[ Page 1087 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Legal Profession Act (Bill 25). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 1087

Oral Questions

Proposed national park on South Moresby Island. Mr. Harcourt –– 1087

Competence of VSE officials. Mr. Sihota –– 1088

Vancouver log market review. Mr. Kempf –– 1088

Liquor policy review. Mr. Lovick –– 1089

Ingenika Band reserve. Mr. Guno –– 1089

Delisting of International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Hon. Mr. Couvelier replies –– 1089

Mr. Sihota

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 1090

Mr. Jones

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Miller

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Boone

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Sihota

Appendix –– 1113

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This House is graced today by the presence of two very distinguished individuals. Seated in the members' gallery is His Excellency Abd'el Kader Fall, Ambassador of Senegal, accompanied by Mr. Balla Dia, counsellor of the embassy of Senegal in Ottawa. Would the House please bid them welcome.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today we have two Surrey residents: Mr. Jack Whittaker, a former alderman in Surrey, and his wife. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, we don't have just two visitors from Surrey today. I have five more that I would like to acknowledge: Mrs. Jeanne Eddington, Mr. Swaran Singh Mahli, Mrs. Surinder Kaur Mahli, Mr. Pritam Toor and Mrs. Kartar Kaur Toor. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today are a number of visitors from New Zealand who are visiting the fine city of Victoria and the Legislature. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Annette Lewisham and Robin and Viv Wildman.

MR. REE: Today we have a number of people from that great mid-Island city of Nanaimo, representatives of the Social Credit Party up there: Wes Sheard, president of the Nanaimo constituency association, and his executive: Dick Winkelman, Mike Fall, Bill Smith, Norm Hobson, Jim Moffatt, Aggie Flett, Laverne Kilner and Diana Hryhorka. I would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and to this Legislature.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in congratulating the Richmond Sockeyes, who over the weekend won the Centennial Cup Canadian championships. I think this is a remarkable victory, not only for the people of Richmond but for all of B.C. Please join me in congratulating them.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two longtime supporters of the Social Credit Party, and personal friends of our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and our Premier: Mr. and Mrs. John and Mary Vertin, who are now residing in the great constituency of Langley.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two very dear friends of mine, Arleigh and Heather Fair. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Profession Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that was introduced in the 1986 session, and it was the first update of the Legal Professions Act of any significant dimensions since 1955. It's the same legislation that the Law Society has worked on for many years, and it has been the subject of drafts by the Canadian bar. It represents the culmination of many years of self-examination, and I think the House will find it to be a very good bill.

First of all, it provides for an emphasis on the public interest in this profession, and provides for three lay benchers for the first time. Also, it provides that this profession must examine competency for the first time in a way that empowers them to discipline and to deal with competency. Hopefully, it will set very high standards and provide for effective enforcement. It also has a change from last year's bill, which we didn't pass last year, which allows for the practice of law by corporations, with very strong safeguards that professional liability cannot be avoided or professional conduct diminished. So it's the same bill, with a few changes to meet the requests of the profession; and it's a modem, sunshine bill which will make the legal profession more publicly accountable.

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK ON
SOUTH MORESBY ISLAND

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about South Moresby. Mr. Premier, what assurances are you able to give this assembly that the government is in fact negotiating in good faith with regard to a national park reserve on South Moresby? For example, would you be willing to table an outline of the negotiating positions of the parties to date?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we always negotiate in good faith. Certainly there's an interest by many, which makes the negotiations more interesting perhaps than they might normally be. I can recall visiting New York, and they seemed to know more about South Moresby than they knew about the province or western Canada; similarly, at a large gathering in Toronto there was a great interest in South Moresby. Many Torontonians are very keen on seeing us establish this park on the Pacific coast. So it certainly makes it interesting to negotiate with a federal government which encompasses all of the provinces and all of the interests in all of the provinces, including the city of Toronto and other places I visited. Therefore, obviously, I think there's recognition on the part of the federal government that, when people elsewhere in the country call for the establishment of a park, they must consider as well what the impact is on the province in which the park is located and what the effect is on people who are employed in such an area and who really count on that area for their employment. It certainly has been interesting thus far, and negotiations are continuing.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Premier is such a strong Canadian, because Parks Canada has estimated that if this park were to be established in South

[ Page 1088 ]

Moresby, it would establish twice as many jobs as logging would. I would like to know what the position of the province is on continued logging, and has the Premier any target date in mind for an early resolution of this situation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The moratorium is still in place, and I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition says when he quotes Parks Canada and their suggestion that the return, job-wise, from parks may be considerably more than what it is from our primary resource, forestry.

However, I think we have to look at that particular statement carefully as well. There is a great deal that needs to be done before such a statement made by someone in Parks Canada in Ottawa is taken at face value, because at the moment it's still much easier to fly from Vancouver to Toronto or Montreal — and probably cheaper too — than it is to fly from Vancouver to the Queen Charlottes.

MR. HARCOURT: The throne speech of March 9 contained a pledge that the government would attempt to expedite the bilateral negotiations for the establishment of the national park on South Moresby. Can the Premier assure us that he is prepared to meet with the Prime Minister personally in order to ensure that meaningful negotiations do not break down?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We as a government initiated all of the actions with respect to South Moresby. Again, the latest round of negotiations were at our initiative, so we have been proactive in all of this. In part, too, there's a lot of uncertainty among the people who have looked upon some of those areas for their livelihood, so it's not without a degree of selfishness on behalf of British Columbia, because we recognize that there is a concern by people there.

One could argue that, well, it's only 60 people, and I've had people from Vancouver come to me — as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has had come to him — who say: "What's 60 jobs?" Well, to the Queen Charlotte Islands, 60 jobs is as important, maybe, in some respects as 6,000 jobs in Vancouver. They would impact heavily. So we are anxious to see these negotiations proceed for a variety of reasons. We've taken that sort of initiative, and we're making good progress.

I've discussed it with the Prime Minister, and I'm awaiting a call from the Prime Minister's office or the Deputy Prime Minister momentarily.

COMPETENCE OF VSE OFFICIALS

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Finance indicated that the VSE had moved very quickly on the Tillex matter. It seems to me, as I analyze the matter, that there are some serious questions about the competency of VSE officials in dealing with the Tillex matter.

For example, on January 9, 1986, I have some documents that show the VSE had been given disclosure documents from Tillex which showed that Tillex had cash assets of approximately $18,000 but was acquiring a company that was worth up to $10 million. My question to the minister is this: has the minister determined why this did not raise alarm bells with anyone at the VSE, and why was it the VSE waited until June — six months later — to issue a cease-trading order?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, that's a pretty exhaustive question, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be pleased to answer it in similar detail. As I indicated yesterday to a question put to the Premier last week by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, the matter of the International Tillex Enterprise corporation has received some media publicity, and to the questions that were put last week and again this week — to which I indicated that I would make a statement today — I'm pleased to do that now.

The initial distribution....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the minister going to make a statement? I think he could save it until after question period.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the questioner, if I understood him properly, had some dates and dealt with some dealings of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am about to give you the dates and the actions that took place on those dates. I can do it in the form of a statement. I'm happy to do that but I have trouble answering the question unless I do use the material that I was going to give later on anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I might suggest to the hon. minister that the.... I was going to suggest to the questioner after you'd finished your short answer that his question was very long to start with, and if we get into a long answer I think it might be better to save this until after, when you can make your statement and the member can also reply to it.

VANCOUVER LOG MARKET REVIEW

MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the Minister of Forests and Lands. Recently, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) made in this House some comparisons of log market prices between the Asian-Pacific market and the Vancouver log market which proved conclusively that there is something rotten, not in Denmark but in Vancouver, with the Vancouver log market.

My question, Mr. Speaker: just prior to leaving — if you can call it that — as minister responsible for forests and lands, I had obtained a quote for a totally independent review of the Vancouver log market. Can the minister tell this House if he has decided to go ahead with that review, in view of the serious discrepancy between logs valued on the Pacific log market and those valued on the Vancouver log market?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall seeing any correspondence from my predecessor on this matter. I'll be happy to go back through the files, try to find that and report to the House.

MR. KEMPF: I can find that documentation, Mr. Speaker. I'm not a lawyer, but it could appear from the figures given by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and from the 1975 Pearse report that wash-trading — as it is known in the stock market — has been a regular feature of trading in logs by the coastal timber monopoly.

My supplementary, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: The first question was taken as notice; the member will have to ask a new question.

[ Page 1089 ]

MR. KEMPF: New question. Has the minister decided to capture the nearly $1 billion going astray in this situation, which could be going into provincial coffers instead of into the pockets of the multinational corporations?

HON. MR. PARKER: I can look into that. I guess if my predecessor missed it, I might be able to find it, I'll let you know.

LIQUOR POLICY REVIEW

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Premier. It concerns the activities of the liquor review commission. At the moment, as we know, the commission is apparently considering allowing restaurants to sell liquor without food. In response to a question about this, the Premier, when asked whether that might not be profitable for him and put him in an apparent conflict of interest, said: "I suppose that change would be profitable for Lillian, definitely." If it is profitable for Lillian, it is obviously profitable for the Premier.

My question is this: will the Premier at least assure us that, given that apparent conflict of interest, he will suspend the activities of the current liquor policy review and replace it with an all-party committee to examine this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The liquor review committee has done an excellent job. They've received many oral and written submissions from all across the province. It's a first, certainly. It's been a good experience, no doubt, for all those who participated, but also for the people who were wanting to make their views known and wanted to present their views with respect to liquor distribution, or anything to do with liquor and its handling in the province. I'm very pleased that progress is being made in that regard. The committee will now gather all of the documentation and presentations they have received and draft a report to present to the government. A date has been set for that.

It will be the committee's report, not the Premier's report. I don't know what those changes are, or the effect, but undoubtedly some of the changes could somehow affect members on either side of the House. Perhaps there may be those who are involved in other activities that possibly relate; it depends on how far you wish to take this. But I don't have any fear at all of conflict.

MR. LOVICK: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, let us get to specific cases. Fantasy Garden World, we estimate, stands to have some $7 million added to the capital value of its property if the liquor review approves the sale of liquor in restaurants without food. Will the Premier not then assure us that he will take some steps to demonstrate to the people of this province that there is in fact no conflict of interest, because clearly people perceive that there is a conflict?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Next time Lillian talks about seeing the banker, I'll tell her to see that member instead. Undoubtedly, considering where it comes from, it probably wouldn't carry much weight.

Having said that, however, and getting serious — which is difficult to do considering the question — I can assure the hon. member that I have no fear of conflict.

INGENIKA BAND RESERVE

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier and concerns the Ingenika band, which is presently living at the north end of Williston Lake. These people were flooded out of their homes 22 years ago and at that time were promised a new reserve. The only land they have ever been offered was chosen without consultation and lies far outside their traditional territories. What direction has the Premier given to ensure that quick action is taken on the establishment of a reserve at Ingenika Point?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question on notice.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to an oral question that was taken on notice dealing with the question of Tillex Enterprise Ltd.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I wonder if the Speaker could perhaps clarify for us who are in the opposition whether this is a question taken on notice that is being answered, or a ministerial statement dealing with a general topic. When we agreed that further questions would not be asked of the minister today, we did it on the understanding — perhaps misunderstanding — that it would be a ministerial statement to which we would have an opportunity to respond. It was on that basis that we gave up our place in question period. So I would like to have a ruling from the Speaker on that particular point before we hear any more.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To respond, Mr. Speaker, it is common that a minister will take a question on notice and then, when the minister has the material available for the Legislative Assembly, he will, out of courtesy, wait until question period is finished and say that he is responding to a question taken on notice.

I have the Blues from yesterday, which indicate that the Minister of Finance did indicate that he would be bringing the answer to the question tomorrow, which is today. So the minister is simply replying to a question taken on notice.

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was very clear during the exchange, when the Finance minister was beginning his response and pointing to his notes, that the Speaker indicated to the House that the minister might more appropriately make his comments after question period, and that the opposition would have a chance to respond at that point.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, after listening to both sides, would say that the minister did say during question period that he would be making a statement. I will allow the member from the opposite side to make a statement.

DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL
TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Following questions that were put previously, the initial distribution of shares in International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. was in early 1985, according to my information. Subsequent to that, the firm in question changed its business from mineral exploration to

[ Page 1090 ]

insurance. On June 10, 1986, audited financial statements were sent to the shareholders of that corporation within the time-frame required under the Securities Act. On July 8, 1986, trading in those shares was suspended by the VSE, and a temporary cease-trade order was issued by the superintendent of brokers. The reason given for that action was that audited financial statements for the year-end 1985 did not contain adequate disclosure. On July 23, 1986, the cease trade order was extended to March 31, 1987, by the superintendent of brokers. Investigations were launched by the corporate investigations branch and by the Vancouver Stock Exchange. These investigations were concerned with the initial distribution of the shares and what appeared to be an abnormal price rise compared to earnings. In January 1987 a broker with Continental Carlisle Douglas was suspended by the VSE for 30 months and fined $100,000 in relation to the matter. On March 20, 1987, an extension of the cease-trade order was issued by the superintendent of brokers. On April 2, 1987, the VSE delisted the company for failure to file the required audited financial statements.

The current status is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation and that our corporate investigations branch continues to monitor the case and is seriously considering the options. In view of the fact that this investigation is underway, I trust that the member might understand my reluctance to discuss current actions, but that is the chronological, historical sequence of events.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in reply, the minister started with his comments on June 10, 1986, and the thrust of our concern is not about what happened June 10, 1986 — the minister has documented that. Nor is our concern over the investigations that are taking place by the commercial crime unit right now, because, after all, the provisions of the search warrants that were issued are now public information. Our concern on this side of the House is about the competence — or incompetence, if you want to put it that way — of the officials in charge of monitoring the affairs of stocks on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

We all know that in the past the Vancouver Stock Exchange has not enjoyed a very positive image. We know that its credibility has been brought into question a number of occasions, and we know that the government, by proclaiming the new Securities Act on February 1, 1987, tried to take steps to ensure that a lot of the fraudulent actions on that stock exchange were remedied.

What concerns us on this side of the House is the actions — or the inaction, to put it more precisely — of the officials of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. For example, on March 12, 1985, International Tillex Enterprises issued a press release stating: "The directors of the company wish to announce that they have entered into negotiations for the purpose of acquiring British Insurance Management Co. Ltd." On March 14, 1985, there was another release which said: "The president of the company is pleased to announce that the company has reached an agreement in principle to acquire 100 percent of the outstanding shares of British Insurance Management Co. Ltd." That was on March 10.

Now first of all, financial information filed with the Vancouver Stock Exchange — and I could be off by a few thousand dollars on this matter — indicated that the cash on hand of International Tillex was around $10,000. How was it that a company that had cash-on-hand assets of $10,000 could turn around and acquire a company which, on the other hand, had a value of up to $10 million? Surely at some point, or at that point, the alarm bell should have rung at the VSE.

If that wasn't good enough, I have with me today documentation dated January 9, 1986, which is the quarterly report required under the Securities Act of International Tillex. According to that report, as of that day International Tillex had cash assets of $18,000 on hand and yet had concluded negotiations to acquire British Insurance Management Co. Ltd. This is a public document that's filed with the VSE.

Mr. Minister, why did it take six months for the VSE to take a look at these documents and determine whether or not there were any improprieties? How could a company with $18,000 worth of assets possibly acquire a company worth up to $10 million? Surely that ought to have been investigated at the time. Our question relates to that investigation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister took about two minutes for his statement, and the member is into four minutes in his reply. Replies to statements, hon. member, are not meant to get into an argumentative state or into other questions. I wonder if the member could wrap up and possibly put this on members' statements for Friday.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, let me make the following point: when the acquisition was supposed to take place, the Vancouver Stock Exchange indicated publicly that the acquisition was subject to an appraisal and valuation to the satisfaction of the VSE. That appraisal was never conducted. We have concerns as to why officials on the VSE never conducted that appraisal. We know that officials of the VSE acknowledged that they knew that the principals of Tillex and British Insurance Management Co. Ltd. were one and the same, yet that information was never disclosed to the public. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, at that point some investigation should be done. Certainly in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that raises questions about the competency of VSE officials.

There's more, and if Mr. Speaker wishes to cut us off at this point, or make the comment that you have, I'll step down. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, if he wants to fulfill the mandate that he has under statute to look into the operation of the VSE, should be answering questions related to what happened before June 10, 1986 — not after.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The hon. member has a full opportunity in the minister's estimates to go into that in detail.

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 23.

MR. JONES: I'm pleased to continue debate on committee stage of the Teaching Profession Act. In particular, this

[ Page 1091 ]

section is a significant and interesting one. The debate that has taken place in this House is interesting. This section is the one that allows cabinet to disallow bylaws dealing with teacher training, qualifications and certification and provides for filing of the bylaws with the Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, it has been central to some of the debate with the minister that what we are doing with the Teaching Profession Act is setting up an autonomous professional body. I think the word autonomous is one that is subject to interpretation, but to me autonomy means the right to selfgovernment and certainly freedom to conduct one's affairs. While the minister is suggesting that we're setting up an autonomous professional body and decentralizing powers in education and giving up powers formerly held by the minister, and that he trusts the members of the council and the college to behave properly and reasonably, that he has faith in the college and the members to do that, and while the minister is writing legislation and also, I presume, regulations to that legislation — although one of the last comments that the minister made this morning somehow left that in question and I didn't realize that was a question as far as the minister's authority to write regulations.... So not only do we write legislation and regulations and appoint at least four members to the council; we now have a section of the act that is approving the bylaws.

I understand that there is nothing specifically unique or unusual about this kind of section, but it does seem to me to contradict many of the statements that the minister has made. Certainly the college that's being set up will have a certain degree of autonomy. It is receiving some powers formerly held by the minister, but there are an awful lot of checks and balances in this act, and this is one of the sections that provides those checks and balances. It seems to me in debate that we can't have it both ways. We can't say it's an autonomous professional body and at the same time have the right to regulate the bylaws of that body.

I think what we're doing here is establishing a body that appears to be an autonomous professional body but in fact, in reality, is not. I suppose in politics perhaps style and appearance are important, but I would wonder what the arguments would be from the other side of the House if it was this side of the House that was setting up a body where the government had the right to approve the bylaws. I'm sure we'd have cries of "state socialism" and "interventionism" and probably lots of other kinds of "isms" as well.

Mr. Chairman, in looking at this section in the legislation, I think it's important to compare it to other acts in order that we're seeing that the teachers vis-a-vis other professions in this province are receiving fair and equitable treatment. While it is true that the bylaws of doctors and lawyers are not subject to the disallowance by cabinet, all the bylaws of the accountants, nurses and engineers are subject to such disallowance.

So we do see some anomalies here. I would like to ask the minister why it is that in the case of teachers only some of the bylaws of the college are subject to disallowance, and what could be the rationale for such differences between doctors, lawyers and other professions and teachers and all other professions. We see inconsistency here. We see teachers being disallowed, or the possibility of disallowance in some cases; none for doctors and lawyers; and it looks like wide-open disallowance for accountants, nurses and engineers. I wonder if the minister could comment

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps I should get something straight first of all. The member — I don't know whether he intends it or not — keeps talking about the disallowance of the bylaws of the organization. I think it's fairly clear in this section that except for three specific areas all they have to do is file the bylaws. Or if you like, it could he encompassed as one area: training, qualifications and certification of teachers or of members. That is simply with the new organization starting — that when their bylaw to deal with the teachers' certification, training and qualifications is put in — I fully expect, and I have the faith, that the bylaw will he accepted.

[2:45]

This is a protection so that should a group perhaps want to say that the minimum teacher training shall be seven years — and none of these exists — then there is an opportunity to protect the existing membership who now have certificates. So I think it's just a legitimate caution that's built in in the one area of teachers' qualification or certification. That's all; they are the only ones. The rest only need to be filed. So I'd like to make sure that that's clear; that it's only in that one specific area that the caution is built in. The rest of it, it's a matter of filing; they are required to file them. We don't have the option.... The Lieutenant-Governor does not have the option to disallow the bylaws.

MR. JONES: Certainly, to the minister, that was clear in my question.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, I think we'll have a chance to check that. The point of my question was specifically that: there is inconsistency. It's not the minister's fault there's inconsistency, but there is inconsistency between the various professional acts. This act, as I said clearly, allows the cabinet to overrule certain bylaws in those three areas that the minister mentions.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, that's not what the minister has just said. You should listen, Mr. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser).

The minister has said that in these three areas bylaws can be disallowed and in the other areas they are filed. That's agreed. My question to the minister is.... There is inconsistency, and I don't know how I would view this. I suppose if I was comparing these provisions to doctors and lawyers, I would say teachers are being treated unfairly. However, if I was comparing them to accountants, nurses and engineers, perhaps those are being treated unfairly, in that all the bylaws can be overruled by cabinet. So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't disagree with the minister. It was a question as to fairness and equity between the provisions, and I was making the point that certainly there is discrepancy between the various professional acts in terms of the cabinet's ability to over-rule these bylaws. But I would like also to make the point to the minister, and I think he's clear on what I'm saying now, and I don't know whether there's a response necessary or not.... There is a discrepancy, and I think the minister would agree with that, and that was the point of my question.

I think, too — the point I made earlier — that we are providing checks and balances, to use the words of the minister, in this section. We are having a high degree of

[ Page 1092 ]

specificity. In other areas, as we talked about this morning, there aren't checks and balances where I felt there should be. So in debating this legislation, I'm suggesting to the minister that we do have a body whose bylaws in these areas.... And we have a body which the minister says he will trust, but just in case they pass a section requiring seven years' training to become a teacher, the cabinet can disallow it. We trust the college in some areas, and we don't trust it in others. All I'm doing, Mr. Chairman, is pointing out that the minister argues that in certain areas we will trust the college but in others we won't trust the college. There is an inconsistency there, and it's our responsibility to point out that inconsistency.

I would also like to ask the minister.... When I look at this section and see these checks and balances that the minister is referring to, and I try to envision the kind of circumstances under which the cabinet may overrule one of these bylaws in these three areas, I harken back to the inclusion of that expression "public interest" that we referred to in section 4. I just wonder if it is the kind of area.... Maybe the example that the minister used, of teacher training being seven years, would not be in the public interest. So I would like to ask the minister if it's that section — the public interest part of section 4 — that necessitates the cabinet, which I suppose does represent the public interest, being able to disallow bylaws regarding teacher training, qualifications and certification because in the opinion of cabinet they will not be in the public interest. Is the example the minister used of teacher training being seven years an example of where he is invoking something in the public interest, or if the profession decides it should be seven years, should not the minister respect that decision?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly intrigued by the member's imaginative juxtaposition skills in order to try to make a point from one section on public interest. I think if the member stopped to think for a moment.... We have something like 30,000 people in the province — give or take — who are going to be eligible; their certification now is determined by the minister; they are in place; they have all of these things that have given them those qualifications. When that is being done in one full move, before any bylaws are in place, I think it's a protection to the members to make sure that something extreme or accidental couldn't happen. The example that I gave was an extreme. Maybe I should quit giving examples of extremes to make a point, because you take that as though that is the total position. But I suppose that is part of the game here to try to pick and choose, and point and counterpoint and that sort of thing. The legislation is fairly clear; the intent is fairly clear. When you are involving the certification and qualifications of some 30,000 or more people in the province in one transfer of authority, then I think it's legitimate to say.... And there is a built-in protection should anything go wrong. Now I'm quite confident — and I'll repeat that — that once the college gets its bylaws in place and gets operating, their bylaws will be quite in accordance with this act, which the act requires, and there will be no problems, no reason for us to disallow those bylaws.

MR. JONES: I would like to attempt a light-hearted comment, somewhat at the expense of my friend the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who is my neighbour MLA. I would suggest that maybe the bylaws should be submitted to that minister, because I know he has an interest in qualifications and certifications. I know he has either a BA or an MBA either from Columbia or Columbia Pacific, and I know he would be very interested in the standards and qualifications. I hope that minister is perhaps listening, because he gave me advice as a rookie MLA to keep my powder dry, and I would like to know whether I'm doing that or not. I'm not clear on what that expression means.

Section 23 approved,

On section 24.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, procedurally, because there are two amendments to section 24, could I clarify whether we're dealing now with the amendment to subsection (2) and the new section 3.1, or whether we're just dealing with the amendment to subsection (2) in this section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the total amendment to section 24, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: Then let me begin by looking at the amendments to subsections (1) and (2). It would appear that there is some separation of membership and qualifications in these amendments, because there has been some suggestion that admission and certification are somehow to be separated. There is also, I think, something in this particular set of amendments that may deal with independent school teachers, or teachers who are teaching in that sector.

Let me look at amendment (a), and just ask the minister if he could please tell me what process we would follow here. Does this mean that one first applies for admission to the college and then, once one is admitted, one automatically receives some certificate of qualification? What is the intent of this amendment at this time? Can you just clarify for us what this is all about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member probably answered her own question, Mr. Chairman. We separated admission to the college from maintaining the teaching certificate, if you like — the certificate of qualification. So we said in subsection (1): "The council shall establish standards of fitness and qualifications for the admission of persons as members of the college...." That's the purpose of deleting "and certification."

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Moving then to the second section, and dealing with the possibility of a person who ceases to be a member — "who is a member under section 3(l)(a) or (b), whether or not such a member resigns under section 3(3)...." The same thing applies in 3.1, but staying with (2)(b) at this point, it appears to be dealing with the independent school teacher who may choose not to remain as a member of the college. I think we discussed this issue earlier, and the minister noted that in order to teach in the public schools of the province, one must remain a member of the college, but that such a requirement

[ Page 1093 ]

did not apply to a person teaching in the independent school system.

Can the minister explain, if it is his desire to regulate the teaching profession in the province through, first of all, this matter of certification, and then through a discipline procedure and through professional development — the maintenance of the qualifications of that person — why the teacher in the independent school is in fact able to opt out? Is there indeed to be another standard or other procedures that govern that teaching body, as distinct from the teaching body which is performing its professional duties in the public schools of the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. Firstly, there's no intention for the minister to regulate the teaching profession. The idea is that the teaching profession regulate the teaching profession. The member says this amendment could apply to independent school teachers who don't teach in the public school, and that is correct. It could also apply to teachers who resign and go into politics for a while.

As I gave my own example, that does not nullify the teaching certificate that I once earned and still hold. But if I want to go back to teaching in the school, then I have to apply for reinstatement as a member of the college; in this case, for admittance to the college — and, hopefully, they would grant it to me, or to any other.... It also allows for people who step out of teaching for a few years to come back in. This was a protection that wasn't anticipated initially. It was brought up in our discussions with the BCTF and others whether you would lose your certificate if you lost your membership. We said no, that was never the intention and we would correct it. So you can retain your certificate. That's why membership and the certificate is here. For instance, right now people have certificates. In future the college could take a new teacher-training graduate and issue them a certificate for teaching. And then if that person, say, four years later, left teaching for three or four years and dropped his membership in the college, he retains the certificate. The certificate is retained once the college has issued it, or if it is issued now. So I hope that lengthy answer explains that to the member.

[3:00]

MS. A HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate the explanation that you have given. Perhaps at this point I would just note again that we do have the option for teachers not in the public school system to resign from the college, to have gone through the process of certification, which they must do if they are to meet certain requirements within the independent school system in what I think is called the class 2 area, and then to have no further involvement with that profession. We do have two standards here set up, as far as membership in the college is concerned: a compulsory membership, which must be maintained by any teacher who is continuing to teach in the public school system; and the right to opt out by a teacher who is teaching in some other system than the public school system.

I have no further questions on the amendment. I understand that the amendment is clearly to protect the certification of people who may not be practising the profession at that particular time. I thank the minister for that clarification.

MR. RABBITT: Under section 23(3), am I to interpret that this would be the equivalent to a temporary certificate for a teacher?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't involve a temporary certificate. I'm sorry, I'm working on the amendment. I guess it gets us into section 3. As amended, section 3 says that the council may issue letters of permission for teaching to suitable persons who are not members and whose services are required for a special purpose for a specified period of time. That's simply the extension of an emergency case, or something of that nature. It's really a letter of permission, which is a temporary certificate — whichever you want to call it. It's basically a letter of permission to teach for a specified period of time until a fully qualified teacher can come in. I think that was the member's question. Was it on section 3 rather than 3.1?

MR. RABBITT: Partially, Mr. Minister. In the small rural schools, where non-qualified personnel are used by school boards from time to time, would they fall under this section of the act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

MR. RABBITT: Then my question would be, if this is discretionary.... Should there not be direction in there as to reasons why they should he approved, rather than leaving it discretionary? The reason I am asking this is to ensure that there is always a body of teachers available on short notice in the small rural areas.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the alternative would be to say that the college or the council or the minister shall issue a letter of permission. That has never been the case and it is certainly not intended now. They may issue a letter of permission. It is usually done where a board could make the case and show that they have not been able to fill the position with a qualified person. At that point the application may come to the minister to say: "We tried." The minister can say: "Show me how you tried. Show me what effort you made to get a qualified person in there." If they say, "We've done that, and we can't fill that position with a properly qualified person, but we have somebody who we think could do the job for a specified period of time" — which could be a month, a year, a week or whatever; it's usually over a month, because they can use substitutes under a month.... All this is now turning that over to the council, which will be making those decisions and may issue that certificate. If we said "shall," that would open the door to any school board filling positions with unqualified people, and that was never the intent of this legislation.

MR. MILLER: Maybe I'll just ask a few questions leading up to another one. Am I correct in assuming that under this section the college is the only body that can issue a certificate of qualification?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the future, when this legislation comes into force, yes.

MR. MILLER: Subsequent to that.... It is not required that one have a certificate or membership in the college in some instances. For example, the question of private schools was mentioned. Is it mandatory to have a certificate and be a member of the college — either or both?

[ Page 1094 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we have to remember that what we are talking about is a B.C. certificate of qualification for teaching. Anybody who wants one of those will have to apply to the college.

MR. MILLER: You didn't answer the second question, and that is: is this certificate of qualification a requirement for all teaching in the province? Are there exemptions, for example, in private schools? Maybe you could just indicate if there are. What I'm trying to get to is the whole question of abuse. If people are not required in certain circumstances to have this certification, and yet it is deemed to be a desirable thing to have as a commodity that makes them a little more valuable in the marketplace if they want to move, surely it is set up there for abuse of the college. They can go through the whole process of being certified by the college, joining and then saying: "Well, I've got what I want now. I'm just going to stop paying my dues." Could that happen under this section? It seems to me it could.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am trying to think of how that can suddenly become an abuse under the college system when that right exists now. A person could meet the requirements for a teaching certificate in British Columbia, apply to the minister for the certificate, get the certificate and never intend to teach. He can do the same thing with certification by the college. Maybe the member is a little confused. If a person wants to teach in the public schools, he must then become a member of the college.

MR. MILLER: Well, maybe it's a question of order here. But the college "shall establish standards...and qualifications" for admission and "shall not admit a person...unless he meets those standards." Then in section 24(2): "The council shall issue a certificate of qualification to each person who is admitted...." So subsection (2) requires that you do both.

I still think the question I just asked is appropriate. People right now don't have to pay dues to the Minister of Education, but they will be required to pay dues to the college once this act goes through. So you'll get the situation that I talked about, in which people, for their own self-interest, can in fact abuse the college. They can say: "Sure, I'll join the college for a month, whatever it takes, and then I'll just stop paying my dues. But I got what I wanted; I got my teaching certificate."

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers wouldn't do that.

MR. MILLER: You never know.

Amendment approved.

On section 24 as amended.

MR. JONES: There are a number of questions on section 24 that I would like to ask. I guess it's a concern that goes back to displacement and fear of change as a result of legislation. I'm sure the minister appreciates that whenever there are dramatic changes to our structures in education, there's fear that there will be displacement and changes that people will have difficulty accepting. Particularly in the interim, when it isn't clear exactly what's meant, there is a certain amount of anxiety. I think members opposite have suggested that that anxiety has been whipped up, but I think any time there is dramatic change, there is anxiety and fear of the unknown. Until this act is implemented and we see its operation, it will not be clear as to what these dislocations are and how justified these fears were.

I would like some clarification and reassurance from the minister about some of these things, such as the teacher qualification service. Now operated jointly by the BCTF and the BCSTA, it has permanent staff and ongoing commitments. It has lease arrangements with office space and all those kinds of things that organizations have. I would like the minister to provide some kind of clarification and assurance, as a result of this section as amended, that this service will continue after passage of the bill.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member, I think, is concerned.... I answered the question — I don't know how many times I have to answer it — that the teacher qualification service has nothing to do with teacher certification; it's for placement on the salary scale. The joint board that exists has some functions. This morning I did not, despite what was transmitted to me, comment either way about the continuance or discontinuance of either of those organizations, because they are irrelevant to this debate.

MR. JONES: The minister has indicated, although he hasn't given us reassurance about the TQS and the joint board.... As the minister says, they will not be impacted by this bill. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether or not that happens.

With respect to the costs of these programs, I believe the minister has given assurance that some costs will be picked up by the ministry in terms of holding the first election. I believe the minister has given some assurance, in discussions with the BCTF and the BCSTA, that some of the costs associated with the College of Teachers with respect to teacher certification will be picked up by the ministry. Could he clarify what the ministry intends to do as far as picking up those costs?

[3:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think it's covered in section 40 when we get to it, where the minister can pay for interim expenses. I indicated this morning that we know there's going to be an initial expense in registering all of the people under the college, as compared to another registration system, and we're quite willing to participate in that. I also said that we would like to move when it gets to just new membership and those considerations, that we would like to see the college become autonomous and pay for its operation out of its membership fees as soon as possible.

MR. JONES: I understand from the minister, then, that it is the interim costs, very much like the first election costs; that it's sort of seed money, transfer money, that kind of thing, that the ministry will be picking up rather than the $483,000 annually that the teacher services branch currently now expends under the Ministry of Education.

The College of Teachers comes into being on January 1, 1988 and I wonder if the minister could clarify for us the kind of transition arrangements and dates the minister has in mind for the transfer of responsibilities from the teacher services branch to the college.

[ Page 1095 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly wouldn't want to put on a time limit, that the only expenses we'll assist with are to January 1, because the registration process and some of these interim costs that will be incurred by the college may extend well beyond that by the time the whole structure is in place.

MR. MILLER: With regard to, really, the whole question of appeal, has the minister considered or is it deemed necessary that there be an avenue? People, for example, seeking employment have the protection under the Human Rights Act in terms of discrimination by employers. The government, in dealing with the amendments to the labour bill, talked about the need to Protect people from the insidious practices in the hiring halls. Obviously that's a consideration in other jurisdictions, and yet there does not seem to be any avenue of appeal for an individual against a decision by the college with respect to admission or the granting of a certificate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's difficult to have everything that's going to happen covered by the time we get to section 24, but could I suggest the member read section 37 and the amendment to it. It covers it right on the nose.

Section 24 as amended approved.

On section 25.

MS. EDWARDS: I might apologize to the minister for having misread the last time I asked a question. I'll try to read more carefully this time. I am just wondering if the minister foresees any problem connected with this committee, which is the qualifications committee, which has to deal with giving qualifications to people who are members and deal, I presume, with what may in time become a position where someone is a member or not a member, and those kinds of things, and deal with section 22(1)(h) where there is this clause about members "in good standing" — which is not defined.

Has the minister examined that sort of interaction of those sections and the difficulties that could come in with the moving in and out of membership for the qualifications committee?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can assure the member that we examined interactions between clauses and existing acts and possible acts and everything else until we were satisfied that we had covered everything that it is possible to humanly cover. So interactions between these — yes, definitely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 25, the hon. member for Kimberley continues.

MS. EDWARDS: I would also like to ask the minister a little bit more about how the committee will actually operate. Now all members of council are entitled to sit on this committee. The chair and the vice-chair of the committee are named, but then all members of council are entitled to sit. How will continuity be maintained? I know that one of the things that happens is that if someone is sitting on a committee, they are allowed, I understand, to continue to sit on that committee if in fact they no longer become a member of council and that committee is still dealing with something.

That's not what I am talking about, Mr. Minister, because I think I know how that is going to work. But I would like to know whether people are going to go in and out of that committee. Will the number be consistent or can there be more than three members sitting on some occasions, or how will that work?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the first subsection of that states that the council shall elect a chairman and a vice-chairman of the qualifications committee and that every other member of the council may sit on the committee. However, for working committees, which often happens.... That's why the quorum of three is stated there. But you'll find further that if there's any question about this, it has to go back to the full council, and that is the reason why full council "may sit." Every member is entitled to sit, so they can't say you're not on the committee because you're not one of the four or five. Every member has the right to sit on that committee and be a member of the qualifications committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes to the member. She is from Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kimberley is in that other riding that exists somewhere else.

Mr. Minister, it seems to me that again we've got a situation where it is possible that perhaps three of the appointed members of council could form the quorum on this committee.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again we're talking about what may be possible. With 15 of the members elected by the teachers, they appoint the committee. I don't; the minister has no power to appoint the committee. They pick their own committee, and where any inquiry comes up, they have to submit the written report to the council and it's the council that makes the decision. So I don't see how there's any possible way that any of the appointed members can in effect control qualifications.

MS. EDWARDS: There is just one other thing. I find, again, there seems to be a double sort of protection, perhaps, or it might be.... I don't know how it's going to work. The committee itself has the powers, protections and privileges of a commissioner. When they submit their report to the council itself, the council has the powers and can conduct further inquiry and so on. Is that a necessary situation? Does it not create a situation that's unnecessarily permissive, to allow someone to be investigated or inquired into?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The powers and privileges of a commissioner are to allow them to require evidence to be submitted. They can ask for it and expect to get it. They can subpoena someone as a witness and that sort of thing. It gives them that power. It gives the council a second look, should they wish to use it.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

MR. LOVICK: Section 26 — I see somebody from the other side of the House asking — is the one dealing with the professional development committee. That's what we're now on.

[ Page 1096 ]

I'd like to begin my questioning about.... Not the minister. I'm sorry. I hasten to point out it wasn't the minister. It was another member on the other side.

I'd like to begin my comments and my questions by looking briefly at the intent of that section. As we see it, the intent of this clause is to substantially narrow the definition of professional development. What is proposed here is a top down system of professional development. As we see it, teachers will not have control of their professional growth under this definition of professional development. As well, there does not seem to be any mechanism for teachers to define their professional development needs. That's our primary concern.

We say that because, again as we read it, all aspects of professional development are to be controlled by a professional development committee consisting of from three to 20 members of the 20-member council. We are also concerned that the professional development committee is apparently given an enormous power; that is, there is no clearly defined process to make the committee accountable for its actions. or responsive to teacher needs.

Let me begin my questioning by simply asking the minister if he would care to respond to any of those concerns as I have stated them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wouldn't care to respond, but in the spirit of cooperation, I will.

The whole point the member has to recognize is that when we're talking about the professional development committee of the college, we are really talking about professional development with respect to the members. We are not encompassing the total, broad definition of what professional development in the whole teaching or education system. There is nothing in this to preclude other agencies, local associations, school boards, the ministry or anyone else from carrying on with what has been under the broad umbrella of professional development. These are an attempt to specifically gear it to the professional development of the certification and qualifications of members, and that is a reference, yes, to improving educational, services, which I suppose is the whole purpose.

Subsection (e), I might add, was put in there that there might be a specialist association. that fits in here. It does not require the college to take over all other provincial specialists' associations — as they are now known under the BCTF Those can carry on under the auspices of the local association or the BCTF, which I still fully expect will be their central coordinating body. So it doesn't take that away from them.

MR. LOVICK: Of course, I'm pleased to hear that from the minister, and it perhaps will go some, e distance towards allaying the kinds of fears that people have expressed to us. I think, though, that there is still some concern about just what the intent of that other body's professional development activity is. What kinds of signals does it give to the various schools and other institutions throughout the province, in terms of what the ministry regards as acceptable and desirable professional development? Perhaps when I deal with. my specific questions we can zero in somewhat more on just those kinds of concerns.,

Let me refer then to section 26(2). The question is as follows: we note that a quorum consists of three committee members and that five members of a 20-member committee are appointed by government. Is it the government's intention — and I think I know the answer; this is partly rhetorical — to dictate what type of professional growth shall occur for teachers? Let me pursue that a little further. What procedures exist to ensure that professional development indeed reflects the needs of teachers, as identified by teachers? I think that's the question.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is true; the government will appoint four members plus the one that will be designated by the deans of education. Those five will make up one-quarter of the council. The council, which is three-quarters made up of elected representatives of the teachers — a three-quarters majority — will elect the chairman and the vice-chairman for that committee and will appoint or elect the committee, so I feel that there is full control by the membership. If the council and the elected representatives of the teachers in their wisdom felt that the best people on that council were the two I selected and the one the deans selected, then I would have to congratulate them on their wisdom and my good choice.

MR. MILLER: It's a big if.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, it's a big if. As a matter of fact it's.... Well, I'll let that one pass. I was about to make a not terribly parliamentary observation.

On 26(3): we also note that the professional development activities "may" be offered, not "must" be offered. This is an echo of a question we've heard before, but obviously we don't feel the answers given have entirely satisfied us. The question is: does this mean that theoretically absolutely nothing could happen in terms of professional development, that indeed there could be no professional development activities? Is that what the legislation makes possible? I think it does.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Theoretically, hypothetically, yes. Pragmatically and realistically, I don't expect that a group of professional people elected to run the professional affairs of their own members is going to say: "We are going to do nothing to help a teacher who needs professional help." So theoretically, hypothetically.... I guess we're doing a lot of discussion on theoretics and hypothetics, but in actual fact I don't see.... Perhaps the permissiveness, if I say that they may do those sorts of things — I'm going to be a bit facetious in saying that I don't want to tell the college they got to learn 'em whether they need it or not.

MR. LOVICK: I notice that in that flurry of adverbs presented by the minister he didn't "state categorically." I think we were sort of hoping that that would be slipped in as well.

Mr. Chairman, I'm standing now simply to announce that I must run to attend a committee meeting. My colleague the member for Prince Rupert has graciously consented to pursue the line of questioning I was beginning to develop. I shall return, as MacArthur said.

MR. MILLER: How do I know for sure that you're going to a meeting?

I don't have a lot of questions. Clause 26(3)(c) talks about the necessity to develop teacher competence. I think the work

[ Page 1097 ]

that the BCTF has done, in terms of their professional development, has been to foster teacher development. That doesn't rule out competence, but it implies that they're talking about the growth of an individual teacher's knowledge, or body of knowledge and ability to teach, and the rest of it. Competence is kind of a bottom line. That would be my only concern about that section.

MR. JONES: I would like to spend a few more minutes on this section, because I think it really is a key section. It's also key based on the kinds of comments we've heard from the minister, some this morning and some this afternoon, which were reassuring comments to me with respect to professional development. This morning he suggested that at the local level we would see associations and unions still carrying on professional development activities. I'm pleased to hear that. Perhaps, as the minister suggested, I should have perceived from the legislation that it wasn't precluded and therefore was possible.

It seemed to me that the major intent of this particular section was the idea of separation; that we are setting up another institution that provides, or at least allows the opportunity to provide, the same kind of service that we've seen carried on in this province for many years by the other organization. I know the minister supports this legislation and believes in it, and thinks the teachers of the province should. But very clearly this is a section that I think has bothered the teachers of the province. They see this section as an attack on their organization. Although some members opposite have been critical of the professional development function of the B CTF, I don't think the minister has been, and I don't think that's the majority view of the members opposite. This is a very delicate section. What it does is alter history. This section sets up another organization with virtually identical responsibilities to those that we've seen develop over history. I'm sure the minister would say that professional development activities were carried on before the B.C. Teachers' Federation and that they will carry on after. And they did carry on before. They carried on with the BCTF from 1919.

I think the minister was very pleased with a lot of those professional development activities. Perhaps he remembers from the early years that there was a lot of criticism of the teaching profession, much different from the kind we hear today; but that criticism was there. It argued in particular that too many teachers were underqualified; that teachers lacked a sound theoretical foundation for their practice, unlike doctors and lawyers. In response, teachers tried to overcome those objections. They mounted professional development activities: in-service education; summer school programs; raising the qualifications for entry into the profession; involvement in a variety of things, such as the kind of thing we see today with teachers involved in curriculum development. I think part of those goals — and I think the minister would have supported those things — was the tie between professional development and economic welfare. Not only did they improve their standing as a profession and their status in the community, but they proved to the community that they were well qualified through these kinds of programs, and that their professional status and their income were inextricably bound. From some of the answers that the minister has given, although I think it is perceived that the major rationale is to separate those things, he suggested this morning that he expects the BCTF to still carry those things on.

So what we are doing is setting up a competitive organization with this section. The minister, if he sees both carrying on, sees them in competition. The realization that all the impediments to professional status cannot entirely be removed through improvements in those things that I mentioned — the pre-service education, the in-service education and curriculum development — is probably a more recent view of professional development, and maybe this is the area that government is concerned about.

In more recent developments, we see a much broader view of professional development. The broader concept of professional development of teachers in this province involves four interrelated areas. Probably the more typical kind of professional development is teacher growth and service activities directed to the improvement of teaching practice. Another professional development activity could be viewed as occupational reconstruction, which is concerned with the rights and the responsibilities and the authority of teachers individually and collectively.

Part of that again ties in with what I said earlier about economic welfare, in that part of those rights and responsibilities is participation in the bargaining process. I am pleased that the minister has indicated that he expects those rights to be carried on by local associations and unions. It seems to me that it is very clear that the conditions under which practitioners operate, no matter what their profession, are part of their concerns. I have suggested that doctors certainly have the right and responsibility to ensure that the conditions under which they operate on the sick are of the highest possible standard. I think we should see the same kind of thing happening in terms of the tie between professional development and bargaining for teachers.

A third area of professional development is, of course, concern for the rights and needs of children in this province.

The fourth area that I see as inextricably bound to the other three is that professional development is part of teachers critically reflecting on the purposes of education, the curriculum and the governance. I think....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, this is the second long speech that the member has made that is not really relevant to the section that we are discussing. So as patient as I am, I think at some point he should get to the section. We are not talking about the whole gamut of teacher training, education, the whole system, or anything. We are talking about this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister makes a good point. The Chair was aware of what was being said, but since the member was referring to professional development, the Chair was being somewhat lenient. Perhaps there was some digression on the part of the member for Burnaby North, and maybe he could proceed on the basis that we are just speaking to what is contained in section 26.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been very patient. However, there are a couple of sections, and I am talking about one of them that is critically important. I think what we are doing here is making history. The history that I am talking about is the replacement of a major practice of teachers in this province...being challenged by this legislation.

I think it is important for the record to see what we are actually replacing, and to talk about the kinds of things that

[ Page 1098 ]

exist, that are going to be altered by this legislation, and that this legislation impacts directly upon. I did want, for the record, to comment on some of the areas that I see operating now that are being challenged by this legislation.

[3:45]

I would like to carry on, but I will make it brief. What already exists in this province is structures that the B.C. Teachers' Federation operates at the provincial level and at the local level, and they are considerable. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with your approval, to mention a couple of them: the professional development advisory committee, which oversees provincial professional development for teachers; the teacher education committee which looks at the preparation of teachers; the children's rights committee; the status of women committee; and the committee against racism.

There are 27 provincial specialist associations that this legislation is setting up, perhaps another 27 to compete with those, and a council to coordinate and oversee their operations, as well as a wide range of other activities.

In addition to this, these provincial services and structures all support activities at the local level, and I think a few of them are worth mentioning because I think they are being placed in jeopardy by this section of the act. For example, Project TEACH, which is teacher effectiveness and classroom handling; PRIDE — it seems that these acronyms are popular — which is professional refinement in developing effectiveness; and TTLC, which is teaching through learning channels. They are all mechanisms by which professional development activities enhance the operations and the effectiveness of teachers in the schools.

I think we see that there is an organization that does this that also provides 20 professional journals. The lesson aids service alone is one that is of long-standing importance to this province for teachers and is going to be impacted on by this section of the legislation. Although the minister has given some reassurance under this section that these things can carry on, they've been there for a long time, and they are being challenged by this legislation.

I am sure the minister can't predict all the implications and impacts that this legislation will have on these longstanding services around the province, but I think he must recognize that injecting this section into the legislation does produce the kind of unknown areas that cause a lot of concern for the practitioners in education around this province, and I would hope that there would have been something in this section. I think the minister perhaps does, too, because it is my understanding that in the talks with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B.C. School Trustees' Association there was a clear indication that there would be a reduction in the professional development powers of the college contained in section 26; that there had been ministerial approval to that reduction of powers; and that it was possible that there would be amendments to this section to provide this reduction in the professional development activities that I think is probably central to the reaction of the profession to the legislation. Unfortunately we did not see such amendments forthcoming.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that I did go on for a long time, but I thought it was a very critical area that needed to be commented. on, and perhaps the minister would like at those t comments.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That this is replacing all of the professional activities is not correct. It's not even implicit in this legislation. That this legislation is forcing a separation of professional development activities from many other roles that teachers play is not correct. It's not even implicit in this legislation. That the present activities that teachers have set up, like the lesson aids and all of these other things that presumably perform a service that teachers have been willing to pay for — to buy the lesson aid, and that sort of thing — are being challenged.... I don't see how these are being challenged by this legislation.

What I guess we've separated out in the other direction is the collective bargaining rights of teachers to function separately from the professional qualifications and certification. The member mentioned setting up 27 more PSAs and that sort of thing. He seemed, in the eagerness to suggest things, to infer things that this legislation doesn't do. That message has been put out there. I don't quite know why. I suppose people have interpreted for their purposes, or whatever, and forgotten, or apparently forgotten, in the whole debate, in the whole anxiety that has been created, that the college will be run by their own professional colleagues. And so I for one just don't anticipate that their own professional colleagues, being elected to represent them, are suddenly going to turn and undermine everything else that they have done.

Perhaps we can narrow it down again, that the professional development activities of the college are designed to deal with the professional development, as a person or as a professional, of the teacher. If we take the broader sense of professional development activities, and almost anything in the system that improves it can be included under that, the college may cooperate with that, may assist in it, but does not interfere with any of those functions going on by a local association, by a board, by the ministry, by anybody else. So it does not challenge those. It does not take away the many good things that have been built up over the past. It doesn't take them away; it simply says that when it comes to professional training and development.... And I have to reiterate again that if the college is going to be involved in qualification and certification and requirements for teaching certificates in this province, then it must have a role in the upgrading of those teachers, in programs that can be set up or directing teachers to existing programs, those sorts of things.

I think members forget that this will be run by elected representatives of the teachers; they think of all the horrible things that the college may do. They're going to be the same teachers who belong to local associations, who belong to the teachers in this province in whatever form. These are the teachers of this province who are going to run this one aspect of their organization. The qualification service, the autonomy in that respect.... There are all kinds of other things that are going to go on just as they are now. This is one facet — the governance of the professional role of teachers — that's been taken out and put in this legislation. And the other facet is to allow for the full bargaining right and the choice to go whichever route the people want to take. It doesn't encompass all of the other things — that I've heard some very good speeches on but are nothing to do with this legislation.

MR. JONES: I don't think the minister can ignore what is a fact here, and the fact is that we have a profound change in he structures. We have a new structure being set up that we're debating right now, and what we're doing with that structure is we're giving compulsory membership to that organization for everybody who teaches in the public school and has a certificate, and we're taking away compulsory membership for the other body and allowing that other body

[ Page 1099 ]

to lose some of its members by legislation and lose some of its members by choice. In terms of professional development, even though that body has that long history, I wonder which body the minister would go to for advice on professional development. Would he go to the body that has captured all these professionals through the compulsory membership route, or would he go to the long-standing body which, even though it has a long history of providing these kinds of services to teachers in the province, now does not represent all the teachers in the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we would certainly go to any body, as I've tried to indicate — any organized body, any group, any school board, any group that wants to have input in education. We have those discussions. I've spent a lot of time going around talking to anybody and everybody who was interested in education. We even have a royal commissioner going out trying to get all of the people who are interested in education, so there's input from all over.

I'm a little surprised that the member says that all of these wonderful services have been provided by the BCTF Are you saying implicitly that they have been completely dependent on compulsory membership? I thought that many of those services developed because it was a service that teachers liked, and if it's a service that suits their purposes, then how would they abandon those services? Surely the whole thing isn't dependent on compulsory membership.

MR. JONES: To answer the minister's questions, very clearly we're setting up in law a body that has those same responsibilities as the existing ones, and certainly the minister is correct that they have been supported out of need, out of desire from the grass roots that these kinds of services be provided. But we're setting up an organization. I think the minister is arguing as strongly for not having this section in the act as I am. If he says that these things will continue because they are servicing the needs of teachers, then why are we debating this section? Why is this section in here? We are duplicating the service, and that's been my main argument on this section, Mr. Chairman.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: I wonder if I could ask the minister just to clarify the amendment and its purpose for me, please. I don't know if that can be done succinctly or not; it seems like a very lengthy amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the minister rises to respond to the hon. member's question, as there's maybe a little break in the proceedings here, there are a couple of things I would like to mention to hon. members present.

This House is governed in our debates by many different rules. When we get into the section-by-section debate in committee stage of a bill, two of the very most important things that we must bear in mind constantly are the relevancy of the things that we say and trying to avoid being repetitious, because being repetitious does become boring. The Chair is not suggesting that this has happened up to this point in time, but maybe at this juncture there might be nothing lost by mentioning these two minor things for the benefit of members.

Now I'll turn the floor over to the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Some of the removal and the replacing it with that is simply to clarify the intent that the first action against any member with respect to incompetence will be taken by the school board. In the initial section it allowed for five colleagues to lay a complaint of misconduct or incompetence. That seemed to create a considerable concern — and perhaps it was legitimate; it wasn't intended, but certainly we accepted that — that the five members.... Remember, those are members of the college, so they have to be fellow teachers who can lay that complaint. We have restricted that now to misconduct and have left it for the board, through their usual channels of inspectors' reports, superintendents' reports, principals' reports or whatever method they determine is adequate, to sustain their case in any inquiry that they may have to deal with incompetence. So that's really what the technical wording here is to achieve.

[4:00]

MR. JONES: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. I do think that although there are still a lot of concerns about this section, that is an improvement.

Subsection (3)(b) of the amendment suggests that fellow members of the college may only complain about a member's conduct, with this amendment, rather than their competence. This is a difficult question, but if the minister could respond, I would appreciate an answer. Can he define the difference between the two, and where the line can be drawn, and perhaps how the college, the minister or the school boards are going to be able to make that distinction? Clearly the two are bound together, and perhaps the minister could clarify the difference between "conduct" and "competence."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry now that we didn't invite the member to the negotiations, because we could have saved having amended this act. We thought that "misconduct" and "incompetence" were tied together, but we were convinced during the discussions with the BCTF that the concern was great about competence; that members should not be able to say anything about competence. You know, fellow colleagues should not be able to lay a complaint about competence; that should properly be the jurisdiction of the school board, the authorities and the vehicles they have.

So we accepted that, and unless I heard incorrectly, the member is now saying: "Well, the two are related. How do you make a distinction between the two?" Well, what we are allowing, if you go through the rest of this section.... One of the reasons that, even though very little has changed, it's been reworded here is that there are references to other sections — you know, it had to be changed because other subsections had changed and that sort of thing.

So the amendment looks far more complicated than it really is. It's really acknowledging the concern, which, as I said on many occasions, we didn't think was there, but which was certainly promulgated as being of great concern to teachers, that somehow or other, capriciously or whatever, five colleagues, if they didn't like somebody, could just simply

[ Page 1100 ]

throw in incompetence and wouldn't have to have an inquiry and all of this.... Now it goes back to the board having to deal with determining competence or incompetence. If they want to lay the complaint, they do it; they look after it in every respect. Then the board may send in a report, of course, to the college saying: "This teacher is incompetent, and you should take a look at it." Or five colleagues can say: "This person is guilty of personal misconduct which is detrimental to the profession, and you should take a look at it." Then the college council can look at misconduct or incompetence complaints. They can look at both of them, but the one comes, if you like, through the due process that has been in effect from the boards; the other may come from colleagues.

I would have to defend the right of any five members.... That's not taken lightly in the profession, but if some five members feel that, for instance, a person is guilty of misconduct in the performance of his or her duties with the children, they should have a right to say: "We want that looked into." I expect that it will not be used often, but I certainly hope it will be used, if ever it is warranted.

MR. JONES: It is a little hard to tell whether the minister is speaking in favour of the amendment or in opposition to it. I guess what has happened in the process is that the minister is responding to concerns raised, and although he does not see them as legitimate, he is still agreeing to make these changes to the legislation. I have some difficulty why he doesn't see them as legitimate. Certainly if he is proposing these changes, they are legitimate changes. When we see a person's livelihood at stake and such a vague thing as competence.... I am sure nobody in the House would suggest that the minister wasn't competent, but there may be five people somewhere that would suggest that. I don't think we would want the minister's livelihood dependent upon that.

It seems to me that the kind of situation we should be looking at in this section is perhaps one where there is judgment of competence by colleagues, but done, rather than in a complaining way, in a procedural way so that there is peer evaluation and a formal opportunity for collegial evaluation of the competence of teachers, rather than five complaints. People can get annoyed at each other from time to time, and capricious acts can be carried out. We are all human. I think this section that is being amended, which the minister is arguing in favour of, does leave wide open that opportunity for capriciousness. So I am disappointed that the procedural process that allowed for supervision and evaluation and reports has been replaced by a section where competence is a question that is going to be dealt with by the college.

I would like to suggest to the minister that the procedure of collegial evaluation is a more significant process, one that should be included in this act, but not via a vehicle of five complaints. It appears that only complaints of fellow members of the college or a school board will be considered in the process that we are looking at in terms of this amendment. In other professional associations, for example the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia, all people who come in contact with a member are allowed to challenge that member's conduct or competence.

It is unfortunate that we have had the kind of publicity in recent years given to cases of child abuse by teachers. But I wonder if....

AN HON. MEMBER: What is unfortunate about that?

MR. JONES: I think it is unfortunate for the profession, not that things have come out, but it reflects badly on the profession, and the member for Vancouver South would certainly agree with that. I think we all lose when these kinds of things happen.

In any event, I would like to inquire of the minister: if he is keen on the complaint method, in his defence of what is being amended, why is it limited to colleagues and not wide open? It seems strange that if we are concerned about complaints of conduct....

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, I agree, and I would suggest that if we are limiting to that, I'm sure the minister has that as his reason, that we are looking at complaint in terms of conduct, and that it be done by colleagues. But I think the preamble to the section in part 4 that deals with the public interest is something the minister may want to respond to in terms of complaints by members of the public to the college, as is true in other professions.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have great interest in this section; in fact, I have some disappointment that the minister accepted the recommendations of the BCTF for a change to this investigation of teacher competence. It strikes me that the people most knowledgeable about the profession are the members of the profession, and the people most in contact with members of the profession are indeed other teachers. And as the member opposite mentioned a minute ago, one person can complain about a nurse and an investigation may be held. I believe the same applies to doctors and lawyers, and I know the same applies to professional engineers. I don't really think it's valuable or that it has been an addition to the bill that we are going to rely only on the submissions by employers when it comes to dealing with competence of members.

I know of no other professional group where competency is judged only after an employer complains or a report is written by an employer, and that is what this section does. With professional legislation there are two critical areas: one is the admission of people to the group by a peer evaluation, and the other is disciplining or dismissal from the group by a peer evaluation. Those are the two key things which make the difference. Part of the promise of the bill, in my view, is reduced by this amendment, because it takes away from the members of the profession their right to judge competence unless another report is presented from an employer.

I have difficulty with that, although I suspect that the teacher council members themselves may indeed present to the Legislative Assembly a request for a change to this act, and I would encourage them and I would hope that they would do so. I actually reflect with some disappointment, as I said, on the actions of the BCTF, for in fact it has been the perception of the public — to the detriment of the thousands of teachers who are doing a good job and who are competent and who have no misconduct against them — that the disciplining of teachers has not been done by the BCTF This has been a disadvantage, and certainly the court cases we hear about in the newspaper are not a reflection on all of the teachers, but they certainly are a reflection on the procedures involved, because it has been evident that there have been more actions leveled at saving a teacher's job than protecting

[ Page 1101 ]

the children or the public, and that of course is the reversal of the process of every other professional group.

You must, as a member of a professional organization, take the members who are incompetent or who are guilty of misconduct, and discipline them or reprimand them or dismiss them from the group and get them out. That's the critical thing, the other half of the equation, the more serious and critical half of the equation that we have deleted here — as I say, I hope, Mr. Minister, only temporarily.

I have a feeling that when the council gets organized and gets moving and when the members develop a greater sense of pride than they have — and they will — that they will see this as an opportunity to prove to themselves and to the public and to the students the capacity they have for becoming more competent, for dealing with competency, for protecting the children and for doing all those things that they do so well. The teachers have been, as I say, subjected to an awful lot of abuse, because we have not done some of these things, and because they have not done it, and because it's been perceived to be a we-them thing. So I am disappointed with this amendment. I look forward to a change. I have no fear whatsoever of a teacher being unfairly treated by five members who may submit a written report, or even by one complaint from a member of the public. I would presume that the college will accept complaints — or the laying of information, if you want to put it in a neutral way, which we should: "I believe the following to be true; would you investigate it?" Just as neat and clean and as fair as that, and they would look at it without fear and deal with everything in fairness and without fear. I would look for a change like that, and that is why I want to speak so strongly.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, I'm not in favour of the amendment. I would favour the original version, if you wish. I will certainly accept the amendment as it is because I think the minister, in a gesture to the Teachers' Federation, has accepted that, and I'm satisfied that he did it in good faith; but I'm not satisfied that it will be in the interests of the profession.

[4:15]

MRS. BOONE: I rise in response to the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). I think there's a misunderstanding as to how competency is determined in a teacher, and I don't know how he can expect a peer, a fellow teacher, to determine the competency of another teacher without going into the classroom and actually seeing this person in action. That is what the school board does and the reporting procedures are there. A superintendent, a district superintendent, an area superintendent goes into the classroom and makes a report, sees how this teacher handles himself or herself, sees how they develop their plan of action, sees how they treat their students — all of these things. A teacher that is in that school even would not be able to determine the competency of that teacher unless they were in that classroom with that person. Therefore I am glad that they have taken that out. I don't think that a teacher, unless another teacher is able to go into the classroom, sit for any length of time in the classroom and see that other teacher in action, is able to deal with their competency whatsoever. I do think that this is a good part of this amendment here.

MR. JONES: After the comments from the member for Vancouver South, I was worried for a minute whether the amendment was going to pass; but I would like before he leaves to make the point about competence with respect to engineers as compared to teachers. The member for Vancouver South would be interested to know that I was present when the Second Narrows Bridge collapsed, and I was going to ask the member if he knew whether the members under that act were disciplined for their competence or lack thereof. I think it's very clear when a bridge collapses that there's been incompetence in terms of the engineering, but I think it's a little more complex and a little more difficult to determine when it comes to the human process of teaching and learning.

I would appreciate the opportunity to ask the minister one more question with respect to the amendment, and it has to do with the preliminary investigation procedure outlined in section 27(3). I'm just wondering about that section and if it could be made clear, for example, if a legal opinion would be canvassed or if the accused could be present at that time. The Medical Practitioners Act has a similar provision in it, but in that act that is there to determine if a case that's brought forward is a frivolous case. Under this act, the council would only receive news of a complaint after a teacher has been suspended or dismissed, so it seems to rule out in this case the possibility of frivolity, that frivolous cases could be brought forward. Perhaps the minister could clarify the intent of this amendment in terms of frivolous cases.

HON. B. R. SMITH: Well, the amendment rules that out. This is a procedure.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we have to sort of look at it in total. For conduct, the members can go directly to the college if five members feel that there is a complaint about conduct. For competence, they can go to their principal, they can go to their board, as any member of the public can. So there are all kinds of vehicles. The board might say to the superintendent: "Go check this out. We've heard that that teacher isn't performing in that situation; go check it out."

That's probably a preliminary inquiry, as it is known. The superintendent may discuss with the principal, and the two of them may agree that the complaint isn't warranted; no more action needed. That's what, in effect, this provides for: "...the council or the discipline committee may, after considering the report or complaint, make or cause to be made a preliminary investigation into the conduct or competence...." In other words, they may determine that the complaint is not valid and say so. They may decide that it requires further investigation and go from there.

I think that was the question, wasn't it — what's the nature of the preliminary investigation? That's to determine whether there is cause for a full investigation, if you like.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I might remind you that not all things that are repetitious are necessarily boring.

Getting back to 27(3), it seems to me that we're still going to have some difficulty. We're dealing — and this has been one of the arguments — with a professional organization, and there's been a perceived difficulty of that professional organization to deal with the conflict that arises when one of their own members does something that is wrong, I suppose, in terms of that organization being both the defender of that

[ Page 1102 ]

individual — in the union sense — as well as a self-disciplining body in terms of the standard of its members. But I don't necessarily see that disappearing.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I have some difficulty with interpretation of (3), when you get into subsection (a), where the council receives a report from a board under section 126 of the School Act, and then it goes on under (a)(i). It seems to me to list a few scenarios — maybe the minister can confirm or deny that this is the case — where a teacher has the opportunity under 122(4) of the School Act to apply to the minister for an investigation and no application has been made, or if it has been held it has been concluded. Three separate scenarios are listed there, in terms of when the college or the disciplinary committee gets into conducting their inquiry.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I'll just do all I have at once.

The second thing is.... I've noticed this with respect to unions. It's not common, but it does happen where a union will take up a grievance on behalf of one of its members and the member is not satisfied that the union did all they could to forward the defence of this particular member. They're able to apply under the existing labour legislation — I believe section 7 — and have the Labour ministry come in and investigate whether or not they've conducted a thorough defence.

I think that problem may be intensified with a possible conflict if, for example, the bill goes through and the B.C. Teachers' Federation forms a union — whether that's in one district or every district in British Columbia. The teachers will still have the responsibility to defend their members under that labour act, and yet on the other hand the college, which is also their organization, will have the responsibility to conduct disciplinary inquiries and make rulings. So it's conceivable — and I've seen some rulings come down from the Labour ministry on section 7 — that under the existing labour legislation the teachers' union could be cited for not conducting an adequate defence at the same time the college is in the act in terms of their duties.

I wonder if that was canvassed in discussions, or if you feel that there's adequate protections from that kind of complexity — which is not the same kind of word as specificity. Perhaps the minister would care to respond.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, whenever you get into this, that's where the technical language may get somewhat confusing. But what section 27(3) really says is that there are two possible routes, if you like, under the association route, where the teacher can appeal to the board, can appeal to the minister, can appeal to the board of reference on a complaint. Even the association can write out all the terms and conditions for a grievance procedure. That's under section 1. They have that route to go.

Under the second section, if they're under the Industrial Relations Act in a union agreement or that sort of thing, the grievance procedures are expected to be spelled out and done. As you'll note, it says: "and the grievance procedure has been concluded" — so before this comes to the college, whether it's incompetence, misconduct, or any of these things that have already been dealt with and gone through all the appeal and grievance procedures.... That having been concluded and misconduct or incompetence having been established — after all that appeal process — then either way it can come to the college, their own professional colleagues, to find out if this warrants further action by the college. They have an inquiry.

I always hesitate to give examples, but suppose the teacher had been certified and qualified to teach, or whatever, and then there was a complaint of incompetence because the teacher was not doing the job — not marking the kids' papers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know, you'd like that if you were a student, but it's still a necessary ingredient in education, setting exams and marking them. But just to use this quickly, suppose the teacher wasn't doing the job, so the board dismissed the teacher for not doing the job and that stood up through the grievance procedure — and remember there are remedial measures that can be taken — and they said, "Dismissed for incompetence." That report could go to the college, and the college could look at it and not necessarily suspend the member's membership or anything of that nature, because they might say: "If you'll take another job, you'd better do it, because if this happens six times for not doing the job, we might have to lift your certificate." I'm painting, after my statements this morning, a hypothetical scenario. I'm trying to establish the point that none of this comes to the college for consideration until it has gone through all the due process that's available, and that's why the reference to succeeding sections in the act.

Then the college only has to do a preliminary investigation to see whether it warrants a full inquiry, or anything. Then of course the member has all sorts of rights of appeal with the college, right to the supreme courts. So there's protection built in there and yet the possibility of dealing with either one of those. But the main point to make is that none of this, incompetence or misconduct, except if five colleagues.... They can go directly to the college on a misconduct claim. If they talk about incompetence, then they'd better to go through the route of the principal, the superintendent, or complaining to the board — if they choose to do that, or if members of the public do it. So it doesn't come to the college until it's gone through all of the due process. Then the college has to decide if it warrants them canceling this person's membership and taking away from him the right to teach in this province in the public school system.

MR. MILLER: To restate what you're saying then, the college can't really get into the act at all — I mean they can't take any action — while there's a grievance procedure underway, while there's a board dealing with a problem that they perceive, or while a teacher has made an application to the minister under that relevant section. If any of those three situations are in place, then the college can't get into the act, in terms of their disciplinary or inquiry function.

[4:30]

Given that, is there not a substantive difference between the way other profession organizations deal with their own membership in terms of violations, whether it's of competence or conduct or whatever it might be? There is a perception — I think it's quite a common perception; maybe not among everybody, but it seems to me to be common — that it's very difficult to get these organizations, for example the

[ Page 1103 ]

B.C. Medical Association, to look at a question of competence. It requires an extraordinary amount of effort on the part of the lone individual to actually carry a complaint forward and to have this body deal with it.

This is a really important section because it does deal with that whole question of professionals self-regulating, and yet it seems to me that this section leaves the question of discipline to the traditional means that exist right now. It's only much later, after those traditional means have been exhausted, that this college council gets into the act in terms of monitoring a professional function, and if that's the case, does that not completely negate, in some sense, what the government or you have been talking about in terms of making professionals professionals?

Amendment approved.

On section 27 as amended.

MR. CASHORE: I notice that the Minister of Education and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam occupy their small comers in this august chamber, and sometimes it takes quite a craning of the neck and good peripheral vision, as we've stated before....

My first question has to do with.... If I understand it correctly, it would be possible for 20 members to sit on the discipline committee. Isn't it kind of unwieldy if in fact the entire council can be members of the discipline committee? I realize there's provision for it to be as few as three people. But I think that the experience of many different ministries with quasi-judicial procedures would be that tribunals and boards and review panels probably work most effectively when there's a limitation on their size, because of efficiency and that sort of thing. One wonders what the situation might be if, for instance, a fairly notorious case was being dealt with, and whether that might have the effect of all the members of the council feeling that it behooves them to be present through that entire process. I think that could be very, very time-consuming, and it could have the effect of justice postponed. I'd be interested in your comment on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, 20 members of the council are eligible to sit on the committee. We've provided for both in this legislation. A small working committee, which has a quorum of three, can, through the bylaws, say that it can deal with a complaint. However, protection is built in, in that the full council has to make the final decision. We're talking about lifting a teacher's certificate or dismissing him from the college. That's a serious matter, and I think it warrants full consideration. The person has that right. The three members can sort of say: "Well, we'll suspend or cancel your certificate, if you agree...." If it doesn't need to go any further.... But if it's serious, this allows the 20 members.... When you say "time-consuming," I would think that if my certificate were on the line, and I felt I had the right to defend it, then I would want to have the hearing of the full council, not just a small committee.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that, although I would assume from reading this section that it could be that a committee as small as three people would be doing the actual work of the hearing, and then making their report to the council. But if we got into a situation — and I don't think it's made clear in the act — in which the entire investigation was being conducted by 20 people, I think that we would find that approaching an unworkable situation, especially if it was to be an extensive kind of investigation.

Further on that point, considering that the whole council could be allowed to sit on the discipline committee, would this include...? I'm just pausing because I notice that the minister is consulting, and I'm prepared to pause for a bit longer while you do that, if that's all right with the Chair.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Okay. I know I find it very difficult....

The second part of my question is: could the discipline committee include appointed as well as elected members?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to the last question is yes. It's the 20-member council that can appoint the committees. I don't believe the member was here when we were discussing section 25, which said that if the committee makes an inquiry, they have to report to the full council, which can confirm what they've agreed to; or it may conduct a further inquiry and actually do it again. That's the protection — the whole council can actually order or conduct a further inquiry.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to reiterate a point that I think has been made, that this leaves a person open to being judged by a group that is not a group of peers. I think that that really is a serious matter that needs to be looked at very, very carefully.

I'd like to move on to another question. How would the continuity of the discipline committee be ensured if some or all of the members of the council could sit on the committee some or all of the time? If the committee is in a situation where its proceedings must be conducted over a period of time and must have adjournments — it perhaps takes more than two or three months — and if the committee meets several times during that period of time to discuss the same case, there appears to be no provision for ensuring that the same members are there. Is it possible for a hearing to start with one scenario or one group of people, and then to proceed with a somewhat altered or possibly even completely different group of people?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the member's question, the continuity is that the council appoints a chairman and a vice-chairman, and then any other member can sit. That continuity is assured. On the other thing — if in the middle of an inquiry a member steps off — you'll find a section further on that the person can remain on the committee to the conclusion of that inquiry, and then still has to report back to the full council. So it's not going to be members coming and going during one inquiry. I don't think any court would ever uphold that. Remember that they have the appeal to the court that members step in and out of this inquiry at will and then come up with a decision, and that decision is appealable to the Supreme Court. You've got to tie it all together. We could knock holes in any section of this if you don't relate it to anything else.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairperson, that's precisely my point. I think it behooves the minister to draft legislation that reduces the likelihood of these situations having to go to appeal. We're hoping that the process works the first time.

[ Page 1104 ]

That would be in the public interest; it would be in the interest of all parties concerned. Therefore it would appear that.... If as you say, in the way you describe your assumption about how it would work, three people.... You would ensure, as you've said, that the chairperson and the vice-chairperson are appointed, and therefore would provide the continuity. That may be. But if all 20 members of the council decide to be that discipline committee, you're going to have a very difficult time ensuring that that continuity is maintained when you're dealing with that many people throughout that process. I think that's a point that really needs to be looked at very carefully.

Further to that, an additional question. What happens to the proceedings if the chairperson or the vice-chairperson, especially in situations where hearings might be conducted over a lengthy period of time, is not able to participate in concluding the process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I don't think we can write every prerequirement of common law into every piece of legislation. Neither can we write every appeal and everything else into the one clause so that it's clear right at that particular time; we don't do that sort of thing. What if the chairman wasn't available that day for the hearing? I would suppose that when the discipline committee sits, the discipline committee that's conducting the inquiry would need to be there or the hearing might be postponed to the next day or the next week. I don't know whether I can say in legislation that if one member of the committee is sick, then it shall be required by legislation that the hearing be postponed until the member is available.

I really don't think I need to write that sort of thing into legislation. That's what I mean about picking hypothetical things that could happen and saying they should have been covered in the legislation. I'm having some difficulty with that. There is an element of common sense and common law, and some professional competency and good sense among the elected members. I can't legislate against ignorance if people insist on it. I can only legislate protection.

MR. CASHORE: I think that point is well taken, that you can't legislate against ignorance. Nevertheless, the purpose of what we are doing at this time is to participate in a process of trying to make sure that when legislation goes forward, it is useful, effective legislation. I don't know if the Minister of Education has had the opportunity to sit on appointed boards or tribunals under any variety of ministries, but I do know that you often hear such persons saying that the legislation under which they are functioning is badly written. Therefore, I think there is a very reasonable purpose for me to be asking you these questions. I take exception to the suggestion that this is nitpicking. This is based on some experience that I have had in being a member of a review panel appointed by an OIC of a previous government, and having functioned under subsequent governments.

[4:45]

I would like to suggest to the minister that if this point about continuity is not dealt with in the legislation, then at the very least I would like him to assure me that he is going to seriously consider covering it in the regulations governing the legislation. Contrary to a statement that I believe I heard the minister make this morning in response to some of my questions, I believe that the minister does have a very direct route into the development of the OIC process, whereby regulations are brought into effect governing an act such as this.

I have another question, Madam Chairperson. Section 27(3)(ii) notes that an inquiry may be held when an investigation or grievance has been concluded, not when it has been lost. I think it is important that I make clear that what I am saying here is that it talks about when the investigation is concluded, not when it is lost. I would think that this leaves the teacher whose situation is being reviewed open to double jeopardy.

How would the act as it is presently written, and with the amendment, deal with this situation? I think this is a concern that goes beyond what the minister has referred to as common sense.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I apologize for suggesting that the member was in any way nitpicking at some of this. I realize that he is very serious about all of this. I also get a little bit tired of answering the same question over and over again, as members take their turns asking the same question over and over again. Perhaps the member will forgive me, then, for a touch of irritation now and again.

You talk about the double jeopardy, because somebody has said there is double jeopardy involved. So people wonder why we are providing double jeopardy. In this amended section particularly, it does not come to the council of the college at all. If the member has been exonerated in the appeal process through the grievance procedures and everything that is in place, or if a board dismisses a teacher and the teacher appeals it and loses the appeal, then there is no complaint from the board for dismissal because the college doesn't need to take it up, It's already been settled, so there is no double jeopardy here,

I know that the wording, the references and these sorts of things do make it difficult, both to explain and perhaps to understand, but that is why so much time has gone into it, and that's why the legislation is so wordy. If I had strictly had my way, I would have probably got together with my opposition critic, and we would have put in there that there is a council that is going to run the college to the best interests of everybody. Tell me what that doesn't cover.

Until you get everybody saying: "But it doesn't explain this and it doesn't explain that...." I know I am getting off the topic here, Madam Chairman, but the point really is that there is no double jeopardy, in that if the dismissal isn't verified through the appeal process, it doesn't come to the college.

MR. CASHORE: We will agree to disagree on that point. But on the point of your getting together with our member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), I would be glad to see proceedings suspended while the two of you do that. Perhaps together you can come up with something that is more palatable.

Anyway, in this section, prior to the discipline committee being set up and proceedings beginning, information is received by the council. My question is: does the individual about whom a complaint is being put forward have the opportunity to see all the written information that is brought forward upon which the council would base its decision with regard to its further work on that issue?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

[ Page 1105 ]

MRS. BOONE: My question is regarding the timeframe. I don't see anything in here regarding the time-frame when a council has received a complaint in writing signed by five members about the conduct of a member. Is there anything going to be in the regulations regarding the time-frame in which the college has to respond or must put forth an inquiry, or do whatever it has to do, and is there any timeframe regarding the length of that inquiry or investigation that takes place?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can only say that the council will be making its own bylaws which constitute its regulations on time-frames and things of that nature.

MRS. BOONE: Well, this is going back a little bit, but it ties into something that was a concern of ours earlier, and that was that there is no specification as to whether or not these council members will be full-time employees. You indicated at that time that the council would have to decide whether they would be not full-time employees but full-time people, whether they would be relieved from their positions and given the time.

This seems an unwieldy item. If these people are not going to be full-time people, then how are you going to suddenly pull together all of these people — more than three anyway — to have a disciplinary committee, unless you know in advance you're going to sit once a month or you're going to sit once every two months or what have you? To suddenly call together a group of people and have them leave their employment and their classrooms at the drop of a hat seems a little difficult to organize.

I would like some information from the minister as to how he sees this working, whether he sees a certain number of people being relieved of their jobs full-time or just called down to Vancouver to these meetings. Are you going to hold these disciplinary meetings perhaps on a regional basis around the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I really don't anticipate perhaps as many discipline cases as the member does, because I think these are going to be fairly rare, where the college actually has to, as with the bar association and other professional organizations, call a member before the bar sort of thing to disbar him. I think these are going to be quite rare, so I don't see the connection with whether they're full-time or part-time. The council will be able to decide what they need to do in that respect, and they can also sit as members on the inquiry.

Boards of reference have been sitting now, and that sort of thing. Much of the evidence, I presume, for the investigation can be done by people. As to how they get together for a meeting, I guess they pick up the phone and agree when they're available. I think somewhere else in the legislation it says that some decisions have to be made; it can't be prolonged indefinitely.

I don't see any difficulty in people getting together. They do now in boards of reference, in committee meetings where they evaluate whether a teaching certificate should be suspended or cancelled. They seem to manage now, and I don't see all of a sudden, because we're creating a college, that we're creating a huge, big bogeyman that is somehow or other going to be looking at 15,000 teachers a year being disciplined. The cases are rare.

MR. JONES: I have actually a very short question, but it was a long question when my colleague from Prince Rupert asked it, so I'll try to shorten it right down. I think the details of the question were given by my colleague, but in essence the question was: in terms of discipline, how does the minister envision the college doing a better job than the BCTF does now?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess because they now have a discipline committee to deal with the discipline of members in a professional role. I can only go by past practice, I guess, as to when the BCTF last dealt with a member for misconduct.

MR. JONES: The minister agreed a moment ago that, hopefully, these situations will be rare. I don't know what the records are; I would be interested, but perhaps the minister knows how often these cases occur.

It seems to me that having a discipline committee elected by teachers is very little different from having an executive committee, which is also elected by teachers. It seems that the same body is electing people to do this job — to self govern, if you like — and I really question setting up a different organization composed of virtually the same membership. Certainly these matters of self-governance and self-discipline are very difficult for every body. We have a body that is responsible for it now. My colleague indicated that there is a perception that the job isn't well done, but that's largely out of a misunderstanding of the role of school boards in discipline. I really fail to see, when we have the same body electing people with the same kind of structure to do the same job, how the job is going to be done in a superior manner.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I hesitate to join the member in what is basically discussion of the principle of the bill. In my lengthy and repeated consultation with the B.C. Teachers' Federation as to whose job it was to suspend certification or membership, I was repeatedly told that their job was to defend and protect their members, that that's why they were paying fees, and that since the minister issued certificates, the minister was the only one who could lift certificates. What we've done now is give to the college — their own professional body — the right to issue certificates; and therefore with it must go the right to lift certificates. So it's a corresponding right, and it's simply transferring these powers to the college.

MR. JONES: Well, I wasn't aware of that conversation with the BCTF, but it seems to me that under the current legislation the B.C. Teachers' Federation has the right to withdraw membership, and their withdrawing membership would have the same effect as the college's will have. It's compulsory membership, and you need to be a member to teach in a public school. I'm not sure whether they actually withdrew certificates, but I know that they prevented people — and perhaps some notorious examples — from teaching in the province of British Columbia. So I think they do have that right under legislation now. Because they do have that right now under existing legislation, I just don't see a strong defence of the establishment of the college in terms of doing a superior job. It seems like an identical structure, a duplication of service — the same membership, who are elected to do a job, putting up similar structures. Certainly the minister would want to see those who face losing their livelihood, their careers, have an adequate defence. I don't suppose it

[ Page 1106 ]

matters where the defence comes from — the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) puts up legal aid to defend people whom he's also prosecuting. I just can't see in my own mind how a superior job is going to be done by the college.

[5:00]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I find that not relevant to the discussion. I mean, that is a principle that has already been adopted by the Legislature.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to ask a very simple question. While sitting in my office I heard the minister remind us that we've been asking the same question time and time again, and if my question is going to be a repeat of a question to which you've already given an answer, then I apologize. Have you, during the course of debate on the different sections, addressed the issue of independent schools with respect to certification? The question I wanted to ask, in line with the questioning from the member who just took his seat.... Certification is a good idea for teachers, and this would be in effect what the college would be achieving for all teachers practising in the public school system. However, independent schools, as I understand it, may or may not be members of the college. In fact, I believe that it is possible to teach in the independent school system without a certificate. I wonder if the minister would comment on that, just for clarification.

I hope that that question is in order. Perhaps you've already addressed it. But I know that in your desire to ensure that we have a good, comprehensive approach to public education, be it in the independent or public school system.... We want to ensure that the quality is consistent with the standards I'm sure the public of British Columbia would expect.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I assume the member is aware that anybody in British Columbia — independent school, public school, or anything — who holds a B.C. teaching certificate is eligible to be a member of the professional college and to participate. If he wants to teach in the public school system, he must be a member. If he wants to teach in the independent school system, he may withdraw from membership in the college. It's not much different than what we have now.

The other thing that I suggest to the member is that yes, we're interested in the standards. Opening the door to all of these people who may belong and who may participate in professional development, and all of these things, I think will bring up the standard. But unless we want to take over full funding of the independent schools, I don't think we can take over full control of the requirements of their teaching staff. Yes, we can require it in the public school system; but I would say no, we can't require it.... Similarly we can't require teaching certificates in the independent school system, but many people get them, in the interests of doing a good job, and because they follow the B.C. school curriculum and are required to go through the same evaluation procedures.

I think I've answered the member's question. No, they don't have to be members of the college, but they have to get their certificate if they want a B.C. certificate actually issued by the college, which means they have to meet the standards that the college will set for certification.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the response.

Usually the advantage of being a funding body, or a source of funding for any independent entity in society, be it an independent school or an enterprise of some sort, is that the government is in a position to recommend, if not dictate, policy, especially where it concerns the education of our young people. I'm a little surprised that the minister doesn't see any problems with this approach to funding independent schools, because it has been suggested that in the future we'll see more and more funding of independent schools, primarily because the arguments are being advanced regularly that this is a right of people.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Bring it up in estimates, and I've got a good answer.

MR. BARNES: I think it's appropriate now, because you I re creating a college that you have stated will improve the situation with respect to the quality of education and the discipline of that profession of teachers; yet at the same time a large community of teachers are being excluded. I understand something like one-third of the teachers in independent schools do not have teaching certificates. I don't wish to take issue at this point, other than to say that that is an anomaly, in my view, and perhaps a problem that will come back to haunt us in the future.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to return for a moment to a line of questioning I was pursuing a bit earlier, with regard to the possibility that all members of the council could be involved in the hearing, and this would involve people who were not necessarily peers. To make my point, I have to refer to something that's yet to come up in section 29. There's an amendment coming forward at that time which I commend. It deals with a principle similar to the one that I'm concerned about here. You have in that case changed the wording to "three elected council members," referring to suspension. Given that there is a similar or related process going on here, I would like to ask the minister if he would consider in section 27(2) at least changing that to "all elected members." I think that would at the very least bring it into sync with the philosophy and the intent of an amendment that he will be presenting very soon in another section. I'm asking you if you would consider bringing consistency into your amendments by considering doing that.

Section 27 as amended approved.

On section 28.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: I think my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam has already commended the minister for this kind of amendment. I think amending this section to remove the right of government appointees to initiate discipline procedures is a very positive step. It's a step that this side of the House welcomes, and I think it allays some of the fears and concerns that have caused tremendous anxiety about this legislation.

[ Page 1107 ]

I would like to follow a similar line of questioning to that which my colleague followed, but perhaps take a slightly different turn. It seems to me that issuing a citation is a very serious step, yet any three elected members may still cause the citation to be issued. It's a question of numbers, and we are looking at the discipline committee as the group that has powers to commence formal discipline procedures. I don't know if I agree with my colleague that it should be the whole discipline committee, but it seems to me that three is a very small number when we're looking at a step in a process that is certainly likely to affect the entire career of a person, a step that can cause the loss of their livelihood. I don't suppose there's any magic number, but it seems to me that three is a very small number. Maybe 20 is too large, but is there any particular reason for choosing that small number in issuing the citation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the reason for the three members might be because of a serious situation where, say, students are at risk, and they have to move very quickly. So three members can then issue a citation which could have the teaching certificate suspended until we have time to conduct an inquiry.

There seemed to be a lot of concern — I still maintain unfounded concern — that the government was going to appoint five people there. So any place the number 3 appeared, those were going to automatically be three henchmen that the government is going to appoint to carry out some malicious plot. Certainly I don't think it was the case, but it seemed to be such a big issue and so misconstrued and so over-misinterpreted, if you like, that we said: "Well, fine, we'll...." The amendment we're dealing with says any "three elected council members" — a concession to that. Is that a problem?

MR. JONES: I appreciate that concern, that there are going to be situations, I suppose, where there is going to be a need for action to be taken. I don't know in this day of modem communications whether that would be a problem that the minister perceives or not. Again, I wonder if the amendment is going to pass, given the remarks of the minister.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, he's speaking against the amendment. Certainly that's his privilege, but.... I don't necessarily disagree with the minister in his perception that the appointees would be three henchmen, but it seems to me what when we're looking at legislation, not only does justice have to be done, which I think it would be by the appointees, but also we have to be very scrupulous about making sure that the appearance of justice is done. When we are changing legislation, when we are creating new and unknown situations, fear does come in from the past. I disagree with my friend from Kamloops that this kind of information was deliberately created to bring about this anxiety. This anxiety is natural, it is there, and I think the minister again is to be commended for making the amendment. I'm sure the amendment will pass, despite the minister's remarks.

MR. MILLER: My difficulty is with the first amendment, where the words "and hearing" are deleted. Perhaps the minister could explain why that particular amendment was brought in. I have some other questions, but if the minister would respond to that I'll.... If you're not going to respond, then I guess I'll.... I may not have any more questions if you answer that one.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to. We're discussing a one-word amendment in section 28, which puts in "elected" instead of anything else. The concern, then, is what? The word "hearing" was removed in the amendments because this deals with citations rather than hearings.

MR. MILLER: My concern is that the hearing process is not defined. You've eliminated the words "and hearing" from the title, and yet there still is a reference to a hearing in 28(l). Maybe this would be more appropriate after the amendments have passed. But still, there is no definition of the structure or other matters relative to a hearing, and it seems to me that a hearing is a central part of this section.

[5:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The hearing is an essential part of this process; agreed. It's spelled out very carefully in other sections. In this section we're talking about a three-member.... Now only elected members can issue a citation. Since it really had nothing further to do with a hearing, we took that out while we were cleaning it up. No evil motive, no nothing; just that it was dealing with citations. The hearings are covered in other sections.

MR. MILLER: I hope the minister will accept my word that I have not accused you of any evil intentions. I asked a fairly innocent question, really — why you removed some wording. There was some difficulty in responding to that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I explained it once — because it didn't apply.

MR. MILLER: It didn't apply, but the word "hearing" is in section 28(l). However, we will deal with that.

Amendment approved.

On section 28 as amended.

MR. JONES: I'm sure the minister agrees that a discipline inquiry would be a very important matter to any member of the college faced with that situation, and that it is essential that the procedures be very clearly spelled out and followed so that all concerned can understand.

I don't mean to be repetitious of a previous question asked by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), but this section states only that a citation will state matters to be inquired into. I didn't get the answer to the member's question, which was a very similar one on a previous section, but the question relates to the desire to specify such things as time, date and place of the hearing to be included in the citation. I know it's a small point, and perhaps would come in regulation, but when we're suggesting such things as citations that impact heavily on the lives of members of the college, a degree of specificity is desirable. If the minister's answer to the previous question is that it would come in regulation, then I suppose it would come in regulation here. But I think it is desirable.

[ Page 1108 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have repeatedly said that the college council will be making the bylaws to govern dates and things of that nature, not the minister. So I don't even have the power to make those regulations. So if there's a time period required, I'm assuming that they will do it. Section 22, which we passed, gives the council the power to make regulations and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, sorry, to make bylaws. We have to be careful; we had to change from rules to bylaws.

They will be doing that sort of thing, and in this section an inquiry shall be commenced by a citation issued by three elected council members.

MR. JONES: I realize that question turned out to be repetitious. Perhaps the minister could clarify this for me, which might save further repetition. I was labouring under the assumption that the minister was at full liberty to pass regulations pursuant to this act in any area he deemed desirable. The minister has twice said now that he is not able to pass regulations, and I wonder if the minister could clarify for me the-areas in which he can and cannot pass regulations through order-in-council.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Maybe we can save a lot of difficulty. The original intent in section 41, where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations, was, as we saw it, regarding the reports to be issued, not the governing of the college. For some reason, despite denials about how that section would nullify everything else in the act, in trying to explain it we were unsuccessful, The amendment to section 41, if the member wishes to look ahead, clearly specifies that the making of regulations applies only to reports and that sort of thing. The college will be very much more autonomous. So I would strongly recommend, even though I may not discuss it in the committee procedure in advance, that the members read the amendment to section 41. That might be quite helpful in this debate.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's comments. That one did escape me. I think it is very important to the debate, and I certainly will have a look at it. If I'm hearing the minister correctly, he's saying that that amendment to section 41 prescribes certain areas where bylaws or regulations may be made pursuant to this act and in broad general areas — the kind that I've been referring to, which the minister is precluded from doing.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Thank you.

I have a very small question about citations delivered by registered mail. I presume that what's meant here is that it be double-registered mail. I think we're all aware of the tremendous size of this province. I'm just wondering if, in the view of the minister, 14 days may be a short period, particularly given the kinds of things that are going to be required of the member of the college likely to be affected by this citation. I'm wondering if 14 days may leave a member adequate time to do such things as prepare a defence in response to the citation, particularly if they have to hire counsel in order to do so. So the question would be that 14 days is a short period of time for this double-registered mail process to take place, particularly in light of the fact that the member who is receiving the citation may have to retain counsel in order to prepare a defence for this. Is 14 days a standard kind of thing? Is it going to provide adequate time for preparation of defence?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It says at least 14 days before the hearing. If the citation wasn't delivered somehow or other, presumably they'd have to issue a new citation. I'm sure that if it were an emergency situation, it probably would be delivered personally at least ten days before the hearing. I'm sure that in many cases if a hearing is required, then the time would be set and arranged between counsel, or whatever the case may be. So it doesn't say the hearing must take place ten days after the citation was heard. It simply says it must be delivered, at least; there's usually a minimum period specified. I'm told that registered mail in the Interpretation Act includes certified mail, so I would imagine the counsel would make sure that the complaint got to the member.

MR. JONES: I have one more short question on this section of the act. It seems that subsection (1) says that the hearing may be held by either the discipline committee or the full council. It seems that "at the direction of any three elected council members or the chairman of the discipline committee, and for the purposes of the inquiry the council or the discipline committee shall hold a hearing" is an either-or situation and leaves it open. I'm wondering if the minister would agree with me that a better procedure would be that the discipline committee conduct the hearings and then make a report of their findings to the council. I'm suggesting that there's some lack of clarity there. The situation might be improved by suggesting that the committee conduct the hearings and then report their findings to the council.

Section 28 as amended approved.

On section 29,

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: I just want to get clear on this amendment, Madam Chairperson. The amendment again provides for the council members to be elected, regarding suspensions of college members, and adds a section suggesting: "The council may, on cause being shown, rescind or vary a suspension made under subsection (1)." Certainly this amendment removes the right of the government appointees to cause a member to be suspended in part (a) of this section. I think (b) is an important technical amendment and allows the council to rescind or change a suspension order. I think that was important.

I would just like to comment that I would again commend the minister that these amendments, although far from making the section perfect, do improve this section, and we welcome them.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

[ Page 1109 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I was on my feet, Madam Chairman. I know it's not often that I appear in the House on these matters, so you may not have gazed over here to see if somebody was seated here.

Just a question to the minister on this matter. Suspension pending a hearing is obviously a fairly strong power — if I can put it that way — in the hands of those given the power to suspend. One of the things in the section not clear to me is, is that suspension with or without pay? Perhaps the minister could clarify that for me.

[5:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe, Madam Chairman, if the person is suspended he cannot teach until it is dealt with.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't hear the answer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Could I recommend that the member listen louder.

I said that when a member has been issued a suspension in this case, he cannot teach until it has been dealt with — rescinded, buried, or whatever the case may be.

MR. SIHOTA: I may not have been listening loud, but neither was the minister, because my question.... Maybe I shouldn't say that. The question simply is this: if you are suspended, is that suspension with or without pay?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the minister, thank you very much. Is the minister then saying it is suspension with pay?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I assume that the college would make the suspension, and it would be the board's decision whether or not they pay during that period. Also, whether or not the pay is there could be determined later, if the suspension is for valid reasons. If it's not valid, if the suspension was shown to be done for a reason that didn't exist, then presumably there would be no dockage of pay. If it was for gross misconduct that they moved on quickly and the suspension stands up, then presumably the board and the council could say without pay.

MR. SIHOTA: Just on that point, the minister is indicating that he assumes this would be the case. I'm just wondering whether or not the minister would agree that it would be far more prudent to bring forward an amendment to that section to clarify that point, to give some direction to the board. That's the first question and I'll leave it at that, and maybe I'll move from there later on.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The distinction has to be made here that the college has the right to suspend or not suspend a member's certificate or membership. They have nothing to do with the pay. That's in another section as to whether pay or without pay is covered. That's in the section dealing with the School Act.

MR. SIHOTA: On the matter, then, of the suspension, is it contemplated under this section that that suspension.... I see that the section talks about on cause being shown. Does that mean that the existing law on just cause is what is to be applied by the body issuing the suspension?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. SIHOTA: I asked a question and I didn't get an answer to it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can't insist on an answer. The prerogative is up to the minister.

MR. SIHOTA: But the problem is, as the minister has indicated to me, that he did not hear the question. Certainly on that basis I think I'm quite within order to ask....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat the question, hon. member?

MR. SIHOTA: The question is this. The section talks about suspension for cause. Is it then contemplated that the existing law as to just cause is to be applied when dealing with suspension?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would say here that cause means for good reason and no adjectives attached.

MR. SIHOTA: Under the provisions of the section as I read it, the section gives the college the right to suspend a member pending a hearing; but it's also my understanding that the school boards — if the minister is listening — possess similar power. Does the minister not agree that that results in a situation of double jeopardy?

HON. MR. BRUMNIET: The answer is no. We have to make sure that there is a distinction here. This is the college dealing in a professional way with the professional certificate or membership of the member. It has nothing to do with the school board and the pay and the position that the teacher holds as a teacher out there in the classroom. That's dealt with in those other sections.

MR. SIHOTA: For clarification, then, is the minister saying that the reasons upon which a college can move under this ground are totally different than the grounds that a school board can move on in terms of terminating the services of a member?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Back in a previous section we had quite a discussion and tried to make it very, very clear that the college doesn't even deal with suspensions of certificates or of members until it has gone through all the due process from the boards.

MR. SIHOTA: My question, Madam Chairman, was not a question of due process, but a question of the grounds. Relating it to the answer the minister provided to me two questions ago, when he talked about the grounds that colleges had and the grounds that the school board have, my question was for clarification. Is the minister saying that the grounds for terminating these contracts are different in the case of a college as opposed to a school board? Is there no overlap between the grounds upon which a college can terminate and the grounds upon which a board can terminate or suspend, I should say?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm tempted to say take it up with my counsel, because you are starting to confuse me with

[ Page 1110 ]

the question. You keep talking about termination of teachers and termination of contracts and that sort of thing, which is another function altogether. Here we're talking about a college dealing with a professional decision about the professional membership in the college, just as the bar association could in effect be dealing with whether or not the member should remain under the auspices of the bar. It has nothing to do with whether he lost a case or fought a case or got fired from a firm he was working for over there. That's the distinction that I'm trying to make. If the member could sort that out so I know which question he's asking, then it would be easier for me to answer.

MR. SIH0TA: Until that last comment, I was ready to give up here.

Let me ask this. We're dealing with a section that talks about suspension "on cause being shown" — if I can quote the words from the proposed amendment. At the same time, a school board can also take actions against an employee, i.e. a teacher. I said earlier, Mr. Minister, that that was a situation of double jeopardy, and you said you didn't see it that way. Is the minister saying that the cause grounds for suspension are different in the case of the college as opposed to the cause grounds available to the school board?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If you keep it up I'll be thoroughly confused. The only place where "cause" is used in this section — and I might point out, the amendment — is in: "The council may, on cause...." — which I've interpreted as good reason being shown — "rescind or vary a suspension" — not impose it. I guess that's where my confusion came from. Where somebody shows good cause to the council that the suspension shouldn't apply, the council may vary or rescind it.

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

On section 30.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: This amendment seems to give members of the council and the discipline committee powers and protections of a commissioner under the Inquiry Act. That is going to protect members of the council against legal action resulting from the exercise of their disciplinary powers and, as I understand it, is also going to allow the council to call witnesses, to compel attendance and to require that evidence be brought into any hearing. I would like to ask a couple of questions on that amendment.

I appreciate that the minister is concerned that many of these things will be left up to the council, but in many areas of the act we do spell out important checks and balances, and in some areas we are very specific. It seems to me that in these very sensitive matters that are going to affect people's livelihoods and careers, we should try to be as specific as possible, and see that they are carefully spelled out. For these kinds of processes to work and be respected by everyone, I think they must be clear and be perceived as being fair. This amendment does go some way towards defining the hearing process, and I think the amendment is an improvement. It is clearer than what we had before. However, I do have a question or two on the amendment, which allows council members to summon witnesses and compel attendance. I think if it's fair for one side it should be fair for the other. I'm wondering whether the member who has been cited will also have this same right to compel attendance and to summon witnesses.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Basically the reason this section has been added to section 30.... It was originally in section 27, but section 27 deals with preliminary inquiries, so that power was taken out. Here, where they conduct formal hearings, we're simply saying that the committee then has to have the powers to subpoena witnesses. I presume they could do that for both sides. As you can see, it does allow already for any member to be represented by counsel at the hearing. The counsel of that person, I would presume, would seek any other assistance or witnesses that they would want. I don't know whether that is a concern, somehow or other, that something is unparalleled here.

MR. SIHOTA: Just on that point, as I read the section it gives the council all of the powers of the Inquiry Act. But let's just say, for example, that I was engaged as a solicitor — or a barrister, better put — to represent a teacher who was appearing before this body, and I wanted to compel the attendance of a witness I thought was central to my case. It seems to me that I ought to have the same power that the commission does. The commission can exercise that power under the Inquiry Act, as I read it. Would I as counsel also have the ability to issue a subpoena to force that person's attendance?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I don't think that each of the council members in this hearing has the power to call and demand anything to appear. But they have the right to persuade the committee that this is necessary in the proper defence of the client. I am not an expert in the court process, but I don't think.... Maybe they do. Maybe every lawyer involved in a court case has the right to subpoena people, to issue warrants for them to come to court or things of that nature. I am interpreting here a certain amount. But I would assume that the court has, and assume similarly here that the hearing has, the powers of an inquiry commissioner.

[5:45]

MR. SIHOTA: The amendment says: "For the purposes of conducting the inquiry under section 27(4), the council or discipline committee has the powers...." Then it spells out those powers. As far as my recollection of those powers goes, those sections allow the council to call witnesses and compel attendance and require that evidence be brought to the hearing. Like I say, the operative words are, "council or discipline committee," and if that group has that power to do that, it seems to me self-evident that the teacher who is brought before the hearing should have the same power to compel the attendance of witnesses. That's what I am trying to say.

If I can draw the analogy a little bit more firmly, we have on one hand a disciplining body that has all the powers. Let's say that they want to bring parents into attendance to talk in general terms about the characteristics of a particular teacher. If 1, on the other hand, want to counter that by bringing the

[ Page 1111 ]

principal to attend, as I read the section, the council or the discipline committee that has the powers under the Inquiry Act could issue a subpoena to have those teachers come to give evidence against the impugned teacher; but I could not, if the principal was hesitant to come, compel the attendance of the principal. I think that's where it breaks down. It seems to me that the amendment ought to be broader so as to allow both parties before the committee to have that power. Or am I wrong in that interpretation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman, I don't say that the member is wrong. But it would seem to me that if the defence counsel — let's get into the real swing of things here — has a witness they want to produce, I assume that that would be a voluntary witness.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, if the witness is not voluntary, then I think the defence counsel — in this case the council or the discipline committee, because either one may sit as a group or as the total council — has every opportunity to convince the court, has the power to say: "This witness is necessary for the proper defence of my client. I ask you to exercise your powers of the court to bring them forward." I don't see any problem, but you don't sort of.... There's no section in here that says that anybody who wants to can subpoena somebody. We're basically saying that the counsel in this hearing, as in a parallel to the court, can subpoena somebody. If defence counsel says, "I can't conduct this inquiry without this person coming before me," I'm sure the council is hardly going to.... Any decision they make is appealable to the Supreme Court, so they're hardly going to say: "No, you can't have your defence witnesses." So if you tie the whole thing together, I think the protection is there.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand what the minister is saying, but let me take the thought that the minister addressed to us a second ago one step further. Here's the flaw: if I as counsel for the impugned teacher have to come before the committee or the council to request that it exercise its powers, then two things happen. First, if I'm going to do it on the day set for the hearing — if that's the only time this council or committee can meet — then there's going to be a delay in the hearing. In the case of the teacher who has been wrongfully impugned, that's going to mean a further loss of income.

It would seem to me that we all have an interest in making sure that the hearing process happens as quickly as possible. In order to ensure that, we shouldn't have to wait until the hearing comes up for me to go to them and say: "Look, I'm having trouble compelling this witness to attend. Can we get an adjournment, wait another 30 days before we come back?"

Therefore it seems to me that, once again, it reiterates my point that there ought to be a broader amendment of the section. The only flaw I can see in that argument is.... If the council has the ability to meet on an interim basis and hear interim applications, that would remedy the flaw. But I don't see in this section or elsewhere — and the minister can tell me if it exists elsewhere — a provision that allows for interim applications to be made so that they can exercise that power to subpoena somebody for a date.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Talk to my counsel — and I don't know how to spell it anymore. It would seem to me that the council is just an alternative group that can hear this; it's not some separate body over here. In other words, if this hearing is being conducted by the discipline committee, which may be constituted of six people by choice, then they conduct the hearing. If the council is conducting the hearing — because every member of council can sit on the committee — they can set all 20 of them as the hearing body. In that sense, the council is going to be the hearing, or the discipline committee is the hearing — either one of them. The discipline committee doesn't have to go to the council in this case to get permission to do something. It's one and the same group, and I would assume that as preparations are made for this hearing, as they are in other situations, people would say: "These are the people I need." Then this group that forms the hearing would be the one that says: "Well then, we will make sure that these people are there." I don't know how the process works in technical terms, but I don't think that if the discipline committee or the council hired a prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney would have the right to subpoena people. He would also have to appear and ask this court, if you like, to issue the subpoena. I'm sure that most of those arrangements could be made in advance.

I'm trying as best I can to keep some sense in this as well as the legal technicalities, which don't intrigue me nearly as much as perhaps they do other people.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand what the minister is saying, and I see his point, to the point that he takes it. The discipline committee, or the council, whichever body is going to be hearing this matter, has the right to hear and the right to make orders under the Inquiry Act, but it doesn't seem to me anywhere in the legislation — correct me if I'm wrong on this — to have been given the mandate under the legislation to have interim hearings to hear applications to exercise their power under the Inquiry Act, and that's the key to it. If it has that, then clearly you're not going to have delays in hearings. But does it or does it not...?

Interjection.

MR. SMOTA: I don't see that specified in the section.

Well, my next question then, not that the minister has informally answered that one, is: what about the matter of cost for these witnesses? How are they to be determined? Is that provided for in the act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, in an earlier section. The college may make bylaws governing costs and expenses that are incurred, and so presumably they would cover this. I would think bylaws would sort of specify some of these things: what would be covered, what wouldn't be covered, and that sort of thing; and of course subject to the wishes of their members.

I have some difficulty repeatedly trying to defend that the council of the college is not the body over here that's acting as prosecutor, or something, over all of the teachers. The council is the representative of the teachers. So many of the difficulties in the protagonist situations that seem to be anticipated here aren't there, because the people are looking after their own colleagues.

[ Page 1112 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for his answer. I want to make it clear that I don't think that the council will be a protagonist either. Hopefully, it will be a neutral adjudicative body to hear these types of matters, exercising all the normal powers of an adjudicative body. Unfortunately, it invites an adversarial system to make that decision. Certainly I want my comments to be understood, to assume that the council can be siding on one side or the other. I agree with the minister that that would not be appropriate, nor I don't think contemplated, under the legislation.

MR. JONES: Going back to the very last comment that the minister made with respect to bylaws, again, I think we're proposing something in the future that we're suggesting should be here.

I think the minister has, in many of these amendments, shown a tremendous amount of good faith, putting into the legislation amendments that make it fair, and not only make it fair but make it appear to be fair. What we're doing here in opposition is suggesting another one of those situations that might be looked at so that the kinds of checks and balances enable anybody reading the legislation and who may not read the regulations to have an opportunity to say: yes, this is a fair situation; not only the council and the committee have certain powers under the Inquiry Act, but those same kinds of opportunities are available for those who are being served. I would hope the minister would take those comments under advisement.

We are looking at this legislation as a goal to try and make it more fair and equitable, and to appear fair and equitable.

Amendment approved.

On section 30 as amended.

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the minister with regard to the first part, which is that a member may appear personally or with counsel at the hearing. It is my understanding that probably those teachers that are in an organized association or union state would have their counsel paid for them by their association, and those members of the council that would be in the independent schools situation would not have that backing. What does the minister see as being their options with regard to counsel?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to think whether I am to assume that any organization will automatically pay any expenses incurred by members or whether that decision is the decision of the organization. So it can be the decision of the association, it can be the decision of the union. It can be their decision as to whether they are going to pay their members. The council obviously can make bylaws to say that members will be reimbursed if they're found innocent, or there may be some procedure that would apply equally to people before or after an accusation is made.

MRS. BOONE: I think it's automatic. Any union does back its members up when they are brought up on a disciplinary matter. Therefore those teachers in a unionized situation would receive support and backing for counsel, but those in a non-union situation wouldn't. If you carry this further, Mr. Minister, it would appear that any person in an independent school that was called up for lack of.... What's the word?

MR. RABBITT: No help.

MRS. BOONE: Oh, no help. Okay.

...for not performing, for not having the proper conduct, or what have you.... They would then merely drop their membership in the college, not go through this procedure, and they could still maintain teaching in the private school system. In the public school system, though, a teacher brought up for incompetence — that is the word I'm thinking of — would have to go through this procedure and would be suspended or eliminated from the school system. Yet there is not that protection for the children in the private school system, because the teachers do not have to be members of this college. If they found teachers who were incompetent or guilty of misconduct, then you couldn't suspend them or do any of those things, because merely by dropping their membership in the college they would not have to abide by any of the rules and regulations of the college and could continue teaching in the private school system, incompetent as they were.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall section 30 as amended pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Inasmuch as I was on my feet and, I guess, the presumption of the opposition was that I was going to move adjournment or ask the committee to report, we will consider that section 30 as amended has not been passed. Therefore the member has further debate tomorrow.

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 6:01 p.m.

[ Page 1113 ]

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 24,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "and certification",

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting everything after "each person who is" and substituting

(a) admitted to membership of the college, or

(b) who is a member under section 3 (1) (a) or (b), whether or not such a member resigns under section 3 (3)., and

(c) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) The fact that a member

(a) resigns from the college,

(b) ceases to be a member of the college for failure to pay fees, or

(c) fails to renew his membership in the college

does not have the effect of canceling the member's certificate of qualification.

SECTION 27, by deleting the proposed subsections (3) and (4) and substituting the following:

(3) After

(a) the college has received, in respect of a member, a report from a board under section 126 of the School Act

(i) where, under section 122 (4) of the School Act, a teacher is entitled to apply to the minister for an investigation and no application has been made within the time permitted or if an investigation has been held it has been concluded, or

(ii) where a grievance has been taken in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement or an agreement under section 131.1 (1) by the member and the grievance procedure has been concluded, or

(b) the council has received a complaint in writing signed by 5 members about the conduct of a member, the council or discipline committee may, after considering the report or complaint, make or cause to be made a preliminary investigation into the conduct or competence of the member in respect of whom the report or complaint is made.

(4) The council or discipline committee may, whether or not it has conducted a preliminary investigation under subsection (3), inquire into the conduct or competence, or both, of any member in respect of whom a report or complaint referred to in subsection (3) is made.

SECTION 28,

(a) in the proposed marginal note by deleting "and hearing", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "3 council members" and substituting "3 elected council members".

SECTION 29,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "3 council members" and substituting "3 elected council members", and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) The council may, on cause being shown, rescind or vary a suspension made under subsection (1).

SECTION 30, by adding the following subsection:

(3) For the purposes of conducting the inquiry under section 27 (4), the council or discipline committee has the powers, protection and privileges of a commissioner under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act.