have fewer districts involved and then to try to make some geographic sense out of some of the others. It's going to be difficult in any zones. But even if you set up 50 or 70 zones, we have 75 school districts in this province, and every time we come up to a finance formula or any way of trying to deal equitably with them to account for everything, it is virtually impossible.
It's a sincere attempt to borrow from existing practice, expanded somewhat to put them in what we considered to be logical groups that can represent the members and also represent all of the areas concerned.
MR. ROSE: I would be the first one to admit that we shouldn't expect perfection in these matters, especially from the minister, involved as he is in this very difficult problem. We don't expect that, but there should be perhaps a limit placed on tolerance in terms of say 80 percent or more than that — 20 percent tolerance one way or the other — based on the number of people in the sum total of some districts.
For instance, we have the same problem in Canada. We've got four MPs from the little province of Prince Edward Island. My suggestion to you, if you've got some over — like four to one in terms of Vancouver electing one member compared to the average.... If you have that, why don't you give Vancouver two or three members? That's the easy way to do it. It isn't one district, one vote; never mind the minister. You represent people. You're not representing lakes or rivers or mountains or mountain goats.
It's quite easy to do, I think, rather than the finance formula, which is difficult. We've gone all through the business of the finance formula imposed in 1983, and subsequently revised and revised — perhaps not often enough. But we do know that there is a possibility that you can do what we've done in the federal Parliament, and rather than reduce Prince Edward Island, we've added people elsewhere. That's a possibility, and the minister might be interested in considering that.
Another puzzling aspect of this particular clause, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that there's a distinction made by members appointed lay people — and I want to come back to that in a little while — those people appointed by the minister, and those people appointed to the college board or college council by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I wonder if the minister could tell us the reason for that. I don't have any difficulty with the business from the three teacher-training institutions, but I do have a difficulty distinguishing the reason for two to be done by the ministry or the minister and two by the cabinet.
[3:15]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we must make efforts to represent people, but the way the population in this province distributes itself, out of any group of ten you could probably have nine from the lower mainland and one or none from the rest of the province, if you go strictly rep by pop. So we always make compromises in that regard with trying to do the best possible job.
[ Page 1055 ]
The distinction between those appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and two appointed by the Minister of Education.... Perhaps it's an interest in not turning over all of the power to cabinet — that the minister would like to have some say in someone from the ministry perhaps being on the council. It was to give two options, really. I suppose the minister could simply name two and have the Lieutenant-Governor appoint them, but there is no intent other than to give two options rather than just one.
MR. ROSE: The minister mentioned in an earlier response that he felt the reason to have appointees was to have lay people on the council. I assume if you have lay people on the council, that's designed to protect the public interest. Is that what the minister suggested a little while ago? Lay representation — the two, two and one. The two by the ministry and the two by the cabinet may not be knowledgeable or else qualified or in any other way acquainted with education, other than the fact that they went to school maybe even to public school.
I'd like to know whether the minister would confirm that that's what he said: it was to give lay representation on the council. And I'd like to ask him why he's done that.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, the lay person in the broadest sense in that people.... It opens the opportunity for people to be appointed who are not necessarily teachers or professional educators in the province. They could be from the business community; they could be representing the home-and-school; they could be representing some other groups that have a very direct interest in education. I would hope that neither the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council nor the minister would appoint people who know nothing about education. I think we have to have a little bit of faith in that regard.
Sometimes a fresh idea from someone who didn't necessarily go through the same school may not be harmful. Partly we're borrowing this from other groups, the Law Society and other professional societies that have actually found it to their benefit to have input other than from the in-group, if you like.
MR. ROSE: I am acquainted with the fact that some professional groups have invited lay people to their highest bodies, their colleges if you like. Question number one: does the minister know of any of those colleges that were established without the approval of the profession? Number two: does the minister know of any instance where the lay membership on the professional governing body of a profession — the college — has a membership of non-members of the college of 25 percent?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I'm sorry, I don't have the percentages of all the other groups that have this. You might say 20 percent, if you want to argue it technically, in that one of the persons is from the educational institutions. I can't tell the member who, for instance, are the two people I would appoint. Neither can the member say that I wouldn't discuss it with the rest of the council beforehand. It's open to any minister to do that.
MR. ROSE: If the minister wants to be technical, he used some math. You could say five out of 15 — that a third of them are. It depends on what your base is, according to the math that I took. But that's nitpicking; that's quibbling. It's five and 15, so one-third of them, really.
I want to know if the minister does intend to appoint people from the home-and-school and other people connected with education — at least a parent or a trustee or something else. Because it doesn't really say — the intent of the minister in terms of the appointment to that college, whether that person maybe could be the chairman of the B.C. School Trustees' Association for a particular year.... That might be a sensible appointment. It might be the head of the teachers' union; that might be a useful person to co-opt onto that college.
Does the minister want to answer that question? Has he specified? Will he tell the House whom he intends to appoint? I don't mean to name the person. A representative of an educational interest group....
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't say that I intend to.... What I believe I said in my opening remarks in this debate — which is completely out of order, since we're discussing the amendment; nevertheless, maybe we can cover more territory.... It leaves the door open to provide.... I used a couple of examples. No decisions have been made, and presumably Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments would have to be discussed with cabinet — I don't have the full say on those. What I did indicate was that the two persons appointed by the minister.... It could be a lawyer. It could be someone who could be helpful — an accountant, something of that nature. It could even be a musician, to entertain them. We're leaving the door open for these four appointments.
MR. ROSE: I want to know if the government House Leader, as a musician, would be eligible for an appointment while he's a cabinet minister. I don't think so.
I wanted to know whether the person nominated by the three deans of education will automatically be chosen by the minister. Or will that person who fills that job from the various teacher-training institutions...? Will the minister have a final say from a list? Or is he going to take the precise nominee of the three deans?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Speaking of precise, the legislation reads, to me, that they shall be nominated by the three deans of education and appointed by the minister. Wherever you put the emphasis, it still reads the same way. Yes, the minister will have to appoint the member that they nominate. It says that, and I couldn't go against the legislation.
MR. ROSE: I think that this is, if not my terminal question, then very close to it. There are fixed terms for the people elected to the college, and yet those appointed by the minister are at pleasure — in other words, without term. I wonder if the minister could tell us why there is a difference.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Could you ask another question while I look that one up?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe the opposition House Leader could carry on.
MR. ROSE: I was attempting to carry on, but I sort of stopped in full flight here because I'm waiting for the minister. Perhaps we could declare a five-minute recess.
[ Page 1056 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could take wing again.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a good idea, Mr. Chairman. Inasmuch as we've discussed section 5, section 9 and the schedule, when we should really have been discussing the amendment, maybe we could pass the amendment first and wait for section 5, when the member's question would be in order.
MR. ROSE: If you don't move the amendment, I don't see how we can discuss anything.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?
MR. ROSE: Wait a minute. We're waiting for the minister's answer — between business and pleasure. We want to know why it's election for two-year terms for some people and at pleasure for others.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I was looking for somewhere where it might specify the end of the appointment term. I don't see that; I don't recall it. The election periods are specified very definitely. The others, I would imagine, can be appointed at any time, to run from the time appointed until unappointed. I don't see a particular problem with it, because the 15 members are in charge.
MR. ROSE: Our concern about this college is that it not become a provincial form of the senate in Ottawa, where you can stay in solitude and tranquility until you're age 70.
AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to go?
MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I have not been offered that chance, but if the hon. A-G would care to nominate me, I would certainly consider it.
MR. JONES: I just thought the Chairman might appreciate a comment on the amendment. As I understand it, the amendment removes from the minister the power to appoint the first council and, in the process, I think allays some of the fears that people in the province had about the college. Although I think there is not a lot of acceptance in the public of the legislation, I think this amendment does make the legislation more acceptable, even though it's still not considered acceptable by the vast majority of the people that it affects. So my comment to the minister is to commend him for this amendment, which I imagine will be approved shortly.
Amendment approved.
On section 5 as amended.
MR. JONES: Just one short comment. The section does point out that five members will be appointed by the minister. There seems to be some debate — and the government House Leader has mentioned this as well — that it really is up to the teaching profession to develop this college and to have it unfold as they would see fit. However, we do see five members appointed by the government, and I think we all accept that government appointees are generally supportive of the government, and not the kind of people who stand up and criticize the government. So we have five government appointees, at least four of whom I think will be supportive of the government in this process. We also have the government setting up the act and in some areas prescribing tremendous detail as to how this act operates. We do see the government approving the bylaws of this act and also passing regulations governing this act.
So under the council, I think we see a tremendous amount of influence being exerted by the government through their appointees.
Section 5 as amended approved.
On section 6.
MR. CLARK: I have a few questions on zones. Maybe I could begin by asking the minister if he could advise the House of the number of teachers in each of the zones created by this section.
[3:30]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose we could quickly add up the teachers who are actually employed by each school district in each of those zones, and that gives us that. But it doesn't give us a complete membership list, in that other members who hold teaching certificates can also qualify, and that is the intent of the electoral commission that will be set up here to determine the total number of members. I can assure the member that we're well aware that these zones aren't equal in numbers, nor do I think there's any way of making them equal in numbers without creating another problem: that of virtually removing representation from the rest of the province.
MR. CLARK: I understand that it's difficult to make it equal, but we have certainly some experience in electoral politics as to how the different rules attempt to make it more equal. One of them is prescribed in almost all legislation in democracies, and that's plus or minus 20 percent. The information I have on some of the zones shows really quite staggering differences. For example, employed by the Vancouver School Board — that's partly why I'm so concerned — are about 3,700 teachers; employed by West Kootenay, 880 teachers. So Vancouver, with four times the number of teachers as West Kootenay, has exactly the same representation on the council of the College of Teachers. Albeit that you can't make it equal, it seems to me that that discrepancy can't be justified. Maybe the minister could attempt to.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sure we can go around this indefinitely. I don't know how you'd ever come up with anything equitable in terms of numbers alone.
It would seem to me that another factor is also operating here: that if a person represents a group that is an entity, in a sense, and meets together and that sort of thing, they have a much better chance to represent that whole group than if they're representing.... You could take another example, say of the south coast, and try to get all of those people together to be represented; so they still don't have the same opportunities of a representation in the larger, more concentrated areas. I suppose my concern doesn't run quite as strongly as the member's, that in this case they will be representing votes. They'll be the representative for the professional views of the members in that area.
[ Page 1057 ]
MR. CLARK: Except that we have a difference of opinion. It seems to me, though, that there could be some general guideline. In electoral politics it's plus or minus 20 percent, to take into account geographic factors; here, it's 400 percent. It just seems to me that there might be some general guideline to account for changes, because over time, Surrey, for example, and suburban areas are perhaps going to have more teachers. So if there was some guideline within the act that attempted to rationalize why there's a difference this dramatic, I think I'd be happier.
I don't want to stray into other sections of the act, because I know that's not allowed, and the Chairman will cut me off. But I would like to say that I have a real concern, because I think this problem of unequal representation — I think it's a problem; the minister doesn't — is compounded by other sections of the act; that is that where the person's not working but holds a certificate in the college, he or she votes in the place where that person resides. It's logical — and I think will empirically be home out — that many of the people live in Vancouver. In other words, if you get laid off in some small town in the north, most of those teachers will come to the lower mainland to find other kinds of work, but they still may hold a valid certificate.
I know personally, for example, quite a number of people who hold teaching certificates who are no longer working in that profession because of governmental policies, among other things, and are in other endeavours. So they, then, will be voting in Vancouver, under this legislation. That means that we not only have this 400 percent difference between the smallest and the largest, but the largest will in fact be larger — and quite dramatically larger, I suspect. It's a bit worrisome that we haven't.... The minister, when I asked if he could advise the House how many teachers, didn't answer. I'm just operating from my own knowledge, not from any empirical basis. If that empirical work were done, it would be useful if it were done ahead of time, before he decided on his own, so that we could see that in fact this 400 percent would be larger.
Zones are set out, as I understand it, in both the Barristers and Solicitors Act and the Medical Practitioners Act. But in these cases, zones with larger numbers of lawyers or doctors elect larger numbers of representatives to their respective councils; that's how these other two bodies operate. Can the minister advise the House if there was any consideration that, given these dramatic differences...? You could still have the same zones, but in fact say — and quite properly — that Vancouver would then elect two, as opposed to electing one, which is how the lawyers and, as I understand it, the doctors operate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 6, the member for Vancouver East continues.
MR. CLARK: So I guess there's no consideration given to that kind of approach, which the other professions use.
Under the Pharmacists Act, the question of dividing the province into electoral zones was left entirely to the College of Pharmacists — another option that the minister could have pursued. But he didn't pursue it in this case, which is odd as well. The Barristers and Solicitors Act, the Medical Practitioners Act and the Pharmacists Act each have provisions for their college to alter its own electoral zones. Maybe the minister could advise the House why the government has decided to entrench the zones set out in the schedule in the legislation, without any provision — it appears to me, anyway — for changing them, except by further legislation.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think if the member wants to do a quick survey, he will find that the metropolitan Vancouver area has six representatives, in effect, out of the 15. If you had two or three from the Island, it leaves very little, really, for the rest of the province. The zones are large out there. So I think the representation has been done as well as possible.
I think the member had another question there. Or were you just killing time?
MR. CLARK: I had a question about how these get amended. It appears to me that these are legislated zones, and they have to be changed by legislation. Is that correct?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose, if in future there's a change and there are recommendations that come forward for amendments that make sense, they would be acceptable. We had to come up with something. We also knew there had been zones that the B CTF and others had or had not followed, and as far as zonal negotiations were concerned, there were about 13 zones in the province. They geographically made it fairly difficult, so that was expanded to 15 zones. I don't know; one of the early recommendations of the council may be that there should be more representation — more zones — and then they would bring that forward and make their case.
MR. CLARK: I won't belabour it. This is my last speech on the subject. But I want to make it a real concern, because the minister has in effect implied that the homework wasn't done. He can't tell us how many nomeaching people holding certificates will be voting in which zone. So decisions were made to carve up the province into zones, with wildly different numbers of teachers working, and not knowing how many are not working in those zones, and then he says they can't be changed except by legislation. So I think that the homework wasn't done; and if it wasn't done, at the very least this could have said that the college could have had the power to determine the change of the zones, rather than coming back with legislation. I think these wildly different discrepancies are going to be exacerbated by the fact that people can vote in areas where they're living and not working. I think it's going to be a serious problem, and we'll probably see some amendments coming fairly quickly.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, my concern is on the zones, too. I suppose my concerns reflect those of rural members, and I know that the minister could appreciate that. I can see some difficulty with communication just in terms of the sheer geography, the area, that has to be dealt with in some of the zones. To deal, for example, with my own area, the Queen Charlotte Islands-Prince Rupert-Nishga area, at most times of the year it's extremely difficult to travel; it's not in some sense a geographic community of interest.
I'm just wondering what consideration went into the actual blocking out of the zones. Is 15 a magic number, or was it deemed that 15 was more workable, or that more people would be less workable? I'm just wondering if the minister could elaborate, because I think that there could be some potential problems in the rural regions, given the lack of community of interest over such a wide geographic area.
[ Page 1058 ]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that a lot of consideration went into trying to come up with a balance between a reasonably sized working executive council as compared to trying to get every district.... For instance you could automatically go to 75 council members, one for each school district, and you would certainly not even have as good a rep-by-population situation as you have here. So you have that extreme. You could have two for each district and go to even wider extremes.
This is hopefully a working executive council that will be representing the members on professional standards, qualifications and that sort of thing. They are not going to be doing everything and anything for the teachers. I think we have to clarify that. They're really something such as the Law Society or the Association of Professional Engineers or that sort of thing has. They are a group that deals with the professional qualification standards of teachers.
It's somewhat arbitrary, yes, but we did look at the numbers and the geography and tried to come up with something that is workable. I don't know, quite frankly, how you could get equitable representation considering population at all for, say, areas like the Atlin-Prince Rupert-Kitimat area or the Peace River-Fort Nelson area. It has been tried in so many ways. There is absolutely no way that you can have someone that can cover that. And yet I know, when it comes to discussion about MLAs, how we are all considered equal in constituency allowances. It's all considered fair, isn't it? That member knows very well. The people in the Vancouver area consider a travel allowance as very fair because it makes it very equitable, and they have a constituency of four square miles where I've got one of 64,000 square miles. So, yes, I can appreciate the problem.
MR. MILLER: I appreciate the minister's remarks, and I know that we will jointly convey those to people who make decisions about some of the things that the minister mentioned, but — and correct me if I'm off the clause — given the difficulties, which I think the minister does appreciate, I'm wondering whether or not consideration has been given or could be given under this section to a regional branch, if you like. I can foresee the difficulty of a representative from the larger geographic areas. In some sense, this person will require time off from normal teaching duties, presuming that he is a teacher, and that is an additional cost. Whether or not there could be a regional branch of the college without creating an additional level of bureaucracy, but some mechanism so that these divergent interests can be communicated to this one person, who is supposed to represent the interests of the people in his or her district.... The minister correctly pointed out that rural members, who deal in much smaller areas, have difficulties in doing that. Is that precluded in this section, or is it dealt with in some other section? Or is it something that the college itself can deal with in terms of making recommendations for changes to the legislation?
[3:45]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, so much of it is speculation when you try to anticipate all of this. But I don't envisage that the functions of the college as presently designated are going to be such that you need branch offices throughout the area. If they expand into other functions with the blessing of their membership.... They are going to have to have it, because any expenditure or setting of fees has to be approved by members, not just by council members. It has to be done by all voting members of the college. So if and when they expand — and I say if — probably heavily into a broader range of activities, then I am sure that they would have to recognize that with it goes a presence in the area. But with its present function of dealing with the professional aspects of certification, qualification of teachers, the registration of all the membership.... That list can all be done by staff and computers. So they would be a policy-making body where they would have to deal with a discipline committee or that sort of thing. In a later section it provides for expenses of council members, and that to be covered. Yes, you couldn't expect them to do it.
We don't see time off as a major concern at this point. If it does become a major concern, then I presume the college would have to recommend to their members that fees be raised accordingly.
MR. MILLER: First of all, following up very briefly on the possible need for time off, I can't foresee that it wouldn't occur. Given the nature of the responsibility the person would take on himself, he would require time off.
Is there any difficulty under the present system in terms of.... Say the representative happened to be a schoolteacher from Prince Rupert. Is there any difficulty in terms of that person approaching the board for time off? Is there a requirement that the individual school boards would be required to grant the time off required for this person to do his job?
I've got another question, but I would like to....
MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, hon. member, the Chair just can't quite see that as being relevant to this particular section of the bill. Did you have another question? If the minister would like to respond....
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, there is no great difficulty.
MR. MILLER: Perhaps there would be another section where that would be a more appropriate question. I think it should be followed up.
I have another question, believe me. The college is going to be a very important body, obviously. Given the climate of opposition, and I guess the desire that, if this goes through and it's going to be set up, it function well, I wonder if the minister has any concern with respect to representation.
Given that the person from the zone could be a schoolteacher, an independent school teacher or a person who has a certificate but is not teaching, I am wondering if the minister thinks that, given the size of the zones and the number of people represented by one person, it could be a source of conflict in the zone and therefore would detract from the smooth operation of the college board — this kind of internal conflict that could be created between various interest groups within the zone.
I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is shaking his head and saying no.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that is very difficult, hon. members, and we are not supposed to canvass more than one section at any given time. I think your last question might also be more appropriate in another place.
MRS. BOONE: I have been listening very carefully, and I haven't heard.... Maybe it was said earlier and I never
[ Page 1059 ]
gathered it. Is it the intent of the minister to direct these zones to hold meetings within the districts so that the districts can all get together? Will they hold yearly meetings in order to acquaint themselves?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer is no, I have no intention of directing them to have meetings, to tell them how to elect their representatives other than it be done by secret ballot. So I guess that answers the member's question.
MRS. BOONE: I have a question. It says that one member shall be elected to serve on the council as a representative for each zone. How does the minister envision the people within that zone knowing what the people they are electing are like if they don't hold any meetings or have any opportunity to understand these people or know where they're coming from?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have great faith in modem communication, print, the other media and that sort of thing. Pictures can be circulated, the person's position can be stated, as is done now in many cases of election, and the members will be able to vote. A decision will have to be mail-in ballot or some other process, but each member in that zone will have a vote by secret ballot, and I am sure that members will responsibly make sure that they know who they are voting for as they do with the rest of us.
MRS. BOONE: How does the minister envision that these people will then represent the people that they have been elected by if they never have an opportunity to discuss with them any of the issues that they are going to be dealing with?
MR. JONES: I just have one very short question, and it might be answered by you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious as to whether the schedule at the end of the act which governs the zones is also approved at the time we approve section 6.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's approved separately.
MR. JONES: Separately. Thank you.
MRS. BOONE: I really would like an answer to my question, because in the past what we've heard from the opposite side of the House for weeks now is that the BCTF does not represent its members, and I'm wondering how this body is going to represent the people that they are electing when they have no means to have any discourse, no means to talk, no means to have any sort of resolutions or anything like that. How do we expect these people to represent the people that they are elected by?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are many people in this province who vote who haven't necessarily met the individual that they're voting for. I really feel that if a person is interested in a nomination to represent that zone, they would probably make the effort to meet with each association, with each group of teachers in that zone, and make themselves known. Ones who are less known will probably get less votes, so it's fairly obvious that they can do that. It doesn't require time off. I've heard of people doing things on weekends.
MRS. BOONE: I find it amazing that the minister is assuming that people are going to know what other people want them to do. I believe in representation, and all along here we're being told that the BCTF does not represent its members.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what you said; I didn't say that.
MRS. BOONE: That's what these people are saying. I want to know how these people can possibly represent this group without ever having an opportunity to talk with them or to know what they want. How is it possible for the people in the Cariboo, Chilcotin, Quesnel, Bums Lake, Nechako and Prince George area to get together to find out what their teachers in all of those areas want?
In the structure of the BCTF, there are representatives from each district that go down and truly represent their membership. How are they going to do this, given the structure that you've given them — which is zones — and absolutely no means for them to have any discourse with each other?
MR. MILLER: I want to register a concern, and I don't think I put it in the same way that I'm now going to phrase it. If you look at the division of the school districts within the zones, it seems to me that one thing is going to be clear: the district that has the greatest teacher population will presumably, if they do their job properly, always elect the representative. Does the minister not think that that will lead to some serious problems in terms of that person purporting to represent the entire region? I mean, it's a stacked deck.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know. Democracy does seem to work. People sometimes vote for the person they consider the best representative for their total area rather than the person who represents the most numerous among them. So I don't see any difficulty with that concept, any more than I see it in any other election process.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
MR. JONES: We see section 7 as a section that sets out the qualifications for candidates for election to the college council. When we see that membership in the council is a very vague and grey area, I and other members have difficulty in looking at this election process, because it's not really clear who the electorate is going to be. Under this section it appears that retired teachers, non-practising teachers and even teachers in independent schools would be eligible for election to the council. I'm just wondering if that's the minister's intention with this large group. As I mentioned the other day, somebody who had been issued a certificate and had even died could be eligible to vote in this election. I just wonder if this broad group — vague and undefined — is going to be part of this electoral process.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that that is exactly the intention: that any person who qualifies as a member of the college is eligible, under these specific terms, to be elected to the council. They will be elected by the members in that zone.
[ Page 1060 ]
MRS. BOONE: If teachers in the independent schools can be elected to the council, then under subsequent sections they become eligible to sit on committees. Given the powers of the council to set teacher qualifications and discipline, we could have teachers from independent schools in a position to determine who should teach in a public school. Is this appropriate?
[4:00]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member takes it to that extreme, then certainly. But remember, these members of council are dealing with the professional qualifications of any teacher in this province, and they will be elected by the people.... It's interesting. We just had the argument that where the numbers are greater in the public school system, that would preclude anybody from the independent school system getting elected — simply because of numbers. Now you're saying that those same people would turn around and elect somebody whom they have no confidence in, who isn't a colleague of theirs, and put them in there to somehow or other deal with them. I cannot see professionally qualified teachers turning on each other to try to lift their certificates. Remember also, whether or not a member is doing a job in the classroom will be determined by the boards in the first instance. The only place where the college comes into it is if and when they feel that it's such a flagrant violation of competence, if you like, that the profession as a whole sees that member as a detriment and decides to remove him — to put it in the bluntest terms. I don't think that that college council.... Are you envisioning that somehow or other the independent schools, with 5 or 6 percent of the student population in this province and the corresponding number of teachers, are going to take over the majority of this council and do those sorts of things? I would think that even if they did.... I have more faith in the professional aspect that these people would bring to it.
MRS. BOONE: Further to what the minister just said, is he telling me that all teachers, even those in the independent schools, will be required to be members of the college?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if they have a teaching certificate, then they are eligible to be members of the college. There is provision in other places that they can withdraw and have absolutely no say in it, but they are eligible.
MRS. BOONE: So those teachers who do not qualify for a B.C. teacher's certificate do not need to be members of the college. They are less qualified, they do not need to be members of the college, and they have no qualifications or no standards set upon them by the college. Is that correct?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to determine where the problem lies. If they are not members of the college, they have no vote as members of the college. If they choose to be members of the college, then they have the same right — assuming that their qualifications make them eligible — as any other member, and that generally is a B.C. teaching certificate; but they don't have to be members. In the public school system they must be.
MRS. BOONE: This is what I'm trying to get at. In the public school system they must be members of the college.
Therefore they must be qualified people, and they have standards set upon them, and certain requirements. However, it is not necessary for people in the private school system to be members of the college, because they don't necessarily have to have a B.C. teacher's certificate. Therefore they don't have the rules and regulations or standards applied to them.
My concern is, why are we not addressing this need that teachers in the private school system be as qualified as they are in the public school system, and subject to the same standards? And would not making it mandatory for all teachers in the public school system and in the private school system to be part of the college address this problem that we have here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 7 pass?
MRS. BOONE: Excuse me, I would like an answer to this question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can ask all the questions you please. It's the prerogative of the minister, or whoever is responding, to answer or not.
MRS. BOONE: Does the minister then not see it as a priority, if we are trying to ensure standards in the teaching profession, to make all teachers members of the college? Does the minister not see it as something that would be of benefit to everyone, to ensure that all teachers in the province are members of the college?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the reason I didn't answer is that I saw no connection between voting privileges and members who were not members of the college. But I don't know; perhaps the member is suggesting that we apply the same criteria to the independent school system. Would she then go along with 100 percent funding to them as well? You do create that problem. If you say that they all have to have exactly the same terms and conditions.... I can tell the member this: that in many of the group 2 schools where they follow the B.C. curriculum, they request and require that teachers shall have a B.C. teaching certificate. But we leave them some option to choose, because they're putting up 65 percent of the funding from sources other than the public purse.
MR. JONES: I think I hear the rationale for what I think the minister admits is a double standard. Certainly members of the independent school system who are eligible to be members of the college do have the right to vote and select the members to the council. And I think the minister is right: that the numbers are such that although it's possible, it's unlikely they will strongly influence the outcome of the vote. They still have the same eligibility privileges, but they do have different opportunities than other members, because they have the opportunity to opt out of the college if they don't like what the college does. At the same time, they do not lose the opportunity to teach in this province, whereas somebody from the public school system who chooses to opt out loses their right to teach in this province.
I think there is a double standard here. Perhaps the rationale that they're not 100 percent funded does provide some reason for this double standard; but I think we're talking about elections here, and I don't really think it's fair to have that kind of double standard.
[ Page 1061 ]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am glad that we're back to elections. Anybody who is eligible to be a member surely should have a vote, and that's all. Anyone — public school or otherwise — can choose to withdraw their membership from the college. We have said that they must be a member of the college in order to teach in the public school system. Should they wish to withdraw, they could still teach anywhere else.
MS. A. HAGEN: On Friday I raised some questions around the roles of superintendents and assistant superintendents as they are encompassed in this act as members of the college, and as they are eligible to participate in elections. At that time I think we noted that it was unlikely that they might be elected to the council, since their numbers are small in relation to the number of teachers in the province. But what I would like to canvass with you this afternoon is in fact the possibility that they may be elected to represent their zone. That, given the range of numbers of teachers in various zones, is more likely than we perhaps might have anticipated when we discussed this on Friday.
I would like the minister to comment about the possibility for some conflict of interest should a superintendent sit as a member of the council and have responsibilities devolved onto that superintendent in relation to some of the various committees that the council would establish. Could he comment on some possibility for conflict of interest in relation to the supervisory responsibilities that a superintendent or assistant superintendent would have as an employee of his board? That might particularly apply, I think, in the area of the discipline committee — some of the roles that the superintendent would fill on this board, and the roles that he or she might then be responsible for as a member of the council and as a member of the committee of the council.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would definitely say that it is possible and permissible for a superintendent to be elected to the council. I would not accept that it is not likely, because in many areas of this province, superintendents are considered to be educational leaders among educators. They are not considered the enemies of educators. So who knows? They may feel that from the professional side which the college is dealing with, the most capable one to represent them is the superintendent, so they should have that right. So I don't see them as.... Some members may see it as unlikely. I don't necessarily see an administrative officer or a superintendent as being all of a sudden the enemy of educators rather than the best possible representative of them, as they are in many cases.
So I think it is possible. It is certainly permissible and allowed. I don't know if that answers the member's question.
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
MS. A. HAGEN: I didn't wish to debate whether in fact there was any likelihood that they would not be elected. I think we had discussed that it might not be the case, and we were discussing it in the context of membership and the right of a superintendent to be a superintendent if that person were not a member of the college.
The question I want the minister to address today is the possibility of any conflict. The role of the superintendent is quite unique in the school system, because that person is the chief executive officer of the board. That person has supervisory responsibilities as a result of his or her employment with the board. I am asking the minister to give some consideration to any possibilities of conflict of interest should the superintendent sit as a member of a council and fulfill some responsibilities on the committees of the council.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I don't see any possible conflict of interest, because we are talking about a professional organization, with professional qualifications to belong. All of these people are dealing with professional qualifications only, so they are not agents of the board and they are not anything else. They are fellow educators having to deal with.... In the bar association, I don't think anyone would say that it matters whether they are a junior counsel or a senior counsel or the owner of a law firm. If they are dealing with the professional function of lawyers, or whether or not they should retain their certificates, they deal with that as professional engineers or professional lawyers, not as boss and employee or anything of that nature. We've got to get back to the role of the college.
The other roles that I think you are building into this are part of the school board function and that sort of thing.
MS. A. HAGEN: Just one final question on this, Mr. Minister. It may pertain to the amendments in section 27, where some double jeopardy issues were in fact identified and, I think, have been dealt with.
Is the minister satisfied that the issue of double jeopardy and due process, which could in fact involve a superintendent who might very well have been involved as the person on the school board who is responsible for dealing with the competence of a teacher and that teacher's dismissal from the board.... Is the minister satisfied that there is no longer any double jeopardy, and that there is complete due process in this bill as it has been amended?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the answer is yes, I am satisfied. I didn't feel there was any double jeopardy at any time, but it has been clarified by these amendments.
MR. CLARK: I just was looking through this. It popped into my head that there is nothing in the act that requires 50 percent plus one to get elected. So if elected by a simple plurality from a wide number of candidates, then it could conceivably be a fairly small percentage to elect. For example, we were talking earlier about whether an independent schoolteacher could get elected, and some members were saying otherwise; but if the independent schools put forward one candidate and they essentially promoted that candidate, and there were a wide range of candidates from the public school system, then the opportunity for a minority view to be elected would be very high. I don't think that's the intent of the act. I see the minister is conferring. I'm just saying that I don't think it's the intent of the act that a minority view could get elected because of the absence of 50 percent plus one. In most colleges that's not the case, I think. Maybe the minister could comment.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't necessarily equate professional responsibility with superiority of numbers. I don't think most teachers do, either. So they can elect whoever they think will be their best representative on this council to deal with their professional matters.
[4:15]
[ Page 1062 ]
MR. CLARK: I don't know if the minister misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing that there's going to be some deviousness; I'm just arguing that because it's not 50 percent plus one, we could have one candidate representing the independent school system and a wide range of candidates from the public school system. I don't think that's the intent. Surely the intent is to have a majority of teachers vote for the candidate of their choice, whether he be from the independent or the public school system. This system seems to lend itself to minority organization and point of view, and I don't think that's the intent of the minister.
Interjection.
MR. CLARK: So the minister has no concerns about this position, where in fact a very small percentage of the top candidates could get elected. It lends itself, it seems to me, to significant organization on the part of minority interests to get elected to this board. I think that in most cases it's 50 percent plus one. Does the minister have any comment on that?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think it says in a later section of this act that the council may make bylaws governing whether or not it's a 50 percent majority or the one with the highest number — that sort of thing. I think they can make the bylaws to govern that.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to section 9 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. JONES: I know the members opposite want a full, unfettered debate on all the amendments and all the sections of this act. They're saying aye because that's their responsibility here. They could enter into debate if they so chose.
I commended the minister for the amendment to the earlier section, and I think this amendment flows from that. However, I have some concerns about the amendment. It seems that in section 1 there is a very atypical kind of clause. Subsection (1) deals with the establishment of the election commission. This amendment contemplates the possibility that the minister, the Chief Justice or the BCTF may fail to appoint a commissioner, and I think that's a very unusual....
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, can I just ask which amendment you are referring to? There are two: one is 9 and one is 9.1. We're dealing with 9.
MR. JONES: Madam Chairperson, I think I'm on amendment 9.1.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on 9. There are two amendments to section 9 on the order paper.
MR. JONES: I guess I'm on 9.1(1). The minister is moving the entire package of amendments and I wish to comment on one of those amendments. I would like to make clear which one of those amendments I'm speaking on, if I may.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think we'd like to deal with 9 first — the amendment — and then the motion as amended. Then we'll deal with amendment 9.1.
MR. JONES: I'd like to comment before the package of amendments is approved, to this section.
Interjections.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps I might clarify that. There are two amendments in section 9 which basically remove the date specified and the appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor, to make room for 9.1. What I was moving was the amendments in 9, which are those two deletions. If we accept those, 9.1 is a new section which is added for discussion. I don't know if that hampers the member or helps.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That clarifies it, Mr. Minister.
Amendment approved.
On section 9 as amended.
MR. JONES: We'll be dealing with 9.1 after 9 passes, is that correct? Okay.
Just to further comment, I did commend the minister earlier for the idea that we should have an election of this first council.
Interjections.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, we haven't approved 9 as amended yet. That's what the member for Burnaby North is speaking on.
MR. JONES: I'm pleased with the amendment. I'm pleased that we're moving to an election rather than an appointment by the minister. There is a date specified, and there is a term of two years, and I think that's a reasonable thing. In fact, the government may even look to such a thing where we have a specified date for an election and we have a specified term of office. The province may benefit from that kind of regulation to the election.
I do support the amendment. Although it is still an act that is not acceptable to the people it will most affect, it does make that act a little better.
MS. MARZARI: Madam Chairman, I simply wanted to raise in passing the actual dates chosen. Did the minister have a reason in mind for choosing November 15? Having come out of the aldermanic stage of my career, I know that under the Municipal Act the third week in November, in most municipalities and certainly in Vancouver, is something of a political shemozzle. The efforts of many candidates to be heard and seen in that particular time-frame, and very often the polarization and people running for school boards at the same time.... It might not be the appropriate time for a
[ Page 1063 ]
professional association to be going to its membership for an election. Could you comment on that, Mr. Minister, and talk a little about why this particular date was chosen? Was there a particular desire to have January I being the day that office is officially held?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, these elections are not public elections. They are elections strictly by teachers of their representative, so we didn't see any difficulty with that. We looked at the end of the year. As you'll notice, the act is to come into effect January 1, 1988, so we thought that sometime before the new council takes over.... November 15 seemed to be a reasonable date. If you went much earlier, then you'd have the overlap extending over a period of time. If you made it much later, you'd get into the Christmas period; and if you went too much earlier, you'd get into the period before the teachers get back into school in September. So I guess it was an arbitrarily chosen date, but as we saw it, there is no connection with the municipal or school board elections.
MS. MARZARI: Further to the date, Madam Chairman, if I read the clause correctly, it is a prescriptive date, so whether that date falls on a weekday or a Saturday or Sunday, that is the date on which the election will take place. I would think that that would be a very dysfunctional sort of fixing. The Municipal Act is flexible; it is the third Saturday, and that may fall anywhere from the 15th on through. It may be an amendment that the minister might like to bring in at a future time, simply to allow for a more sensible election date from a functional point of view.
Section 9 as amended approved.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, section 9.1. [See appendix.]
On section 9.1.
MR. JONES: I think we finally arrived at where I was ten minutes ago, which is the subsection dealing with the establishment of the election commission. I was trying to comment that this commission has certain responsibilities and has what I consider an atypical or unusual provision in its mandate, which is the one that suggests that if we have the minister, the Chief Justice or the BCTF failing to appoint a commissioner — and I guess this is 9.1(2).... I'm curious as to the rationale for this. I'm wondering if the minister expects that one of these three bodies.... I would assume that the rationale behind it was in the event that the BCTF is the single body that fails to appoint. Is that the body expected to fail to appoint, or is it one of the other bodies? And if it is the BCTF that is considered to be the one that's failing, is this an admission on the part of the minister that he expects not to have the cooperation of the teachers in this province in setting up the college?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I certainly don't expect that any of the groups are going to not avail themselves of the opportunity to have a representative there. The Chief Justice, of course, is to try and make it absolutely non-political, non-partisan and as fair as possible. So I don't expect any of the groups....
It sort of follows from boards of reference, arbitration boards and so on. If the two are appointed and you can't get a third one, somebody needs to appoint them so you can get on with the job. If you don't have a clause like that in there, then any one group could hold up the process forever. So it's fairly standard procedure.
I'm not anticipating that the two groups here.... The minister: I can assure you I would try to appoint someone to make sure the job.... I'm sure that the Chief Justice will appoint the chairman. And I am sure that the B. C. Teachers' Federation, the only other group mentioned, would appoint somebody to make sure that the lists are done in accordance with the other two.
[4:30]
MR. JONES: The minister is saying that this is a typical kind of provision, and I was arguing that it's an atypical kind of provision. I guess it will require more research on both our parts to determine the accuracy of our respective positions.
Under the next subsection, in which the election commission shall as soon as practical after it's appointed conduct the first election of the 15 members, they will make rules, and some of the areas in which they may make rules — the nominating procedures, qualifications and the manner of voting — are spelled out. I keep coming back to the same problem that I have. That's because we have a very unclear definition as to who the population that is going to be voting in these elections is. Under this subsection we see the commission given the power to make rules concerning the manner of determining who is eligible to nominate, etc. Since the qualifications for nominating, standing for election and voting are clearly stated elsewhere in the bill, isn't this subsection a real admission that it's going to be very difficult to come up with a list of members?
I think I've suggested before that when we have a provincial election or a municipal election or a federal election, we have enumeration and we have a clear list of eligible voters, all of whom are alive and are qualified, and those qualifications are clear. I'm just wondering if the minister doesn't envision tremendous problems with this commission coming up with the kind of election that I'm sure we all want. Unlike some of the other elections that we've seen recently, where the government's side is questioning the results of those elections.... I think we want to avoid that kind of thing. I see a real problem continually with having an unclear electorate, and I'm wondering if the minister doesn't agree that that's a problem.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think the eligibility list has been clearly established by section 3 of this legislation, and so the commission is to set up, if you like, the registrar of voters on the basis of their eligibility. So that's a basis. They have to make the rules: how the nominations are conducted; who isn't eligible to vote, to be nominated — obviously, if the person isn't eligible to vote, they're not eligible to be nominated; and then the manner of voting, counting of votes, and scrutineering — again, they're governed by the legislation, with the secret ballot and all members having the right to vote. So they're basically setting up the election machinery here, as well as the registration of the eligible people.
MR. MILLER: On the same section, is subsection (3)(b) not redundant? Maybe it's a question of reading it, or the
[ Page 1064 ]
wording. The section says: "...determining the qualifications to nominate, stand for election or vote at the election." Yet, as the minister has said in a previous section, it's quite clear that the eligibility requirements are laid out in the legislation. It almost seems to say that the commission can establish variances to a previous section of the legislation. Surely the qualifications are the teaching certificate, as mentioned in previous sections. Surely it flows in this kind of election that if you're eligible to run, you're also eligible to nominate, and to do all of those other things. I think the only variance is maybe in the Municipal Act, where you don't actually have to reside in the community where you run. I don't think anybody has ever taken advantage of it. Is it not redundant in terms of that previous section?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman, I don't think the section is redundant, in that this commission may have to decide whether a person's statement that "I am eligible" is a fact or a wish. They have to have processes to check the certificate if a person simply comes forward. That's all that that does; in other words, it determines eligibility, within the act, but they have to show that.
MR. MILLER: I think I can read almost as well as the average person. If there is some confusion regarding that, I'm wondering if a slight change in wording would clarify that, to indicate what the minister is saying. If a person comes forward and says he is eligible to nominate or to run, there has to be a procedure set up so that can be verified. That's what you're saying. For example, if you go down to vote in the municipal election and your name is not on the list, you can't vote; you can do something else to sign up. That's what you're saying, and yet the wording tends to be somewhat misleading, because it says "the manner of determining the qualifications," and they are clearly laid out in a previous section. Whether or not it's a major thing, or whether or not it will lead to problems, I'm not certain. But I would ask the minister to consider that, and perhaps a change of one word might remove any problems at this stage.
MS. A HAGEN: I'm pursuing a point on the same line as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). The college will in fact determine who will be eligible for membership on the basis of their review of the qualifications of each person, and presumably the college will accept current B.C. certificates. I just want to ask a question, if I may, of the minister. I hold a teaching licence in this province. It's not a licence that I have used for many years. At this particular time, before the establishment of the college, will this particular commission rule on my eligibility to exercise a vote for the election of the council?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that this council will have to determine if you say you have a certificate, or if you have one. That would be easy enough to establish. If you have a certificate, then you're automatically qualified to be nominated. I think you have to recognize the whole purpose of this section 9. 1. When the college exists and has determined its membership list, it's easy. Those that they have accepted as members are the voting members, and that is why the interim measure that we saw was that, on the recommendation of the BCTF, the minister would appoint this first council, who would then work on the membership list and do all of that. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with that. There was a lot concern that somehow or other, the minister was trying to set up the college as his vehicle to try to do something. We didn't want that; that was never the intent. The intent clearly in the legislation all the time was the election process. That was an interim measure, but the interim measure caused so much concern that we said: "Well, okay, then we've got to go to election." But there isn't at this moment a college that has established its membership list, so we've said that the next best thing is to try to get the most neutral committee to decide the membership list or the voters' list which makes them eligible for nominations and that sort of thing.
To answer the member for Prince Rupert on his question about that, I used the example that someone might challenge the qualifications. I think this leaves it open to this commission to determine the qualifications to nominate. In other words, are you allowed to nominate, stand for election or vote at the election? So that gives them broader.... The example that I thought of may not be the only one that can be argued as to whether people are eligible or not. The commission will then have to act as a referee board as well, if there's an argument about who's eligible.
MR. MILLER: As I proceed, I'm not sure if my grade 8 English teacher, who taught me Ecclesiastes, which I've quoted to this House previously, would be proud of me or not, but could the minister respond to this question: if you remove the word "determining" in (3)(b) and substitute the word "verifying," would that not remove any confusion that may exist with regard to that?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems to me that if the commission determines that they are qualified, that's the same thing as verifying that they're qualified, even though the terms can be used differently in other contexts.
MR. JONES: I still have difficulty with one section here and I think there has been some sword-play between the minister and my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody — and that's subsection (5), which says: "Persons who are eligible to nominate, to be nominated or to vote at the first election are the members of the college, but if section 3(l) is not in force during the course of holding the first election...." I'm just curious — and I know the minister has referred to this section, but it wasn't really clear to me — why this subsection refers to the possibility of proceeding before section 3(l) is proclaimed. I don't know what reasons there would be for withholding proclamation of section 3(l). Can the minister suggest...? I know he wants the election to go ahead no matter what happens with the proclamation, but I just don't understand why this problem would exist, why there would be a withholding of proclamation.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is simply that they may want to hold the election of the council, to get on with the job before January 1. And to make sure, the legal people tell me that if a lot of the act comes into force on January 1, 1988, an election could in fact proceed according to the same eligibility rules. That's legal terminology. If you and I were writing it, we would probably not have all those terms in there.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Minister, I'm wondering if you would be willing to answer what I think is a fairly straightforward question concerning 9.1(3). It's apropos of the comment
[ Page 1065 ]
you just made about what happens when we leave these things to the legal profession and how they do indeed tend to generate different points of view and opinions concerning what the actual meaning is. Would we not be serving the people of this province somewhat better if we were to simply delete from 9.1(3) the last phrase, namely, "including rules respecting," and then (a), (b), (c) under that? It would seem to me that in fact the statement that we want to make is made without that last clause and those three items that cause us this confusion.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, what we're trying to limit this commission to is one specific function: to set up and properly run the first election and then turn it over to the college. So rules respecting the nominating procedures, the qualifications and so on to run the first election.... In other words, it's very specifically to not give them general powers in any other sense.
MR. LOVICK: Yes, I understand clearly and sympathize, moreover, with the intention of the clause. However, it seems to me that, the way this is written, what we are doing is opening the door to precisely the kind of confusion that has been manifest here in the last 15 minutes. It would seem to me that by simply taking the statement that the commission will in effect be charged with making "the rules that it considers necessary or advisable for the conduct of the first election, including...." If that is going too far with it, then we simply take out that restrictive — that open-ended term "including" — because unless we say "including only these things," then we've opened the door.
[4:45]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have tried to be as precise and limiting as we possibly can. I can just picture the other debate, had we stopped after "or advisable for the conduct of the first election." We would then have been accused, I'm sure, of not spelling out.... What about the nominating? How do they vote? How do they determine eligibility?
In some respects, I guess you can't win. We've tried to go through this. I've commended my staff and the legal people who have worked hard on this to make sure that what is spelled out in this legislation is clearly the intent of the legislation. The first draft, the intent, was very clear to us. People were able to confuse it. Even if we have to add extra words here, we're trying to make sure that we make it as clear and fair as possible.
MR. LOVICK: You will notice that I am smiling as I pose the question, Mr. Minister. I hasten to point out that I don't do so with any ulterior motive. My point, however, is that it is precisely because we have put in that single word — "including" that we have opened the door to the problems I've just enunciated. Surely the way to solve the problem is to say "for the conduct of the first election, specifically the rules respecting." That way, what we do is exclusively state that these are the things the commission is charged with doing. That way, it is absolutely clear that no other agenda is possible. I suggest, Madam Chairman, that as long as a possibility is perceived that another agenda might be around, we're going to have this kind of discussion.
Would the minister care to respond to my suggestion? Again, to restate it, instead of stating "including," we ought to say "specifically the rules respecting." Do you see my point?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we're getting involved in semantics. We don't see any difficulty with this. To conduct an election, you have to include the rules for a nominating procedure, the eligibility of people to vote, the manner of voting, the counting of votes and the scrutineering. You have to include all of those things. Now what could be clearer than that?
MR. LOVICK: Is there anything else that you and your fellow drafters of the legislation can see that conceivably ought to be included in that list?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. We are convinced that that covers all of the essentials and the factors necessary to run a proper election.
MR. MILLER: I'm really seeking clarification from the minister with regard to 9.1(6). It says: "Persons elected at the first election hold office from the date that they are, under the rules, declared to be elected." Just in terms of what's coming down, where "rules" has been changed to "bylaws," should that also have been changed to read "under the bylaws"?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman. That simply means that when the election commission sets up the election procedure, they will make the rules. And they will say, when the election is complete according to our rules, that this elected council takes effect on such-and-such a date. So it's not the rules of this legislation or anything; it's the rules of the electoral commission, if you like. That's all.
Section 9.1 approved.
On section 10.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 10 as amended.
MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour the point I raised earlier, but I would just like to reiterate for the record that, seeing as.... Well, we had a member here from Fraser Valley, and one from South Island as well, where they have well over 3,000 teachers who will be voting for one representative each, whereas there are other members who have very small numbers — 800 teachers — who also get equal representation, much like the Senate, I gather.
This section that we are debating right now exacerbates that problem by having those with principle residences in that zone allowed to vote. The homework simply hasn't been done, so we don't know how many people that means. But I can tell you that in Vancouver there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of people who will now get to vote if this passes. So that means Vancouver will probably have in excess of 5,000 people voting for one representative, whereas in the Kootenays — West Kootenay, East Kootenay — and the north, there will be less than 1,000 people voting for one representative. I think that is simply not equitable.
[ Page 1066 ]
But to move on, because I know the minister's response to that, the provisions for conducting elections under this section seem to have been left a little bit unclear. Just a couple of questions about the provision requiring secret ballots. I know that in the Labour Code, for example — and I think in the Industrial Relations Reform Act — secret ballots are required as well. They are supervised by industrial relations officers of the employment standards branch. I don't see that in here, but it says "secret ballot." Could the minister advise the House how it is envisioned that it would make sure that it is a secret ballot?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The legislation requires that it be a secret ballot. The council, through their bylaws, will determine how they assure that it is a secret ballot.
MR. CLARK: So unlike even trade unions under this act, where they are required to be supervised by the government, this one is not. This one is supervised by the college, I gather. So polling places and those kinds of things are decided by the college, I gather. Do you want to add to that?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, to my knowledge no professional organization has anybody supervising their vote. If it is specified as "secret ballot," we think they are quite capable of making sure that it is a secret ballot.
MR. CLARK: Well, it is interesting that the minister alludes to other professions, because every time we allude to other professions, the minister decides that that doesn't apply in the case of teachers. In this case, where it is convenient, the minister will use it.
In the case of acts covering lawyers and engineers, mail ballots are specified for their elections in the act. A mail ballot is provided for in the act we are debating in section 14, when it comes to bylaws. So mail ballots are okay for bylaws, but are not for elections to the council. Why is there this inconsistency in the act, which also treats it completely differently from other professions?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I don't know that the mail ballot is precluded in the election of council members. They hold their election by secret ballot. The bylaws, rather than rules — now that we have accepted the amendment — determine how that is done.
MR. CLARK: In the case of medical practitioners, nurses and pharmacists, to use some other analogies, the question of the best method of conducting elections is left entirely to the council governing the group. If the goal of Bill 20 is to make teachers a self-governing profession, then it seems to me that the election procedures should be left up to the profession and not up to the minister.
But just to go on, I wonder if the minister has done any work with respect to the costs of the election, because I think one of the concerns that we are getting on both sides of the House, I am sure, from teachers is that there is a fear that this could be a very expensive proposition. I understand that the minister has indicated that there will be, for the first election, some startup costs provided by the minister. Maybe the minister could tell us what kind of costs he envisages at least for the first one, so we can get a handle on how much it would be for later on.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't come up with the cost. The commission has been authorized to run an election. I think if we went back to the last part of section 9, it says what they shall get paid, and that will add up to the cost of holding the election.
MR. MILLER: Really, on a subject that has been raised but perhaps not thoroughly canvassed, in terms of the election itself and the whole thing about a secret ballot, a secret ballot seems to indicate a ballot-box. Is it possible to actually mix up...? We've got a situation in my constituency where the small community of Oona River has one teacher, although they don't have one right now. Any time you have an election there's politics, regardless of the group. That's the nature of the beast. The difficulty may be in terms of mixing up a variety of forms for people to vote — the question of simultaneous balloting, simultaneous release of results, all of those questions.... Is it simply up to the college to set all that themselves, and there's no concern on your part in terms of how that structure is set up? Is it possible to mix the two up?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose, Madam Chairman, it's possible to mix anything up, but it's also clearly indicated that what is clearly stated can be misinterpreted or confused. However, I would suspect that when the electoral commission — and the college later on — sets up bylaws to govern elections, that is not at the whim of whatever happens. They set up bylaws which presumably will say things like, this is how a mail ballot is conducted, and this is how it is ensured that it's a secret ballot, and all of those sorts of things. So yes, it's possible. It's done in other organizations. I think the mechanisms are there and probably available should someone not know how to do it.
Section 10 as amended approved.
On section 11.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 11 as amended.
MR. JONES: Madam Chairman, this section as amended simply provides for the filling of a vacancy on the council through a by-election or an appointment by the council if less than six months in the term remain. A couple of very quick questions on this section.
The acts governing lawyers, doctors and engineers have vacancies on their governing bodies filled by appointment by the remaining members of the governing body, rather than by by-election. I'd like to ask the minister why he feels that a by-election.... I think we're agreed on this side — perhaps the minister doesn't agree — that a by-election is going to be a very expensive proposition, and the costs are going to be borne by the College of Teachers, meaning the teachers of the province. I would like to ask the minister why he feels an expensive by-election is necessary here, when it's not necessary in other acts governing lawyers, doctors and engineers.
[5:00]
[ Page 1067 ]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the 18 months is the arbitrary decision.... You go for a by-election if they have not served 18 months. If they've been 18 months out of the 24, then you go for an appointment, and that appointment is made by the council. It's to cover such things as someone running, getting elected, and for some reason having to drop off the council after the first month.
Is an appointee by the council as good a representative as one elected by the people whom he is to represent?
So the 18 months.... Some regulations, I guess, call for half the term, others.... In this one, with a two-year term, we felt that if a person has served less than 18 months then a by-election.... Remember, the by-election would be for that one zone only, where it happens — probably rare.
MR. JONES: I appreciate that it is for the one zone, and I appreciate the 18 months. However, it seems to me that the minister draws the line somewhere — at 18 months, not 17 or 16 — and doesn't recognize that it would be an expensive proposition, certainly in terms of human energy and financial costs. When we have as little as six months left in the council member's term, we have this by-election. It seems that if the government is set on the idea of requiring by-elections to fill vacancies, then, given the expense of running this by-election, wouldn't it be better to require a by-election halfway through the term? It seems to me that that would be a more reasonable approach, rather than if the person had served 17 months, holding a by-election at that point rather than at 12 months.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: If, as the member says, there is as little as six months to serve, there will be an appointment. There will be no by-election. We're trying to make this as democratically fair as possible so that the representative serves the people who elect him or her. As I said in my first statement on this, it's an arbitrary decision based on previous and other practices — two-thirds of the term and three-quarters of the term rather than half the term.
MR. LOVICK: Just a quick question to pursue that matter of its being arbitrary. I'd just like to ask the minister if any thought was given at all to, rather than going with that figure of 18 months, perhaps using a year figure and then leaving it to the discretion of the other elected members of council. I'm thinking primarily in terms of saving some money.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: A quick answer — yes.
MR. LOVICK: Would the minister be kind enough to share with us the nature of those deliberations and discussions?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman. I believe the question was whether there was any consideration given to it. The answer was yes.
MR. LOVICK: And the conclusion, I may correctly deduce from that, is that it was held the better to be arbitrary rather than to.... What? To subject oneself to charges of being anti-democratic — was that the logic?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, it was not considered to be better to be arbitrary. It was considered that the best choice was the 18-month dividing line.
Section 11 as amended approved.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
MR. JONES: A short question on 13. This section allows the council to appoint in the event that there is a failure to elect a member in any zone. I'm not questioning that this be there, but I just could not envision any circumstance in which this would happen. I wonder if the minister envisioned any circumstances under which a zone might fail to elect a representative.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I do not envision any circumstance where this might happen. It's there to make sure that a zone is represented should something break down.
MR. JONES: Well, I think we had a clear indication from section 12 that by-elections are the appropriate route with as little as six months to go in a term and that it's considered acceptable in that case to have a by-election. I just don't understand why it wouldn't be the case here as well, when we have other vacancies created by this kind of problem.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The only place where section 13 comes into play is if, for some reason, the process breaks down so they don't elect someone, and at that stage, not having elected someone, it is difficult to justify a by-election to elect someone who wasn't elected by the election process. So therefore you have to have an alternative process to the election process.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yeah, I know I'm having a little fun here, but by and large, that's it.
MR. JONES: I think the minister is having more fun than I am. I see that point but, by the same token, if it's an appropriate situation to appoint a replacement in this circumstance, it seems appropriate that it would be also reasonable under section 12, given a minimum of 12 months served on a person's term. So I can have a little fun with that as well. It seems that there is an inconsistency between these two sections, and I do admit that the chances of this one happening are very rare.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
MR. LOVICK: When one reads Bill 20, specifically section 14, a certain amount of confusion arises concerning just what the real purpose of the annual meeting is. Bill 20 specifies no powers or responsibilities for the annual meeting of the college. It also, it would seem, fails to require the council to report to the annual meeting on its activities since the last meeting. Last Friday the minister said that fees were to be set by the annual meeting. But as I read it, section 22 of the bill assigns this power to the council. The obvious question that arises from that preamble, Mr. Minister, is simply: what is the purpose of the annual meeting? It's not clear to
[ Page 1068 ]
me. I'm wondering if the minister would be good enough to explain that to us.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The annual general meeting of members is so that there is accountability of the council to them. The annual general meeting controls, through the membership, the election of its executive council, if you like. If it controls the fees, if it controls some of the other things, then obviously the council is accountable to the general membership. This makes sure that even if the council tries to avoid accountability to the general membership, it cannot do so. Just how that general membership would be represented — where the meetings would be held and so on — can be determined by the council, and presumably then passed as part of the bylaws at an annual general meeting, as in any organization.
MR. MILLER: I may be feeling my way a touch on some of this, but I think, given the number of subsections to section 14.... First of all, dealing with subsection (6), I wonder if the minister does not feel that there may be an opportunity for capriciousness in the functioning of the council. This section says that 5 percent of the members of the college can force a ballot by letter, a mail ballot. With regard to the number of people who can institute that procedure, it seems to me, without actually having the numbers and done any percentages.... For example, could teachers in one school initiate that kind of activity? Secondly, I guess, the question with regard to the statement in there,"by letter ballot," seems to me to be spelling out in advance a balloting procedure; and yet in previous sections that is left to the college to determine of their own accord.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: It also says: "...in the manner provided by the bylaws of the college." So the college could make bylaws. I was just trying to think of.... It doesn't really allow for capricious actions by a few members. Well, if you call 30,000.... What have you got at 5 percent — 1,500 members? Something like that. So it would take quite a few members to do this, and yet it's not so many that it would be impossible to get enough members together to call for a vote of accountability. I haven't seen it happen in any other professional organization, and I don't see it happening here. I see there's provision for full accountability to the members, and there's provision for making sure that there have to be enough members that it can't be just a game they're playing.
MR. MILLER: Pursuing the issue further, I wonder whether the minister could advise us: was there a model used to lift this from? Is this an original in terms of the percentages? Is there some reference for this whole procedure as laid out here? We're in a bit of a vacuum in terms of trying to determine where the numbers came from. Is there a model? Has it been used by other organizations? Is it workable? There are a number of questions that flow from this that we simply don't have any background on.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The 5 percent is the same as that proposed by the legal profession. So there is some basis.
MR. LOVICK: I think I'm trying to come at my earlier question from a somewhat different angle, by making reference to two other sections of the bill. Section 5 states very clearly that the college will be governed by the council. Section 22 assigns the power to make bylaws to the council. Are any supervisory powers left to the annual meeting?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: You have to look at the exact wording in section 5: "The college shall be governed in accordance with this Act by a council consisting of the following...." It will not be that the council shall govern the college. It's in accordance with this act, and if you look at the act, the members can hold the council accountable; 5 percent of the members can demand a meeting. They have to pass the bylaws for the governance of the college. So I believe there is adequate protection there for the members to control the council.
[5:15]
MR. LOVICK: Madam Chairman, the answer to the question, then, is that the dynamics and the interplay of issues and people at the annual general meeting will generate the policing or supervisory role it takes. Is that the case, or am I misunderstanding your answer?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't want to get ahead of us, but in section 21, when we come to it, you'll find that the council has powers, and there are certain powers that it cannot enact without going to the membership at annual meetings. Presumably that's the only way they can get that.
MR. LOVICK: I still have a number of probably minor questions, but nonetheless questions that ought to be raised for the record.
How would an agenda for the annual meeting of the college be developed? It's not set out in the bill. Would this be the responsibility of the council? If it is the responsibility of the council, how will the individual members or groups of members have any input regarding the agenda?
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: You're getting legal advice. Shall I repeat the question, Madam Chairman? How would the agenda for the annual meeting of the college be developed? The procedure is not set out in the bill. Would this then be a responsibility of the council? If that is the case, how will the individual members, or the groups of members, have any input regarding that agenda?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think you have to remember that the council is not some separate entity. It is made up of the elected representatives of the teachers, so they have that input in the first sense. The council, as their elected representatives, can't very well forget about their membership, as no elected representatives can.
MR. MILLER: With regard to 14(4),"The council, on the written request...." There are two stipulations after that. I suppose that's my first question. Am I reading that properly? For 11 members of the council to initiate or call a meeting of the college, does that request have to be in writing? Secondly, I wonder why the council members, who presumably meet regularly, simply wouldn't, in the normal course of their business, determine whether or not to call a meeting. Why would the 11 members — the majority of the
[ Page 1069 ]
council — have to write to themselves to call a meeting of the college?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the 11 members is, of course, a majority of the council. They can say we'd better go to an annual meeting, and I think they should have that right if 50 percent plus one vote for that.
As to why it should be in writing, I think it needs to be on record, because that's a fairly expensive process that they're asking to be put into effect. You wouldn't want anyone to say,"I didn't really mean it," so put it in writing, sign it, but 11 members have to have it. They could do it by a vote and then make sure they have their signatures on there. I think it's necessary so that it avoids any expensive process and any argument about whether or not the member voted for it.
MR. LOVICK: This is going to be my shortest and most direct question to begin. First of all, am I correct in saying that all members of the college are entitled to attend the general meeting?
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would say yes. All members of any organization are entitled to attend the meeting. I would suspect that in practice what would happen is that they would work up some sort of representative function. It would be hard to find a place for 30,000 people to meet, besides the cost.
MR. LOVICK: Precisely. I am glad the minister must be psychic; he perceived what I was thinking about. I can imagine this massive meeting of 35,000 people being held only in B.C. Place or some such thing.
MR. MILLER: Not during school hours.
MR. LOVICK: Not during school hours, as my colleague from Prince Rupert says.
The question, however — and I think it is a serious one is whether there ought to be some kind of procedure stipulated in this bill for the selection of delegates. It seems to me there is a vacuum there. There is nothing at all presented, and I am wondering if that is a conscious design on the part of the ministry or whether there is some explanation for that.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, if I picked up the question correctly, it was definitely the intent of the minister that the minister should not autocratically govern the College of Teachers — that they should govern themselves.
MR. LOVICK: Despite the minister's claim to be the grand apostle and advocate of democracy, as he did in his answer to my last question, I wonder if it is really reasonable to expect teachers from all parts of the province to get together at one time for any meeting. Would it not better be the case that we set up some specific procedure for the selection of delegates, or some guidelines perhaps?
Perhaps I will let that line of questioning drop, because I don't think the minister wants to answer that. Let me try this. Should it not perhaps be the case that the public schools are indeed going to be expected to close down or something for a day to accommodate this kind of meeting of the entire province's teachers?
I don't think my question was at all clear, Mr. Chairman. I think I got mixed up; I hate to admit that.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that there are at the maximum 200 school days prescribed out of the 365. So I would expect that the college could find room in there, as the B.C. Teachers' Federation has done in the past, to find ways to schedule annual meetings.
MR. LOVICK: Just a couple of very quick questions. I hope my question will be somewhat more lucid than the last was.
Most organizations with a membership as large as that foreseen for the college we are talking about in this bill adopt as procedure an annual convention of delegates, which delegates are elected by the membership in the place of what is usually perceived to be an impractical annual meeting of all the members. Was that kind of procedure considered for the College of Teachers?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: In short answer yes. Probably from a practical point of view, it would be the only way that they would meet.
MR. LOVICK: Considered, but no action taken? Is that correct? I'm drawing the distinction between an annual general meeting and some kind of convention.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I'm wondering about the distinction between an annual general meeting or an annual general meeting of delegated voting rights. I don't know that there's a distinction. When I said yes, it was considered, and I've tried to qualify that by saying.... From a pragmatic point of view, I did not envisage the 35,000 people getting together in one room as the only form of annual general meeting. So obviously delegated authority by whatever the zone decides.
MR. LOVICK: Good. I begin to see something.
If we are talking, then, about the right of the zone — or the council — to perhaps change the nature of that general meeting in some form or other, are we also then making it possible for them — is it the intention of the legislation — to have regional meetings, let us say, as opposed to one centralized annual single general meeting? Is that possible?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I answered that question earlier If the council takes on further functions that it may need to set up regional branches in the future, then it would have to convince its membership that it should spend the money to set up regional branches and raise the fees accordingly, because we want it to be an autonomous body. We're having a lot of discussion on what the council might do, what the college might do, what it might not do. What we're saying is that the college is there; it's going to be made up of elected representatives and they will set a lot of the bylaws and govern their own actions.
MR. LOVICK: On the face of it, Mr. Minister, that sounds very reasonable and rational. The point, however, is that we seem to have opened the door to the possibility of changing the nature of the general meeting by those regional meetings and so forth that we've alluded to. The question surely is whether in fact we could do anything other than have
[ Page 1070 ]
one special, specific general meeting in one location without violating the spirit and indeed the letter of this bill. Is that not a fair question?
One further question. Section 14 makes provision for taking a vote of the members of the college by letter ballot on any matter that could have been decided at a meeting of the college. Since almost all powers are assigned to the council, what kinds of decisions could be made by letter ballot?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, Mr. Chairman, the bylaws of the college as proposed by the council, as ratified by the membership, will determine what can be voted on in those issues — by letter ballot or by other ways.
MR. JONES: I'm convinced that the minister wants this structure and this organization to be as democratic as possible. However, when I think of democracy I think of government by the people, in this case of government by the members. There might have been an opportunity to have included here some checks and balances to power. I think it is a concern that we have no requirement for the council to report to the annual general meeting, to set the fees, to make bylaws. If we want bottom-up kind of government in this organization, and I think we do.... If the minister is looking to correct me on the fees being set by the annual general meeting, I hope he does that. I just see the structure as lacking in opportunity for a more democratic grassroots kind of structure, rather than a top-down kind of structure. It seems to me that perhaps the thinking of the government was a kind of provincial government top-down thinking rather than bottom-up.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
MR. JONES: I know I didn't get my last question answered, but I think the minister heard the point anyway.
Section 15 is the section that allows the council to set the time and place of its meetings. I think there are a couple of small questions that can be asked with respect to this section, and I'd appreciate the opportunity of doing that. It seems to me that the bill does specify a quorum for committees of the council. However, to my understanding the bill does not require a quorum for the council itself.
[5:30]
I know that the Barristers and Solicitors Act specifies that seven of the 25 benchers constitute a quorum. As I don't see a quorum for a council meeting specified elsewhere, isn't it appropriate that this would be the section where a quorum would be specified for the council?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: In section 15 it says: "The meetings of the council shall be held at the places and times determined by the council." I'm also informed that where it doesn't spell out that it is by majority vote, there is an Interpretation Act that looks after that. Under section 15, I'm trying to figure out how we got into the quorum. It says the council may determine where the council meets. It's hard to answer questions on that one, quite frankly.
MR. JONES: Well, I'm sure it is a difficult question, only in the sense that you'd have to look at the entire act and try to decide if the minister would like a quorum to be set for the council, and if this would be the appropriate place. I was suggesting that this would be the appropriate place. First of all, there is no quorum set. Is there another place in the act where it might be most appropriate? I was suggesting that there should be a quorum and that this should be the place that it would be included.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the application of the Interpretation Act, if the council sets by its rules that a quorum of this council "shall consist of....", then they determine that. If they do not specify that, then the Interpretation Act requires a majority vote.
MR. JONES: If I hear the minister correctly, he is saying that because the act is silent on this question, then the quorum is a majority of the council, in which case it would not be possible for the five government appointees to form themselves as a quorum.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is certainly correct. For instance, the council may decide that they want a quorum to consist of 15 of their council members, if they specify that. At least 11 people have to vote if they don't specify their own quorum. I can't envision the council saying that a quorum will consist of two or three members; not when there are 20 representatives there, at least 15 elected representatives plus the others.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I see that under section 16(3), it is where the office of the chairman becomes vacant, not where the chairman becomes vacant, where they have to have an election for another one.
If the debate is getting a little bit tedious, the minister should thank us; otherwise he might be out there smoking. But in subsection (2), where it says a person may be elected for a second term, does that really say that there can't be a third term?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, every once in a while I get back and try to defend the language that is stated here. It says: "may be elected...for a second term." To me, the inference is clear: not for a third, fourth or fifth term. But I don't know what happens if he abstains or steps out for five years and comes back — whether it is a first term or not. We could get into quite an interesting one on that, couldn't we? If someone stepped out of teaching for 15 years and then came back and got elected chairman, got elected representative. You see how we can say "if this happened," and "if this didn't happen." So that's why we've tried to make the wording of this as clear as possible after much negotiation. And believe me, in those negotiation meetings that we had with the BCTF and the BCSTA and all of their lawyers, if there was a hole evident anywhere, somebody tried to find it. We tried to plug them all. I don't know, I don't think we possibly could plug them all. But in this case, yes. It implies a second term, not a third term.
MR. MILLER: I thought I'd read that correctly under that clause. I agree that there's probably lots of room for debate about what's appropriate, should you be able to serve
[ Page 1071 ]
two terms and sit out, and then come back and do the same thing. That debate goes on in lots of organizations. I don't think anybody has an absolute answer. But under that section then, it does say — and correct me if I'm wrong — that it is for life. Or would that allow a person not to be elected, for example, for one term or two terms, and then to run again? I thought you tried to deal with that, but I'm not certain whether that's clear.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay. I'm sorry, I keep trying to determine what is confusing you about this. They may elect a chairman for one year. Right? The chairman may be elected for a second term. Therefore, two years and out. Not necessarily off the council, but two years as chairman. According to the legislation, the council shall each year elect one of its members to be chairman — clause 1. Then it says they may serve a second term. The council member representatives are elected for a two-year, term so I would assume that in that council, until there's a general re-election, they could serve as chairman for both the years, but no more than that.
MR. MILLER: I hope the minister forgives me. I assumed that our responsibility in this chamber was to vet legislation to try to come up with wording that would stand the scrutiny and the test of time. I just think there are some holes in that, and it may lead to confusion. Maybe the answer is that the college can in fact determine its own course, within the confines of the section. Maybe some of my colleagues have questions on it. I think it leaves some gaps, and it's going to have to be clarified at some point.
MR. JONES: Just pursuing that one section a little bit further, it's our responsibility not only to vet the legislation but also, as first-time legislators, to try to understand legislation. It seems strange to me that in some areas there's a high degree of specificity in spelling out operations and in other areas it's very vague, and we leave things up to the members of the college. I'm really curious as to what goes on in the government's mind, or the drafter's mind, that wants specificity in some areas and lack of it in others. This is a good example of the degrees of specificity. The government decided to have a fixed term for the chairperson of the council. It just seems strange to me that that's spelled out, and yet other aspects that might flow from that aren't spelled out. For example, what happens if the council loses confidence in its chair during his or her term? I'm suggesting that it might be better to specify that the officers selected serve at the pleasure of the council. That's the case, as I understand it, in the Medical Practitioners Act. I'm suggesting that this might be an area where we have the leadership serving at the pleasure of the council, rather than the degree of specificity the minister has spelled out in the one-year term.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 16 pass?
MR. JONES: I thought that was my great opportunity to get insight into the thinking behind the drafting of this legislation. Obviously I've lost that opportunity.
We have in this section a section that empowers the council to elect a chair, and the chair serves for a one-year term. That chair is the head of the college, and is limited to an additional one-year term, as my colleague from Prince Rupert pointed out. It also allows the college to set the salaries and fees for the chair, registrar and deputy registrars.
It appears to me that any member of the council is eligible to be elected chairperson of the council. I know the minister is interested in fairness and equality. But it seems to me that different members of the council arrive there by different methods. Some members of the council arrive there by election; others arrive by appointment. I'm just wondering if the minister thinks it appropriate that one of the government appointees be selected as chairperson.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the last part of the question, of course it would be appropriate for any member of the council to be elected. You have to remember that 15 of the members are elected, so they control the vote in electing the chairman, so I don't see any problem with that. If you really want to delve into the minds of the government and find why this specificity, as you call it, is here, it's because in the minds of the government we don't feel that there should be career chairmen in this. This precludes career chairmen who go on forever and ad nausean agam — I mean ad infinitum; sorry. So that's the rationale, the philosophical thinking behind that. Two years, and you can't be chairmain.
MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Back to my point about specificity. I understand the desire not to have continuous people chairing our college; however, there's lack of specificity in the act in terms of the other kinds of officers who can be elected. I'm wondering why the officers such as secretary or treasurer, other than the registrar or deputy registrar and the chairperson who were provided for in this act.... I'm wondering why the minister would see that these officers might not be as important as the officers mentioned in the act.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I can answer the question as to why some clauses and some sections are more specific than other sections, any more than I could answer why we used big words in some places and little words in other places in order to accomplish the intent here. Probably, if you want me to be facetious, it was to create a nice balance between bigness and specificity.
MR. JONES: Could I ask one more small question on section 16? This section provides for the paying of salaries to the chair and the registrars of the college. I assume these will be full-time positions, although that specificity is not clear.
This raises the question of who will cover the salaries of other council members when they are on council business. Perhaps this is a degree of specificity that the minister doesn't want to get into and will leave up to the college, but I would like a response on that. Will they be covered by existing leave provisions under the School Act if they are on council business? Perhaps that is something the minister would wish to consider. Will these leave provisions be adequate to cover the amount of time council members may be on council business?
[5:45]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: The legislation provides for expenses to be paid. It provides for salaries for, say, the person elected under section 16 or the following section, which is sort of the appointment of the registrar and permanent employees. So yes, the chairman can be paid. The council will decide whether it's a full-time job, a part-time job — those sorts of things. It depends on the duties involved.
[ Page 1072 ]
I imagine there will be some full-time staff jobs. I don't know whether the chairman will be a full-time job or not; we'll leave that for the council to decide. All that can be worked out.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
MS. A. HAGEN: Could I first ask the minister to briefly outline the duties of the registrar. I think there are some references throughout the act, or we could assume the duties of the chair without them being prescribed. There is nothing to define the role of the registrar in this particular clause.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are sections that give specific duties to the registrar: keeping a register of members; reporting; that sort of thing. I'm sure the council may ask some duty, some bookkeeping form or something of the nature that is not specifically covered in the act. So yes, part of the specific duties of the registrar are spelled out, and others will be determined by the council.
MS. A. HAGEN: Then the registrar might act as the treasurer or might be responsible for the collection of fees and things of that nature, if I read your response at the designation of the council. I'll leave that for you, if you wish to respond, and go on to another question about this person.
It's interesting, in looking at section 17 (l), that this person, the registrar, shall be appointed from among the members of the council. I note that this person shall hold office "during the council's pleasure." Might it be fair to ask why it's all right for us to have a career registrar in the council even though we are not going to have a career chairman? Is there any particular reason why this office is at the council's pleasure, and that is spelled out, whereas the role of the chair is specified, in that it may only be for two one-year terms? I'm interested in why there is that discrepancy between this particular role and that of the chairman.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems to me that there is a natural distinction between someone, say, who might want to be a career chairman.... In many organizations there is a limit — say, a year or two years — to the chairmanship. They don't necessarily put a limit on, say, the treasurer or the secretary or the hired staff, if you like; they don't put fixed terms on those. If the person does the job, it's at pleasure. If a person is the treasurer and doesn't do the job, they don't have a fixed term that they're elected to. They're at the pleasure of the council that they serve.
MS. A. HAGEN: It would seem to me that in that answer we have some expectation of how this particular council will evolve in its operation, and I seem to be hearing in the minister's response a suggestion that this chairperson will be a fairly powerful person — that we're not looking at a collegial group here of 20 members who are sharing responsibilities and roles, but that the role of the chairman may be something like the role of the chairman of the WCB.
It's a very different kind of perspective, I think, from that which exists in the present organization of teachers, where certainly the chairperson is the spokesperson for the college. But there's recognition in the way in which the federation operates that there is that collegial decision-making, and that the chairperson simply reflects, in her pronouncements, the decisions taken by her colleagues on the executive.
I'd like to look briefly at the fact that in this clause there are also stipulations about the appointment of deputy registrars with the powers and duties of the registrar, and ask the minister if those particular people have any additional responsibilities and why they are, in fact, not members of the council as well. Are we beginning to create the bureaucracy of the council by specifying here that there may be deputy registrars? Have we said in other sections that there may be deputies? Could the member please give some rationale for specifically suggesting here some right to appoint outside of the council? Why would that not be a decision simply taken by the council as they develop their modus operandi and the responsibilities of the council throughout its development?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member's last question was: why would that not be the decision of the council? I read the legislation, and it says the council may appoint a deputy registrar. They may insist that he be a member, or they may decide that it is a professional bookkeeper that they need as a deputy registrar. The council may appoint these people. If you had no provision for it, and you just said in the legislation that they may have a registrar, then presumably they could go to the act and say: he's swamped, needs help, but the act doesn't allow it, so we can't do it. So we say they may or they may not, depending on their needs. They may decide on that.
In the registrar of the company, we definitely felt that the registrar should be a college member and that other people can be hired, who do not necessarily need to be. Someone who functions as a bookkeeper, or clerical help to keep the list, could be called a deputy registrar.
It is the council's decision, not mine. It's not the government creating this bureaucracy, as has been stated. You've been believing some of your own rhetoric, perhaps. The government is not creating any bureaucracy here. The government is creating the college. The college will determine the extent of its function, and that, other than looking after the professional role of the members.
MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Minister, there is a very paradoxical situation as one reads through this bill about — to use my colleague from Burnaby North's favourite word — the degree of specificity. It appears that without there being specifics the registrar may in fact have duties other than those assigned by the act, and I would gather that the minister anticipates that some of these may be clerical duties for which the registrar would require some assistance; it may be duties that are related to treasurer's work or bookkeeping work or keeping track of lists, and this person may sit in that position for any number of years as long as he or she continues to be elected. It seems to me that in keeping with the minister's comments about this being an organization that is to be governed by teachers, it would behoove the act to leave many of those things to the discretion of the governing body as they develop their bylaws and their methods of operation.
At this time I would just like to note one other question. It would appear from what the minister has said that deputy registrars may be members of the council or may be appointed as employees of the council. Could I just clarify that as my final question, Mr. Minister?
[ Page 1073 ]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I believe.... At least I hope I said that — that they may be members of the college or not. It says in the first one that the registrar "shall" be a member of the college; deputy registrars "may" be, as the council and the college decides its bylaws.
Section 17 approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
Appendix
AMENDMENTS TO BILLS
20 The Hon. A. J. Brummet to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 20) intituled Teaching Profession Act to amend as follows:
SECTION 5, by deleting the proposed subsection (2).
SECTION 9,
(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "on a date in 1988 prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and after that", and
(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting everything after "following his election".
SECTION 9.1, by adding the following section:
First election
9.1 (1) There is established a commission, to be known as the first election commission, consisting of 3 commissioners, one to be appointed by the minister, one to be appointed by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and a third, the chairman, to be appointed by the Chief Justice of British Columbia.
(2) Where, 14 days after 2 of the commissioners have been appointed, the third commissioner has not yet been appointed, the 2 appointed commissioners shall appoint the third commissioner on behalf of the one that failed to appoint the third commissioner.
(3) The first election commission shall, as soon as practicable after it is appointed, conduct the first election of the 15 elected members of the council and, for that purpose, may make rules that it considers necessary or advisable for the conduct of the first election, including rules respecting
(a) nominating procedures,
(b) the manner of determining the qualifications to nominate, stand for election or vote at the election, and
(c) the manner of voting, counting of votes and scrutineering.
(4) Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10 (2) apply to the conduct of the first election except that
(a) the reference to registrar in section 7 (c) is a reference to the chairman of the first election commission, and
(b) the date by which the consent must be filed under section 7 (c) is 30 days before the day fixed for the election.
(5) Persons who are eligible to nominate, to be nominated or to vote at the first election are the members of the college, but if section 3 (1) is not in force during the course of holding the first election, the persons eligible to vote are those persons who would be members of the college under section 3 (1) (a) and (b) as if that section were in force.
(6) Persons elected at the first election hold office from the date that they are, under the rules, declared to be elected by the commission, until December 31, 1989.
(7) The commissioners shall be paid
(a) remuneration fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council,
(b) reasonable out of pocket expenses in connection with the carrying out of their duties, and
[ Page 1074 ]
(c) expenses incurred by them in conducting the first election.
SECTION 10, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "rules" and substituting "bylaws".
SECTION 11, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "rules" and substituting "bylaws".