[ Page 1115 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

International Tillex Enterprise Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 1115

South Moresby national park reserve. Mr. Miller –– 1115

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

Mr. Guno

Proposed sales tax on food. Mr. Clark –– 1116

Tabling Documents –– 1117

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 1117

Mr. Jones

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Appendix –– 1140

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

INTERNATIONAL TILLEX ENTERPRISE LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. The International Tillex purchase of British Insurance Management was subject to an independent valuation, but this was never provided to the exchange. Has the minister determined why this was not done?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I have before me now the considerably expanded list of the sequence of events surrounding that particular firm. I'll have to research the voluminous material here to determine the specifics of the question. But dealing with the general question, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is obviously zeroing in on the activities of this particular firm.

I'd like to suggest that some of the information in the question period and the answer to the ministerial statement yesterday contained inaccurate information which, to my regret I suspect, has been reproduced and had a wider distribution, and as a consequence of that inaccuracy it seems to me we are embarked on a course here that has the potential to do some considerable damage to the credibility of the organization of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and to the credibility of its ability to monitor its own affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to share, with any questioner who has a genuine concern, a full set of details and facts as they are available to me, and I will undertake to supply those expeditiously in every circumstance. I think the point of issue here is not the question of how a particular item might have been handled, but rather about one of process and of correctness, if you like. I'm very concerned that by embarking on this course of action with this stream of questions, we can go on forever and do nothing but damage to the efforts we're trying to build regarding the credibility of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, its usefulness as an instrument of economic recovery, and a variety of things which I'm sure every citizen of the province would support and endorse.

I cannot answer that specific question that's put to me without reading the material before me; it's too specific. I do undertake to provide that kind of information. But I deplore this kind of dialogue in the public arena, in which inaccurate information is reproduced to this extent, and damage is subsequently done to the institution itself.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. Right from the beginning this government has been trying to cover up the basic facts and its own incompetence in failing to investigate the VSE.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member put his question.

MR. SIHOTA: The question is this: has the minister determined why the Vancouver Stock Exchange decided only to fine the lead brokers and not the brokerage houses of Canarim and Continental Carlisle Douglas in this scam?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, there could be no better illustration of my concern about the damage that can be done in this House than with questions that are not solidly based on fact and which clearly point to the credibility of individuals in our business community and of the institution that is at the very basis of our claim for an international financial centre in the city of Vancouver and in the province of British Columbia. I think it's critical that if we are to have questions put in this House, they should at the minimum be based upon fact. I undertake to provide an adequate level of information to the opposition so that those questions can be based on fact and so that some credible treatment of the truth of the matter can be made here.

I obviously can't speak to the specifics of an individual firm or group of firms, as has been suggested here, without going back to staff for more information. But I've got sufficient information here to indicate that the comment that a firm that only had $18,000 in the bank was bidding on a $10 million firm is inaccurate. In fact, that firm had over $100,000 in the bank when it made that offer, and a public disclaimer was made in a press statement, which said that there was a requirement by the Vancouver Stock Exchange that there would have to be considerably more information provided before that transaction could be approved. That's here and it's fact, contrary to what was disseminated yesterday in the media at large. We are doing damage, my friends, to the very institutions we are here to try to nurture and protect.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA: If there's any damage being done in this case, Mr. Speaker, it's being done by the minister, who obviously does not understand that it's his job to make sure that the VSE is clean. We on this side of the House want to make sure that its operations are clean, and I will share with the minister the January 9 disclosure statement, if he wants it, which shows $18,000 in cash assets. The minister talks about facts. The VSE officials admitted that they knew that the principals of Tillex and BIM were one and the same, and yet that fact was not disclosed to investors on the market. Has the minister investigated as to why that fact was not disclosed?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm not prepared to concede the fact. The information before me at the moment is that International Tillex was formed in 1983. The first time the BIM takeover crosses my chronological sequence of events appears to be some time in March of 1985. Every publicly traded firm daily has cash transactions, business transactions, ownership transactions. At any time I can be asked to identify who the principals may be. Surely no sensible person would expect that those kinds of answers can be given expeditiously.

What I'm trying to point out is that the continued focus suggesting some kind of inappropriate behaviour on the part of appointed or elected officials is inappropriate and unfair to the whole basis of our claim for an international financial centre. It is important that the public have some confidence in our institutions.

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Premier. It appears we're heading down that well-known road to confrontation with regard to the national park reserve in South Moresby.

[ Page 1116 ]

Could the Premier advise whether the government really intended that the proposal put forward for $100 million a year and ten years continued logging was a realistic proposal that could be negotiated, or was that proposal put forward in terms of trying to subvert negotiations with the federal government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's no confrontation. As a matter of fact, the negotiations between ourselves and the federal government are very amicable. I'm not prepared to say what the figures are, because we're negotiating with the federal government on the figures and the considerations that need to be provided with respect to the establishment of a park. Keep in mind, as I said yesterday, that there's a great interest nationally and internationally in a park on the Queen Charlottes, but we as legislators and members of this assembly need to be concerned as well about the jobs of the people in the area — the loggers, the logging company providing the jobs; the community of Sandspit, and what could happen to it if those jobs were to disappear suddenly. Somebody had best protect those people working there and make sure their interest isn't forgotten.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary to the Premier. Obviously, Mr. Premier, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) does not see a park on South Moresby. Is that not really the government's position in bargaining?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. As mentioned yesterday as well, we have taken most of the initiatives in that regard in the last while. We've had good cooperation from the federal government. We're working very closely together on this, as we are on a number of things. I think we have a lot of common interests. But let me repeat: we must look after B.C.'s position; if we don't, things might be overlooked which are extremely important to the people on the Queen Charlottes.

MS. EDWARDS: To the Premier. The quotation I have that the Minister of Tourism said was that logging, mining, fishing and tourism will operate side by side, and South Moresby will be the place we'll prove it. Is that not the position of the provincial government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can't verify the item from the newspaper, or whatever the quote is. But right now we do have these activities going side by side, and obviously there would be some change made. However, we would still have logging on the Queen Charlottes, but elsewhere on the Queen Charlottes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the Premier. The federal minister indicated in February that he wasn't interested in acquiring land on which the forest had been clearcut. Can the Premier advise us how this area could possibly be defined as a park after this sort of logging which the government proposes has taken place?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the government took the action of putting a moratorium on the issuance of cutting permits. So in fact we have taken that step, and that's where it stands now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier advise the House if their compensation requests accommodate the amounts the timber companies see as necessary in terms of compensation to them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There are numerous considerations obviously. The first is the loggers in the area, the people employed there, and how we protect them. The communities, particularly Sandspit, are dependent on that activity and how we protect the community. The company certainly has an interest in the area, and they've gone in there in good faith thinking they could continue their operation for some years to come. They certainly must be deserving of some consideration and protection. There's also British Columbia as a whole. If we give up a considerable resource in order to provide a national park which is of interest to people throughout Canada — and elsewhere in the world, perhaps — then there too needs to be some consideration for the alienation of that resource.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the Premier is saying that the government wanted money for the province and money for the companies as well?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can assure the hon. member that British Columbians can feel assured that they have good negotiators acting on their behalf and that we're protecting the interests of British Columbians.

MR. GUNO: This is further to the Premier. In your answer you mentioned the interests of the people in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I want to raise the issue of the interests of the Haida nation. Will the Premier explain to this House that given the Haida nation's legitimate role in this matter, why hasn't he or any of his ministers scheduled a single meeting with the Haida nation to seek their advice or to inform them about the negotiations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry, what was the last part?

MR. ROSE: Why haven't you talked to the Haidas?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have talked to a representative of the Haida community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Miles Richardson.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is Mr. Haida.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Maybe three or four days ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you listen?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I listened to him.

PROPOSED SALES TAX ON FOOD

MR. CLARK: I have a new question for the Premier. Has the Premier expressed any opposition to the federal government regarding the proposed federal sales tax on food?

[ Page 1117 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, it was: have you talked to the federal government about the sales tax on food? No, we've not talked about the sales tax on food.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Today, for sure, in the gallery are two very distinguished and important visitors from Senegal: His Excellency Abd'el Kader Fall, the ambassador; and Mr. Balla Dia, the counsellor of the embassy of Senegal in Ottawa. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

One further introduction: from the Willingdon Mennonite Brethren Church in Burnaby, Pastor Carlin Weinhauer is here today in the gallery. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to make a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.

The moratorium on logging on South Moresby is about to lapse. The resumption of logging appears imminent, should the bilateral negotiations with the federal government collapse. As a result of the government's ultimatum, the opposition is concerned that the government of British Columbia may have taken a position regarding compensation and cutting rights that is impossible for the federal government to accept. I move therefore that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing the park reserve on South Moresby.

MR. SPEAKER: I would tend to want to reserve my decision on this, but I will hear from the government House Leader before I make a decision.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think Your Honour should be aware of the fact — and so should the Leader of the Opposition, if he's read the newspaper articles on this issue which have been going on since March 17, when we issued the first cutting moratorium, and then a press release that was made by the hon. federal minister, Mr. McMillan, and me on April 8, 1987 — that we agreed, and it's been reported many times and widely, that all discussions would be done in camera. Therefore for the government of British Columbia to enter into open debate on this issue now would be stepping away from that commitment we had to the government of Canada and would be totally inappropriate. I hope Your Honour will take that into consideration when deciding.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's in camera, hon. member. It's a submission to the Speaker.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it's erroneous or not, but the hon. House Leader for the government suggested that this was all in camera and couldn't be talked about while negotiations were going on. We have been receiving information about a 24-hour ultimatum, and that is the reason we felt, in terms of the position taken by the provincial government vis-à-vis the federal government.... It's upon this point — the urgency of the debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To respond to that, the opposition would have to tell us when they heard about the 24-hour moratorium. Was it two o'clock yesterday afternoon, or six o'clock yesterday afternoon? If it wasn't until six, then the 24 hours haven't expired.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I know we don't need to have the debate now, and I'm quite sure you're going to observe that in a moment, but the information that we have is that the 24 hours lapsed at six o'clock yesterday afternoon, and therefore this was the first opportunity this House had to bring up this matter of urgency in the proper order.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both the hon. members for their statements. The Speaker has not had an opportunity to review the question — I just got a copy of it as we went into question period, and obviously there were a lot of questions. So I would like to go back to my chambers and study this and come back to the House in about one hour with a decision.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1986 annual report of the ombudsman.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 30 as amended.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to rise and carry on our debate in committee stage....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you take your seat for just a moment. Hon. members, would you please take your seats. If you want to hold conversations, I would prefer them to be outside the chamber. We'll continue with third reading of Bill 20.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think that comment was very appropriate as we discuss committee stage on the Teaching Profession Act. We left off yesterday having approved the amendment on section 30, and there's just a short question or two on the section as amended that I would like to raise with the House.

Firstly, considering the conduct of hearings, I'd like to comment on a section that the bill is silent on. Perhaps the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) would be a better person to make this comment, because she has long and strongly been a defender of the north and rural regions of this province.

If we are considering hearings being held to discuss discipline of teachers, we have to consider the site of these

[ Page 1118 ]

hearings. The question arises, and perhaps the minister, being from a rural riding himself, would be able to comment if these hearings would be held in Vancouver — would he anticipate that? — or would they be able to be held in regions throughout the province so that witnesses and lawyers perhaps more readily can serve their clients?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, nowhere in the act does it say anything about all the meetings having to be held in one place. I'm sure that the member would not expect me to put into the legislation all of the hearings that may come up. So it's open. I expect that the council will use its good sense as to where the hearings should be held.

MR. JONES: My point was that the act is silent on that. I guess it is an open question, and one on which the college will decide the best procedure for its members.

One more question on costs, and I know this is another difficult one –– I think we clarified some of these things yesterday — and I think that if we clarify these kinds of things, we will prevent repetition of these kinds of questions. I believe the minister indicated yesterday that under these circumstances, if acquitted, the member's lost salary will be reimbursed. I think that is in the School Act. With respect to the costs that may be incurred as witnesses are asked to appear, I believe the minister responded yesterday that the college would presumably pick up those costs. But that was speculative, so we don't know. With respect to legal costs, the minister indicated — or I think the debate arrived at the conclusion — that perhaps the union or the association, in serving its members, would pick up those costs. If acquitted after the hearing, the member has many costs; these are on top of costs that may have already been incurred during the school board procedures. I would just like to ask the minister if in this circumstance he would anticipate the costs of defending oneself against a citation by the college being picked up by the college. We had an answer on salary, and that was covered in the act: if a member is acquitted, his salary will be reimbursed. But if acquitted, would the costs of this legal procedure be picked up by the college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I believe section 22(1)(k) says that the person may be required to pay some or all of the costs in the case of an adverse decision. Therefore the costs where a person is acquitted would appear to be paid for him.

Section 30 as amended approved.

On section 31.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, section 31 deals with a member failing to attend a hearing. I have some concerns about this section. It is a short section, but not an unimportant section. It suggests that if a member fails to attend the hearing, the council or the discipline committee may, on proof of service of the citation, proceed with the hearing, and may, without further notice to the person cited, make a report of its findings or take other action it is authorized to take under this act.

In drafting legislation, I think we have to consider checks and balances; we have to consider fairness. I don't think anybody wants loopholes created in this section, so that people can avoid appearing at these hearings. But the section that suggests that the council or the discipline committee may, on proof of service, carry on seems to me to leave a loophole on the other side. It seems to me that there are legitimate reasons why an individual might fail to attend a hearing — such things as transportation problems or confusion about dates. Confusion about dates could be on the council's part or the member's part. Accidents could occur, and I would think that because of the telephone communication available today, it should be relatively easy to determine if the non-appearance of the member is legitimate or illegitimate. If it is legitimate, the hearing could still go on.

It seems to me that an amendment, perhaps after the word "citation," something to the effect that if it has been determined that there is no reasonable cause for the member's failure to attend.... Then proceed with the hearing and the kinds of actions the hearing may wish to take. It seems to me that situations may occur.... I would like to ask the minister: does he not agree that there can be legitimate reasons for non-appearance?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This is where I have to consider this in the nature of nitpicking in order to debate a clause. It says "on proof of service of the citation," so that before they can proceed with any action with that, they have to assure themselves that the member was notified and was clearly aware that the hearing had been scheduled for that day and that time.

I assume that the member is once again forgetting that these are colleagues, professional teachers, working on behalf of their members. To write into this clause that the person must appear unless he has a reason not to appear.... You know, there could be hundreds of excuses that people could use. When the arrangements for the hearing are made.... I don't think you can write into any clause "unless the member has a good reason from his point of view not to appear." I am sure that if the person were sick, or if something else happened, in order to have a fair hearing the council would certainly make arrangements with the member.

The other thing that the member seems to forget is that if they went ahead without properly checking it out and the member appealed to the Supreme Court, having that right, they would have to be able to assure the Supreme Court that they made all reasonable and proper and just efforts to have the member appear. So all that protection is built in. To start writing in other clauses, to try to restate all of the rights and privileges of appeal, right to the Supreme Court, that are available to a member to assure that the process is fair and just, I think, is asking.... I don't know what it's asking, quite frankly.

MRS. BOONE: I don't believe for a minute that it's necessary to put anything tremendously difficult in this, but this could have been addressed by merely saying that the member must respond within ten days of receiving and present reasons as to why he or she cannot appear at such time. This is generally something that is allowed most people, and it protects not just them but the college as well because it gives them a time-frame.

Otherwise somebody could respond 15 days later, or what have you. But surely if you had within there seven or ten days and you said that if you didn't hear from somebody within that time period, then you could assume that they will be at that hearing. Without that sort of thing in there.... It's not an uncommon thing to have in any kind of a legal situation,

[ Page 1119 ]

and this is a legal situation. It is definitely a legal situation because you are retaining counsel and you're expecting the teacher to retain counsel as well. I can't understand why you get so upset and say it's nitpicking. Surely it's not nitpicking to ensure that both sides are covered. To assume that people are going on to the Supreme Court is to assume that people have a tremendous amount of money, and to go on to any kind of a court system costs a lot of money. I don't think that people should be using that as a last resort when you can put just a mere little phrase in that will clear it up.

MR. JONES: I have on a number of occasions complimented the minister for his patience in going through this bill because I think all members know this is a very important bill. I think it's important that this process take place as well. Certainly had the kind of process gone on that had gone on in other areas — for example, the bill that dealt with the Sechelt Indian district government which I think went a couple of years in the consultation process and worked properly back and forth between the bodies there.... I think that one passed through the House in a few minutes, and the opposition didn't feel it necessary to enter into detailed debate on each section. In the review of the legal profession act, certainly there was four years of consultation in that act. I don't think the concerns and anxieties that surround this bill were there. The Premier, were he standing on this side of the House.... When he had an opportunity to look at the entrenchment of native Indian rights in the constitution, he said that he had to know what everything meant in that constitution with respect to that and how much it cost.

I don't think we're going to that kind of detail in this one, but I think we are reviewing each section carefully and asking pertinent questions, and the minister has been very helpful and, I think, is going to allay some of the concerns that are out there in the province. I think we're achieving that by this section. I would remind the minister as well that no more than two days ago we received some eight pages of amendments to this bill, and something like 40 sections have been amended.

I think this is a difficult process for us all, and I think we do want to do a good job, and we want to do a job on this side of the House that I think the people of this province will appreciate and will respect.

[2:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I'd just like to make clear to the minister that I wonder again about recognition of the whole province. I have sat on quasi judicial boards for a number of years. I don't know if you've done that yourself, but if you have you will know that it's not simply the person who is coming to a hearing on one day who has a flat tire and arrives an hour or an hour and a half late; it is sometimes the person who is coming to a hearing whose bridge washed out and can't get there or can't make the communication to say that. I think it's clear that the bureaucracy that goes on around these kinds of hearings sometimes creates these problems.

If the minister recognizes at all that these kinds of things could happen relatively easily, particularly in the rural areas of the province, I think that it would be very clear that it's far more simple to put a phrase in the legislation than it is to let this go to the possibility that a person has to appeal to the Supreme Court because he missed a hearing.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I assume that when the person has the ability and the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, that tempers the judgment of the group that is making decisions. I cannot somehow or other visualize this hearing if a person had a flat tire or who was fogged in at an airport and couldn't make it, that they would say,"We're going to stick to the letter of the law here," or "You were served notice, therefore we're going to go ahead with the hearing." And then try to defend that in common sense, in common law, before the courts? So the reason that I guess I perhaps indicated some irritation here is because I assumed that the members had read other sections, that we're not dealing with this Section in isolation, that it is part of the bill, and that all of these assurances that you want are already built in for the members, without in each clause saying that a hearing shall be held. But there's going to be.... We're not trying to set up a massive communications network; we're trying to provide to the college the right to hold a hearing. The assurances are all built in — the protection to the members that you're asking for. They're not phrased in each one of the clauses, but they're all built in.

MRS. BOONE: The minister is referring to the judicial system there. I can point to the very system that isn't working. The example that I'll give you is with regard to Fort Ware. Natives getting out of Fort Ware come to a court date in Mackenzie. If they happen to be fogged in and are unable to get there, unable to reach their destination, a bench warrant is then issued for those people. So it is not always fair. It is not always to assume that it is fair because the Supreme Court is there for an ultimate decision. One must make sure that written into these things are provisions so that people do have fairness. Fairness does not exist in the legal system, and it certainly doesn't exist in this legislation here.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

MR. JONES: This is the section that specifies actions that the council or discipline committee may take after a hearing, such things as dismissing the citation, determining that there was unprofessional conduct or determining incompetence and making other reports as they see fit. It seems to me to be what this section of the bill is saying.

I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to decisions that have been taken and the powers of the council. It seems to me that reports and recommendations to the council are implied. I think that's one of the things the minister would answer. Obviously if the council is going to take actions based on the discipline committee, then there would be reports from the discipline committee. Yet in 32(a) I don't know if that is implied. If the discipline committee dismisses the citation, does a report then go to the council? Further to that, is the full council then empowered, if it has reports on all these situations, to review those decisions and possibly overturn decisions of the discipline committee?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would seem to me that if the discipline committee that has held the investigation decides that the citation isn't warranted and dismisses it, then it would hardly go to the full council to review to see whether or not the citation should be put back in place. When we get to the next section, I think the member will realize that where an adverse decision is made, then the council must by resolution deal with it. So further protection is built in for the member.

[ Page 1120 ]

But in subsection (a), if the discipline committee, which can be the quorum of three all the way up to the full council of 20, dismisses it, then no, there's no process to bring it up again before a full council. I don't know that there would be a need to do that.

MR. JONES: On (b) and (c), I still think this question remains: what if the discipline committee erred in its judgment? Certainly reports will then go to the council and will be reviewed in order that the council may determine the kind of action it wishes to take. I don't see that there is then an opportunity to overturn a decision of the discipline committee.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To dismiss it or ...?

MR. JONES: To dismiss it. Suppose, for example, we had a discipline committee that found a member guilty of misconduct, and a report was sent to the council. Would there be an opportunity for that council not to reprimand, not to suspend, not to terminate based on that report, but based on their review of the decision of the discipline committee?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm certain, Madam Chairman, that the member is quite sincere in the questioning, but I thought we were still on.... If the discipline committee, having held an inquiry, determines in their judgment that there's no evidence, or inadequate evidence, to support the claim or the complaint against the member, and they say: "We're dismissing this; there's no evidence to support it...." Surely the council does not need the power not to take action and not to do that. They will have nothing to deal with if the discipline committee doesn't give them anything to deal with. So they don't need powers not to do things; they need power to do things.

MR. JONES: That was the answer to my first question. Perhaps the minister is correct, but it seems to me that if the hearing is held by the discipline committee, and that discipline committee finds a member guilty of, say, misconduct, then I assume a report is implied. It goes to the council, and that report recommends that this member is guilty of misconduct. Is there an opportunity then for the council to review that decision?

Let's suppose that it reviews the information on which that decision was made, rather than just the decision, and on the basis of that information finds that the discipline committee erred in its decision. Is there then an opportunity for that council to overturn the decision? It seems to me that by a majority vote of the council, what's available at that point are reprimand, suspension, or termination of membership and cancellation of the certificate. I don't know if there's an opportunity at that point, once the council has received its report and the report is an adverse one, for that council to overturn the decision and not in effect dismiss the citation — because that's the power of the committee — but find the member innocent of that charge of misconduct.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question. If the discipline committee feels that the member is guilty — let's put it in those simple terms — then they may take that ahead to the council. The council doesn't have another hearing of its own; they've delegated that to the discipline committee, and they can take appropriate action by suspending, adjusting or whatever. In other words, they determine what the punishment shall be.

What I thought the member was asking was that if they find the member not guilty, how do they deal with it? My answer was that they don't, because they're not asked to deal with it. There's no cause to deal with it. But the second part of the.... Maybe that's what the member was asking. I thought you were on subsection (a), because that's where you led me. If we're on the other sections, then.... So really, the answer to the second part of your question is no, the council does not rehear it. What the member then has after the reprimand, or the council decides that.... The member has the appeal to the courts.

MR. JONES: That was the question, Mr. Minister. So it seemed that when it went from the discipline committee to the council, that was sort of an avenue of appeal. The minister's answer is suggesting that there is no appeal there, that the council must follow the kind of recommendation that the discipline committee makes; and that, as the minister says, the only option that that council has by majority vote is to determine the punishment. I think that's what the minister said, So there's no kind of appeal process in there from the discipline committee to the council. I thank the minister for that.

I would like to ask a second question. Again, it's a question on which the bill is silent. Yesterday we discussed the rights of the council, under the Inquiry Act, to call witnesses and receive documents and do those kinds of things. I guess I'm looking at the legislation to make sure that it's fair on both sides. I'm wondering, in this instance, if the member who has been the subject of the inquiry will have any right — and I think this is a principle in law too — to hear the decision of the council in person? I know the bill is silent on that, but I would appreciate the minister's reaction,

[3:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't even visualize an instance where an inquiry or hearing is held to determine whether or not the certificate is to be lifted and then they don't let the member know. When a person is before the courts — let's use the legal analogy — I don't know of anywhere where a person is required to have a hearing in court and then the court shall make known to the person the decision. To me, it goes without saying. Obviously, the decision can be given to them orally, or in writing if the member for instance didn't appear — as we were talking about in an earlier clause. Then the decision in writing is known. I know right now, as the minister, that where, say, we cancel a certificate for a teacher, first of all the teacher is informed that this action is being planned, then has the right to challenge why it shouldn't be done, and then, when the certificate is lifted, is informed that it has been. So I don't really see a problem with the legislation not saying, after all the hearings and all the decisions and whatever the council decides: "And it must so inform the member." That's what the whole process is about.

MR. JONES: If I am the accused and have appeared before the committee and had these decisions made, and I go through all the processes, and I end up in court, it seems to

[ Page 1121 ]

me that in court, when that decision is made and handed down, I have the opportunity to be there in person.

My question to the minister was: in this process, when the council does a similar kind of thing at that stage in the proceedings, does the member, or does the minister think the member should, have the right to appear in person as that decision is made by the council? Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether it is a fundamental principle of law. But it seems to me that in court decisions you do have the right to appear in person when those decisions are handed down. And it seems to me that it is a dramatic process and a significant process. I think the right to be present is an important right. I wonder if the minister agrees that the right to appear in person at the point of decision is one that a member should have.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the short answer is no, I don't think there's any requirement that the person must appear in person after having been told: "We are going to hold a meeting to cancel your certificate; you must be there to witness this in person." You might have to drag the person there. Whether they have the right.... ? I think they would certainly have the full right to appear before the inquiry, and the inquiry would give them the decision that they're taking forward, and the council would inform them then what the decision was. If there was any reprimand, obviously the member would have to be told what the reprimand was, or it would have no effect. If they are going to suspend the membership, they have to let the member know. But I don't think there's any requirement, nor can I visualize that there should be a requirement that the person has to be there in person to get this decision.

MR. JONES: It's interesting that the minister looks upon the process in terms of the requirements of the member. I was looking upon it, and as the minister correctly determined, in terms of the right. It seems to me that from the legal process I have the right to appear in person not only at the point of judgment but also at the point of determination of punishment. So at both points — when the court makes the decision that I'm guilty and when the court suggests that I receive a certain punishment — I am allowed, permitted, and in fact have the right to be present. I was trying to make the point that perhaps, in fairness to all sides, that should be a right. I know the bill is silent on that. I was inquiring of the minister whether he felt that that is a reasonable right for a member of the college to have. The answer that it not be a requirement I think is a reasonable one. The question remains whether or not it should be a fundamental right to appear at both points: the point of determination of guilt or innocence and the point of determination of punishment. I don't know whether the minister has a response to that or not.

The section uses language that I think we're familiar with, yet when I look at this language and at the key terms in the language, I still have some confusion. I'm sure the minister has thought more about this section and this kind of thing than I have, although I've participated in hearings to determine not incompetence, but misconduct. These are very trying meetings, very painful meetings, very difficult meetings, particularly when people's careers and lives are at stake. Just in terms of the language — competence would be a much more difficult area to define, and I wouldn't ask that — I would like to ask the minister what he sees in the language around "professional misconduct" and "conduct unbecoming a member." They seem very similar to me; perhaps both are necessary and it's fair that both be there. But I wonder if the minister would be willing to see.... I would be interested to see what examples the minister might see for professional misconduct as different from conduct unbecoming a member

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They do seem very similar, but my legal adviser tells me that there have been decisions in the past where a distinction has been made between the two, and so we're covering both of them. Whether conduct unbecoming a member of the college and professional misconduct are different or not, I suppose it makes certain that both are covered should a case come forward.

MR. JONES: I would like to ask one further question on this section, and it has to do with the competence part of it. The current law governing these kinds of situations requires a process of evaluation. Some suggest that it's a lengthy process, but it's one that does provide due process for members of the teaching profession to shape up before they have to be shipped out, if you like. Having this evaluation process built into the situation — which may end up with a member losing their certificate and their right to teach — is an important part that is missing, but I'm wondering if there's any opportunity for this kind of thing to feed into this process. I guess I'm wondering what kinds of evidence may be entered. It seems to me that teaching reports are a critical part of this whole process, and I would like to know if the minister sees teaching reports being entered as evidence in this process. Also, is there any avenue for entering parental complaints or evidence as well?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we have to go back and remember that in a previous section, it was clearly established that before a college member would come before the council....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, you weren't interested in the answer.

MR. JONES: I'm very interested.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Before the college member ever came before the council on an incompetence hearing, it would only happen after all of the due process for competence had been exhausted at the local level, through the appeal processes and whatever processes are established. If after all that process the member was clearly labelled as incompetent, then it could go to the college council to look at it, and if they are going to deal with this, it naturally follows that they would do it on the basis of the evidence that was presented. That's why they have all the rights of a commissioner in order to ask for all of that evidence. But it doesn't even come before them, so when you say the principals' reports and all of those reports.... That has all happened, and all of the appeal process has been exhausted, before it ever comes to the council.

I tried to put it in these words yesterday: that the council would have to only determine whether that incompetence was so significant that the teacher should have his certificate suspended — not just his job lost.

[ Page 1122 ]

MR. JONES: Thank you for that answer, Mr. Minister.

I would like to pursue that point. Perhaps it has been made before, but it hasn't really been made clear to me. It's still unclear in my mind how this body of peers determines exactly what you said — determines that the incompetence was so serious that it warrants this other action. It seems to me that there has to be evidence, documentation. It's not unreasonable that it would come from the other process, as you say. I'm not clear on whether it's reasonable that the evidence from this process also appear in this process, but I'm still unclear as to how those members of council are going to determine the punishment based on the degree of incompetence.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I would assume that when the council chose to deal with this matter of incompetence which had been established through the process and the appeal process and everything of that nature, then they could, in other words, have the hearing, if you like, all over again, where the member would be entitled to defend against that. I suppose the only analogy that I could make is, how would they determine that this conduct was such that he should have his membership lifted? Let's suppose it was the engineers' association. If every bridge that the engineer had built in the last four years — say eight or ten of them — had collapsed, the professional association might well determine that that was incompetence sufficient to make sure that they take steps that he doesn't build any more bridges in the province.

MR. JONES: But somewhere they would get that information that so many bridges have collapsed out of so many.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's all available to them.

MR. JONES: It is all available. Thank you.

Could I ask one more question on that process. It is a complicated process, and I appreciate that, and I appreciate the minister's patience in answering these questions.

The minister states that this process as it relates to incompetence has already transpired at the school district level. I would like to ask a question about the situation that occurs with complaints of five members. My understanding is that that complaint by five members can occur only on conduct. However, as it goes through the process of the discipline committee or the council, it seems to me that at those stages, ending up with decisions of the council after the inquiry or hearing, even though the complaint was based on conduct only.... I'm wondering if incompetence can come out of the other end. I think the complaints can put conduct in, and out of it at the other end can come incompetence.

It is a convoluted process. I'm sure it's clear in the minister's mind, and I would appreciate it if the minister could help me get it clear in my mind.

[3:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yesterday, Madam Chairman, I went to great lengths to explain that if colleagues chose to believe that one of their teaching colleagues was incompetent, they couldn't directly ask the college to look at that; they had to go through the local process, as I've called it, where they can ask for.... or maybe they can report to the board. The board could ask the superintendent or the principal to go into the classroom and check that. In other words, all they can trigger on a complaint of incompetence is to the proper local authorities, who then have to, if you like, put the member through all that, determine whether it's an erroneous or a legitimate complaint, and then follow it up with all of the procedures and all of the appeals and all of that. So the incompetence can come, but only after the member has had the whole due process through those channels where people write reports and do that sort of thing.

On professional misconduct, this is a professional organization, so we are talking about conduct unbecoming a member of this profession about which five members can go to their college of peers and say: "This teacher or this administrator is doing things or has done something that brings the profession into disrepute." So we want the professionals to deal with it. It has nothing to do with competence; a teacher could be very competent in the classroom and still be guilty of gross misconduct. All I have to do is point out that some of the people whose certificates were cancelled for sexual abuse were very competent educators.

I hope I have explained the different routes. If you want to deal with competence, you have to go through the process whereby people qualified to judge that competence make the judgment and the assessment, and then the teacher has the right of appeal. Whereas if it is misconduct, a body of his professional peers will look into it to see whether or not there is anything to it, first of all; then there's a preliminary investigation to see if a full inquiry is warranted. When a full inquiry is warranted, when it has been determined that there is a case, with the right of the member to appear with counsel — all of that process we have just gone through in the last few sections.... If the person is in effect guilty as charged, if you like, then the council has certain actions that it can take, from the very extreme through to reprimand — and it has to state those.

MR. JONES: I would like to thank the minister. My confusion was not over the comments that were made yesterday; I appreciate those. It probably doesn't matter anyway: if I lose my certificate, I don't care whether I lose it for incompetence or misconduct — if I lose my certificate, I lose my certificate. My confusion is over the language about the investigation stage and the inquiry stage. It is a simple question, and as I say, maybe it is not important, because the ultimate product of that would be me losing my certificate. But if I am charged for misconduct by five members, they would send certain information to the council or the discipline committee, and a preliminary investigation can determine whether I am guilty of misconduct or incompetence. It seemed to me that if the complaint was about conduct, in that circumstance the preliminary investigation or the inquiry could only determine whether or not my conduct was unbecoming or improper.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Okay. Then if in the inquiry the complaint is about conduct, can the inquiry only deal with conduct in that circumstance, or can it also deal with competence based on that complaint, which would preclude the possibility of going the school board route?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I have tried to say that they can deal with either misconduct or incompetence. There are just different routes to get it there.

[ Page 1123 ]

MRS. BOONE: The minister just stated that there would always be a preliminary investigation. Yet section 27(4) indicates that the council or discipline committee may, whether or not it has conducted a preliminary investigation, inquire into the conduct or competence, or both, of any member in respect to whom a report or complaint has been made. So it's not really clear that there will always be a preliminary investigation. When does the minister see a preliminary investigation not taking place?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, Madam Chairman, the preliminary investigation, as I see it, could be an investigation, or it could simply be on the basis of the charge — they might feel that they can go right to an inquiry. To me, that would be the preliminary investigation: this warrants a full inquiry right now; it's serious enough. Let me use a silly example to make the point. If the complaint came in by five colleagues that a teacher had hit a kid over the head with a softball bat, I can't envision the need for a preliminary investigation to determine whether there should be an inquiry. So they can go either way.

MRS. BOONE: Surely items like that would not be dealt with by this council. An item such as that would be a legal thing, and he would be charged, I would assume. The board would immediately remove that person from employment. I can't see waiting for this council to take action on that.

I'd like to ask the minister, just to get some clarification, because I wasn't clear on this.... Maybe it's somewhere in this pile of stuff, but I've got so much paper here. Can you tell me, please: is the board process still in place? Does this still entail the three bad reports within an 18-month period, no more than six months apart? Does it still involve that process, along with the procedure that the board must make assistance available to the employee? Does that still exist somewhere in the legislation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman. When we went to full bargaining rights for teachers, the adequacy of determining incompetence was left to the board. We didn't leave in place all of these reports and the two years and that sort of thing. We do have assurance here in the act that the board must be able to satisfy any appeal process, including a board of reference. When they say "incompetent" and decide to move on dismissal, they must be able to defend that. I would assume that the agreement that teachers or local associations may make says they want six reports in a year from six different people or.... That's not for me to determine. I think that that will be for the agreement to determine.

I don't think that any board, just to hypothesize here, would dare go forward with one vice-principal's report and no corroboration, knowing that they could face the whole appeal process. In other words, I think it's self-regulating in that sense — there would have to be something there. I also have full confidence that the local associations, whether they form unions or stay the association route, will, in their terms and conditions, hardly accept some of the facetious arguments put forward as criticisms of the bill, such as somebody not liking the colour of the hair — try and make that one stand up or corroborate it — or anything of that nature. That's why I say the process is built in.

MR. JONES: I don't want to argue with the minister, but I think we would agree on the importance of this thing. I'm not from a small town; I've always lived in the lower mainland. Maybe my colleague from Prince George North would be a better one to comment, but I'm convinced that there can be frivolous complaints. I know that many safeguards are built into this process, so that the outcomes are generally going to be fair. But teachers are prominent members of the community and can often be put in a very vulnerable position because of their position in the community. Sometimes this can fall into the political realm: if a teacher is viewed as particularly political, that can put a whole group of people against that particular teacher. I think the colour of the hair is not a good example, but a good one is where there are political differences in small towns, particularly where those political differences can lead to ill will that could inject problems into this process. Hopefully, the process will be well-designed to screen out any frivolous complaints, but I don't see frivolous complaints as being hair colour. I do see potential danger with the kinds of processes that can occur, particularly in small towns. I just wanted to make that remark to the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, even though we're a little far-removed from the section, I can still respond to the member. I don't think that at any time I said there cannot be frivolous complaints. There can be frivolous complaints all the time. What I'm saying is that this legislation ensures that no teacher can be disciplined unless the complaint is substantiated by a pretty secure process. Yes, there will always be frivolous complaints. When you and I were in the system, we ran up against them. But generally somebody in the system wanted to determine whether there was any substance to such complaints before they took any action. Even if someone there feels he wants to proceed on a frivolous complaint which may not even be true, this whole process assures the teacher protection against any action on a frivolous complaint. I don't think I can make a law to say that nobody shall put forward a frivolous complaint. I'm just saying that if they do, they're going to get nowhere with it. The teacher is secure until something is proven.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Section 33 has been amended in a number of places to take out the words "to teach" and replace them with "to carry out his responsibilities as an employee of the board." It makes eminent sense to me to make that amendment, because there are certainly a number of employees in a school district who may only spend a small portion of their working hours teaching, if any. However, if we are changing the words from "to teach" to "responsibilities," would a person's responsibility as an employee of the board include duties that might fall outside of their usual job description? For example, would extracurricular activities be included in what is meant by "carry out his responsibilities as an employee of the board?"

[ Page 1124 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman. The main reason that change was made is that in the discussions with the BCTF and BCSTA, they said that by using the term "to teach," none of these powers would apply to anybody categorized as an administrator. So in that sense, since this legislation applies to teachers only — it doesn't apply to the maintenance workers or anything of that nature — changing it from "to teach" to "responsibilities as an employee of the board" includes the administrators. The college can then take action against the administrators, because this is the section where we're talking about actions by the council against members of the college. They said that by leaving "to teach" in there, you can't deal with the principal if he doesn't teach. We're saying yes, they can.

[3:30]

As far as responsibilities of that member as an employee of the board, that's another argument as to what those responsibilities include. It simply says the responsibilities of the educator.

MR. ROSE: I'm a little concerned about the amendment as well, and I'd like to ask the minister a question. Maybe it has been asked; I don't know. I've been in and out.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it was asked but not answered.

MR. ROSE: Someone suggests it was asked but not answered.

Since "teach" has been changed to "carry out his responsibilities," does the minister contemplate other responsibilities for teachers employed by school boards? For instance, could other responsibilities include extracurricular activities beyond the teaching day?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I just said that "responsibilities as an employee of the board" I'm sure will be defined in the agreements between the board and the association or the union — what constitutes the responsibilities of an employee. It doesn't get into whether it includes extracurricular, but in order to include administrators it has to go beyond the term "to teach." We were told that was too narrow, so this is simply to include administrators. Under the duties of administrators, obviously some responsibilities are spelled out in the legislation. Those would apply as part of their responsibilities, but not for teachers.

MR. ROSE: As the minister well knows, in the past teachers have assumed other responsibilities, such as playground duty, lunchroom duty — things of that nature. Would those fall under the heading of "other responsibilities?"

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the definitive answer is that in the sections of the School Act not amended by this legislation, the responsibilities are defined in the act and in the regulations. Those are the ones that apply unless different ones are put into contracts.

MR. ROSE: Just so that I have it certain and in dead-to-rights plain English, the minister has told us that the reason for the amendment has nothing to do with duties or extracurricular activities on the part of teachers, who are primarily there to teach. It is meant to cover those people, such as principals and vice-principals, whose duties include things other than teaching, which would be administrative, supervisory, assisting, writing reports, that sort of "other responsibilities," but which has nothing to do with extracurricular activities that might be assigned to them — for instance, should the school day be extended by law.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman. What I've tried to say is that this is the broad term — "responsibilities as an employee of the board" — to include all administrators, and to include other than the narrow definition of "to teach," which is to me quite broad; but some people say it's very narrow.

Section 83 of the public schools act remains in place, and it spells out the duties of teachers. So "responsibilities" here means, to me, the required responsibilities of teachers. Neither in the School Act now, nor in this, does "responsibilities" mean "and whatever else they want to do voluntarily." "Responsibilities" is, technically, the duties of teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: Pursuing that same issue, and a comment that I think the minister made around those responsibilities, there may in fact be responsibilities that could be determined in contract language. That contract language could be related to teachers, or, presuming that there are in those amendments some contracts that may pertain to administrators.... Certainly there are contracts that now pertain to superintendents. I know, having sat at the bargaining table with expanded scope discussed, although not always with agreement reached, that there is considerable movement on the part of the parties — school boards and teachers — to discuss some of those voluntary responsibilities. There may in fact be some expenses that are covered with those.

Implicit in all of this development may be some expanded definition of responsibilities, as employees of the board, that goes beyond the scope of the act, as the minister has just noted. In that case, and in interpreting this particular section, would those agreements provide a basis for determining what that person's responsibilities as an employee of the board indeed might be? Or does that remain within the prescription of the act and its definition of "teacher," "administrator," "superintendent"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I would assume that, given full bargaining rights, both parties would agree to an expansion of what consititutes the duties or responsibilities. It might help if I read for the members section 83 of the public schools act, which says:

"Duties of teachers. 83. Each teacher shall (a) see that the physical conditions under his control in the school or classroom are suitable in respect to cleanliness, neatness, heating and ventilation, (b) provide such assistance as is necessary for the supervision of pupils on school premises and at school functions, whenever and wherever held, (c) maintain care that games are honourably played and activities conducted in a suitable manner, (d) see that rules and regulations with respect to the conduct of public schools and school hours are observed, (e) provide, to the extent that time permits, educational advice and instructional assistance to the individual pupils assigned to him, (f) maintain such records as are required by the ministry and the board, (g) inquire into

[ Page 1125 ]

the cause of and record all cases of tardiness and absence of the pupils in his charge."

That is the list in the present School Act. I know there may be some arguments about whether these are being observed now or not, but I'll leave that to another forum. The member, of course, can refer to these if she wants to, either in the Blues after this is done or in the public schools act, to study them in great detail.

But those are the duties of teachers; that has not been changed. The only thing that I might point out is that "teacher" included others as well under the School Act. With the redefinition that we've done for "administrators" and that, that applies to them as well.

MS. A. HAGEN: Two questions. When the minister responds, I'd like him to just confirm the section of the act that he's just quoted from, if he would, please.

I wanted to just ask a very specific question. If there is an expanded definition of the responsibilities of a teacher, as an employee of the board — or an administrator or superintendent, for that matter — in the agreements that the teachers and the boards make under the new terms of this act, for the purpose of interpretation of this section, will that expanded definition be the basis, then, for interpreting this phrase in the amendment? I hope I'm making myself clear. We're in the process of an evolution, if you like, of what may be deemed the responsibilities of the teacher. There are School Act prescriptions, archaic as they sometimes appear to be at this time, in terms of the very sophisticated things that a teacher does.... But we know that we're moving to some avenues for those definitions to be expanded in contract. I'm trying to get some indication of whether, in interpreting this section, that expanded definition as it may occur in contract will be the basis for interpretation of this amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer, of course, is yes. I work on the assumption that if teachers wrote into an agreement an expanded role of responsibility and signed that agreement, then I'm sure that the board could say: "You have agreed that these are your responsibilities, so now you're held accountable for your responsibilities." So I would imagine this would apply. But I have no doubt that the council is hardly going to be having a hearing here on anybody because of one small item or something of that nature. Do you remember how the process gets there, through all of the appeal and everything?

MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's answers. Of course, he appreciates the line of questioning because this is such a critical area of controversy in the province at the moment. Certainly I agree with the minister that this is the way in which these things should be dealt with. If it's controversy between the school boards of the province and the teachers of the province, then I think that's an appropriate vehicle to work out those differences. So I appreciate the answer that this amendment is not trying to resolve that dispute.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I may have left a misimpression. The section I was quoting from was section 83 of the regulations of the School Act.

Amendment approved.

On section 33 as amended.

MR. CLARK: On the motion?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: On the motion.

MR. ROSE: Or on the section?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The amendment has passed.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you insist.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I have a brief question about this — very quick, Madam Chairman. Time will pass quickly.

I want to understand from the minister whether a contractual agreement that permitted, say, a teacher to be paid extra for say coaching, or running the high school band, or operating a drama club, would fit into the "other responsibilities" section, rather than teach. Is that an example of the kind of thing a teacher could be involved in beyond teaching?

Shall I try again?

You've changed "teach" to "other responsibilities," in rough terms. Isn't that what we've been talking about in this amendment? Would an example of that for a teacher be if under a contract with their board, a teacher or teachers were rewarded for taking on extra duties; therefore these became "other responsibilities"?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't think he heard me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try it again.

MR. ROSE: Would that be an example of "other responsibilities" as applied to teachers, not vice-principals, if there was a contractual agreement in which a teacher or teachers were rewarded for extra duties, let's say in coaching, drama or whatever?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It doesn't talk about "other responsibilities," although that could be, I guess, inferred that the responsibility of the employee and the board.... I would assume that, for instance, if a teacher signed a contract with the board to coach a band — let's use that example — and doesn't honour that contract, then I'm sure the board would deal with it. I doubt very much if the council would get into lifting a teacher's certificate who said: "I agree to take this phys ed job. I'll coach the soccer team" — that they would lift the certificate. I don't think it really comes into this.

Remember, we're talking about actions by the council now, after full inquiries have been held and all of that sort of thing. So that's why I don't see it happening. But I suppose if a teacher took on a teaching contract as an evening band instructor and that was the sole contract that it had with the board, and then never showed up at any of the band practices or band concerts, yes, I would think it might even get to the college in that case to say that: "We're not going to have anybody as a member here who does not honour the basic contract." But that's all I'm thinking of.

[3:45]

[ Page 1126 ]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: If I can just clarify things for the Hon. members, the amendment to section 33 passed and we are now dealing with section 33 as amended.

MR. CLARK: This is a very important section of the bill, and I'm trying to grasp it. I have a couple of questions. First, the time-limits for decisions coming out of the hearing process. It seems to me that a definite time-limit should be put on decisions coming out of the hearings. For example, within two months of the disciplinary hearing the council shall decide the matter. This would avoid having a sword hanging over people's heads while they waited for their punishment. You know, they go before the hearing and then they are waiting for the decision.

There are no time-limits in this act. There is only required to be, for example, one meeting of the college per year, so even if the council met every three months in between, it seems to me unfair to have someone wait so long for determination of his case, given that one of the principles of fundamental justice is the right to a speedy trial. It seems to me that there might be something in the act that would compel a decision after a hearing.

I know that, for example, in labour relations arbitration, one of the real problems with arbitrations is the delay before you get a decision. Many major arbitrations in this province now take in excess of a year after the trial before they get a decision, and it's causing great strain in labour relations. This is similar. This very serious matter goes before the council for hearing, and there is no prescribed time-limit. I wonder whether that was considered before a decision was reached.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If we're going back to the last two or three sections, which was the inquiry process and all of that, section 33 now deals with when the person has been found, say, guilty, because otherwise the action is dropped; in that case, here are six different options or actions that the council may take. That's all, and I don't know how you put a time-line, for instance, on number (a), which says they may "suspend the membership and certificate of qualification of the member until the member has completed to the satisfaction of the council a course of study designated by the council." In some of the other sections, it's within a period of time designated by the council. That phrase shows up a couple of times: within a period of time designated by the council — saying that you must appear before a board of examiners within six months.

So what I think you're raising is the discussion on the last couple of sections about the inquiry. The council, remember, makes its bylaws and may set the time-lines there.

MR. CLARK: That's true; I'm really directing my remarks to the last couple particularly. But it seems to me some notion in the act for expeditious resolution of these kinds of matters would be preferable to leaving it out. By the time you get there it's open-ended. These deliberations can take ages and ages to go through all the evidence, and then not to have a decision expeditiously leaves that kind.... Really, it goes against the principles of fundamental justice.

One other thing on that question. Due to the important nature of the actions taken by, say, a hearing group, the council should have a two-thirds majority in many cases. There is no reference to two-thirds majority decision on these very important matters. I notice that the Barristers and Solicitors Act has a two-thirds majority, because the power is to say: "You can't make a living anymore." I know that they are serious matters, and that clearly in many cases could be the case. If it is the case, it should be kind of overwhelming in terms of the decision. I think the Barristers and Solicitors Act gives that two-thirds rule. I wonder if the minister had any thoughts on that or considered that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not sure about what you mean by a majority. The first clause in that section says that where an adverse ruling is to be made, it has to be by a resolution of a majority of the council. That means 11 members or better.

MR. CLARK: It doesn't say that; it says: "...resolution passed by the votes of a majority of council members present." It could in fact be a fairly small number. It is hypothetical, but as I say, another act that regulates professions says two-thirds majority, and that seems to me to be particularly fair, given that the powers of the council and the college are so immense in terms of people's livelihood. That would do well to be clarified.

Another question on this section. If a person is required to appear before a board or to sit in examination, the field of questions should be restricted to the particular area of incompetence that they've been charged with, to avoid a person being retested on, for example, his whole university education where he's charged with being out of date. If someone's out of date with respect to his field of knowledge and that is brought before the council, then it seems to me that that particular charge.... The examination and the appearance before the board and the questions around it should really be focused on that particular charge that's been levied and shouldn't be wide open for debate.

Again I refer to the Barristers and Solicitors Act, where they have this identical provision, which says that because someone is brought up on one charge and goes before some kind of tribunal or, in this case, examination or hearing or a board, that in fact they can only be tried for the charge, and they are not allowed to examine all other aspects of the teacher's competence — or otherwise — or demeanor.

As I say, the Barristers and Solicitors Act has this provision that limits to the charge laid the field of inquiry before these tribunals.

AN HON. MEMBER: So does this act.

MR. CLARK: No, this act is wide open, as I understand it. There is no limitation. If they are charged with a particular offence, there is nothing that limits the scope of inquiry to being narrowly defined. I think they would do well to have that, as the Barristers and Solicitors Act has that. Does the minister have any comment on that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, perhaps on the first part. It was established in earlier debate that if the council sets a quorum, that could be 15 members that they set. If they don't set a quorum, then it has to be at least 11, so that means it can't be a small committee of council in effect, and so I think that answers that.

As far as the member saying that there should be a specific area of incompetence stated, I would think that the council has to have the right through the inquiry process and due consideration to determine what constitutes incompetence, rather than to try to narrow it down. I am not quite sure

[ Page 1127 ]

what the member is getting at — that you should say incompetence only with respect to, say, writing understandably on the board? Certainly college professors would fail that test. But most teachers wouldn't, because the kids insist on being able to understand it. Anyway, I am digressing. But certainly you can't make a list of what constitutes incompetence. I guess I am maybe drawing on my background of experience. That you can't teach social studies because you forgot one date — that sort of specificity I don't think would apply. In other words, there has got to be a lot more through the inquiry process. And before the incompetence ever comes forward, remember, superintendents, colleagues and principals have written reports and have had to say that they are incompetent because of these reasons. So all of that is already there.

MR. SIHOTA: As I understand what my learned friend from Vancouver East was saying, the other point is of course whether or not it ought to be a majority of those present — whether it is 11 or 15, depending on how you look at it. But the point still remains that it makes far more sense, given the severe consequences here, that it ought to be two-thirds, not a majority. Does the minister not agree with that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I don't know what the member is asking for. Generally in a democratic system a majority constitutes a majority.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate that normally a majority constitutes a majority. But we are not dealing here with a normal situation. We are dealing here with a situation that has some very severe consequences for the member who has been dealt with under section 32. Of course, under the Barristers and Solicitors Act there is a two-thirds provision. I'm wondering why it was that the minister did not embrace the same policy position as enunciated under the Barristers and Solicitors Act, namely two-thirds provision.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I didn't hear everything the member said, but to get back to the majority, I know it is irrelevant to this act but the new Bill 25 for the legal profession removes the two-thirds majority because of a demand in the legal profession that a majority should be a majority.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, Bill 25 will hit this stage at some point, and we will talk about that then.

Moving along, the other concern I have is the inadequacy of a definition of "mental disability" under the section. The section talks about the board being satisfied that the competence of the individual is not adversely affected by physical or mental disability. First of all, that seems to me to have a Charter of Rights minefield there. But I have difficulty envisioning a physical disability that would affect one's competence to teach. I am not too sure what it was that the government had in mind when they put in that clause.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think you have to read the whole phrase: "...and satisfy the board that his competence to teach" — or to carry out his responsibilities — "is not adversely affected by a physical or a mental disability...." So if the competence to perform his duty is not adversely affected by that, then it's not applicable, is it?

MR. SIHOTA: But why raise the matter of physical disabilities at all?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because if any disability adversely affects the person's ability to do the job.... That is the applicable phrase there, isn't it, whether it adversely affects, whether it's a physical or mental disability. I'm trying to think of any other.... I don't think we'd count a social disability. It would have to be something that adversely affects his job.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, is the minister then saying a back injury to a teacher may well be grounds under the section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wouldn't think, Madam Chairman, that a back injury or a missing arm or leg necessarily apply, unless it can be shown that the person cannot possibly do his job because of it. I've taught with a broken arm, and I've even been an MLA and a minister with a cast on my leg. If somebody had shown that I couldn't do my job — it may have got tossed out — but it didn't adversely....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well it slowed me down, but it didn't adversely affect....

[4:00]

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, I think that lends more credence to my point. I find it difficult to conceive of a physical disability that would make it impossible for someone to continue to perform his job. What kind of society are we getting into if we're saying to people.... ? Maybe physical disabilities may warrant an individual from not teaching for a specific time. Okay, I can understand that. For example, if you have a cold, I guess that's a physical disability. If you have a back injury, that's also a physical disability. Of course, it may prevent you from attending, and you could apply for your normal sick leave and off you go. But this section goes a little bit further and talks about the eligibility or the suspension of the membership certificate qualifications on the grounds of physical disability. I don't see how it is that you can justify.... I can't envision a situation — and I'm asking the minister if he can — when someone could be deemed to be physically disabled. Why raise the whole issue of physical disability? I can't think of one situation that would be captured by this amendment to section 33.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's tempting to get into an imaginative discussion, but suppose a person had a stroke and was incapable of any movement. Then if the board felt that that teacher should be let go, there is an inquiry process. There's a whole discussion on that that you missed. If there is an adverse decision from the inquiry process, then the board can call the member forth to show that this disability, whatever it is, doesn't adversely affect his ability to do the job, and if that person could show that it doesn't, this is a further protection for the member, not a witch-hunt on what constitutes physical or mental disabilities.

That whole process has gone through the inquiry and through the appeal, and when the committee says there is an adverse decision, then the council has to do something about it. One of the things they can do is suspend the certificate, unless the member can show that this doesn't adversely affect whatever it is. So I think it's difficult to take — which may be fine in a courtroom discussion — one phrase out of context

[ Page 1128 ]

and have a lively debate about it. I enjoy it, but it's not too relevant to the whole structure of what we have discussed before and what's coming after.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, it seems to me that if someone is suffering from a stroke, he's going to be eligible for long-term disability and he's going to be dealt with that way. I still don't understand why we would raise that issue potentially under section 32 and specifically under section 33.

Maybe we'll move on from there if the minister doesn't want to answer that question.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, you didn't hear that one, but it was.... We'll repeat it later.

There seems to me also to be a concern about confidentiality, and that is that if a determination is going to be made on mental or physical grounds, is there an assurance in the legislation that the decisions and the actions are kept confidential?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I can respond. For instance, if the college decided to cancel a member's certificate, then that has to be reported to the minister, to every board in the province, and the reasons therefore. So I can't assure that it's kept confidential; neither do I think it should be.

MR. CLARK: Just following up on some of the remarks of my learned friend from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, in terms of the makeup of the board of examiners, we're dealing with this question of "affected by a physical or mental disability." They have to prove otherwise. Shouldn't there be a prescription or requirement for the makeup of the board? For example, shouldn't there be a requirement for a doctor to be present for trying to prove whether or not the individual is too handicapped or too physically disabled to do the job? In some cases, if it's a question of being mentally handicapped, shouldn't there be a psychiatrist on the board of examiners?

So a number of questions flow from that. Must all the members of the board of examiners be members of the college, for example, or should there be expert members who can be called in to deal with these questions of physical and mental handicap?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, again, we keep cycling back to the inquiry section. This is after the inquiry has been held and an adverse decision against a member has been made; after all the evidence has been presented, this is where this section we're talking about cuts in. Then there's another assurance; the member still has an opportunity to show cause that this wasn't adversely affected.

In answer to your question, obviously the reason that the inquiry has been given the full powers of a commissioner is so that they can call in expert testimony and expert witnesses.

MR. CLARK: So you're saying that all of the members of the board of examiners must be members of the college. Is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm saying that the legislation states "before a board of examiners appointed by the council," so that leaves it open to experts and/or others. I presume that if they're dealing with a medical problem, they would certainly include some doctors, even though no doctor may be a member of the council.

MR. CLARK: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. That clarifies that point. I wonder, just following through with what you're saying in terms of how this fits into the scheme of discipline of the college, whether this body, the board of examiners, is really to determine a final adjudication with respect to proving whether or not the individual is medically or physically disabled, or whether it is really the determiner of the sentence. He's already been proven guilty by these other processes; he's found to be essentially guilty by this board of examiners. Does this board determine the sentence, so to speak?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Where a member has, by the council, been determined to be eligible for suspension or cancellation of his certificate, the member may say that was wrong. So the college may require that member to appear before a panel of experts, who can then hear his case, and the member may say: "Look, I am not adversely affected or prevented from doing my job by what I have been suspended for." So it's a further protection.

MR. SIHOTA: On that matter — the board of examiners — my question to the minister.... It may not be an appropriate question, but it seems to me that that raises an issue of whether or not passing the buck — if I can put it that way — to the board of examiners amounts to improper delegation in law. Does the minister not agree with that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps the minister could explain why not.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sort of tempted that.... You know, the counsellor coming in, shall we say, and having some fun here without preparing his case.... I hope your bar association doesn't find out about this. If you would read subsection (2), it says: "Where an adverse determination respecting a member is made under section 32(c) the council may, by a resolution passed by the votes of a majority of the council members present at a duly constituted meeting of the council" — and let's skip right to subsection (f). By a majority vote of the council members may "require the member to appear...before a board of examiners...." So in that sense I feel that it is not passing the buck; it is a decision fully, properly and duly made by the council that they are seeking the advice of an expert or of a panel of experts — shall we say psychologists, if that is warranted, or doctors or lawyers.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that we often have discussed around teachers — and it has been this way for all ages — is lifestyle. Clearly in some of these areas where we are talking about addiction or physical or mental disability, there is always the possibility that the different perspectives about the lifestyle of a teacher, of a professional, may come to be considered in examining the competence of

[ Page 1129 ]

that person and also in passing judgment, as this particular clause does.

For example, in clause (f) there is a reference to addiction to alcohol and drugs rather than to abuse of alcohol and drugs. I simply take that as an example where "addiction" suggests a lifestyle, where perhaps "abuse" would suggest more the sort of thing that would affect competence. Is there not some danger, Mr. Minister, that some of those standards, which I know do vary by individuals, and may vary by boards and by communities, can come into play in this area, where a person may be in jeopardy because of a lifestyle, not necessarily where that person's competence is affected but where there is potential to put that person in jeopardy just by virtue of that lifestyle?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've tried to say this repeatedly. The operative phrase here is: "not adversely affected by." So the person who's had his certificate lifted because he drinks too much can appear before a board of examiners and show that he is not adversely affected by his addiction to alcohol or drugs.

We are definitely talking about addiction here, not an odd drink or something. I can't imagine it getting to this point, through the whole appeal process, through the whole council, through all of this, to be set before a board of examiners because a person had a drink and somebody in some community doesn't like that. I can't imagine this whole thing ever getting this far. This is the final opportunity for the person who has been convicted through all that due process to say: "My colleagues will give me a hearing before a board of examiners of professionals to say that my teaching is not adversely affected by that." The operative phrase is: "not adversely affected by." I'm not sure whether I'm the judge of whether an addiction to alcohol makes a person incompetent — or misconduct or something like that. What we're talking about is the operative phrase here.

[4:15]

MR. JONES: I would like to make a suggestion in terms of this procedure for a further safeguard. From the kinds of comments the minister has made, I believe that he strongly feels that there are already many safeguards in this process. However, I would like to make one suggestion. It has to do with the concept of mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction and what I perceive as the modem view of those circumstances: that these circumstances are really considered to be illnesses rather than personal transgressions. If we do view that as a possibility, as more in the health category than the social affliction category.... I would like to make the suggestion to the minister and get his reaction that there is a possibility.... If we do really believe that these circumstances are illnesses, and that they fall into the health category rather than the social category, then perhaps it would be possible to build one more step into this action process. If we really view this as a health question, the person involved could be ordered to take sick leave for some period — perhaps three months — in order to have an opportunity to cure himself of the illness, and then to appear again before the board and have another assessment. If he passes that second assessment, he then could be reinstated if treatment was judged successful.

I wonder if the minister sees that as a possible safeguard that could be built into the process, based on the idea that these circumstances are health questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Certainly. I suppose that is partly anticipated in the final clause in this subsection (f), where it says: "on his failure to satisfy the board that his competence to teach is not adversely affected by such disability," which means that if his ability to function in the classroom or in the job is adversely affected at this point, the board may "suspend the membership and certificate of qualification of the member for a fixed or indeterminate period." If you will recall, there are previous sections where the college may carry out assistance programs to members. I could cite the member a couple of cases now, through boards of references, where certain conditions have been attached and people have been permitted to teach. Probably the best one in public record is Dwight Gooden, the baseball pitcher, who appeared last night for three innings on conditions set by his professional colleagues, or his professional board.

Section 33 as amended approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, earlier today a petition under standing order 35 was raised by the members of the opposition with respect to South Moresby and attendant negotiations between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. I indicated at that time that I was not prepared to accept that petition, because I had given an agreement to the government of Canada that all discussions would remain in confidence and in camera; therefore an appeal to standing order 35 would not be accepted by the government of British Columbia. However, Mr. Speaker, I can advise you that today I'm prepared to discuss in confidence, with the leader of the official opposition — at his convenience — the position of the government of British Columbia.

With that said, the members of the opposition might reconsider their petition under standing order 35.

MR. ROSE: In view of the generous offer from the government House Leader, I would be prepared to withdraw the petition for a motion 35 on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. This side of the House understands the delicacy of such negotiations, and we want to do everything we can to support and encourage an agreement on behalf of all British Columbians for that particular South Moresby park reserve. In withdrawing the motion, we accept the government's offer. I'll relay that information to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. In view of those statements, the Chair has no ruling to make.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 34.

[ Page 1130 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: I hope that in that brief respite the Minister of Education had an opportunity to briefly step outside the door and to be refreshed from the examination of this bill — in view of his addiction.

This particular section is one that requires the registrar of the College of Teachers to notify each board in the province — and the minister — of reprimands, of termination or suspension of membership and of suspension, or of cancellation of certificates of qualification of the member, or of cessation of membership for any other cause.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Certainly I recall the minister making a comment just a moment ago about the matter of notification of each board in the province — and obviously of himself — of the suspension or the cancellation of a certificate, and the need for that and the purpose of that, I think, is clear and one that we would acknowledge. However, I wanted to ask the minister why such an action would take place on the matter of reprimands.

My knowledge of a reprimand is that usually a letter is placed in the personnel file of a teacher. Some examples of that that I might cite are ones that may be associated with actions that really do not have to do with the professional competence of the teacher but may have to do with some kind of activity that has been associated perhaps with their union, for instance.

Could the minister define just exactly what in fact may constitute a reprimand in the spirit of this act, and why he feels it is necessary for this particular punishment — if you like — to be distributed to every single board in the province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister of Finance. No, Minister of Education. We're having a bad day today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sorry, I wish we were this far through my estimates.

You have to note that a reprimand — if you go back to the previous section — is only applicable in a case of misconduct, not incompetence. That's under section 33, which makes the reference to section 32(b) ; there's no reprimand on the other section.

So it's only in a case of misconduct, and we have provided for a couple of things here. Such a reprimand for misconduct is necessary so that if a person has a series of reprimands for misconduct.... And remember that before the college council makes that reprimand there has been all this hearing process and all of that sort of thing, so when it gets so far that the college is actually going to issue a reprimand to a professional member, then I think the other hiring agencies and other agencies involved are entitled to know that this person has been reprimanded for that misconduct so that if it comes up again they will be aware of it. It also provides in here,"unless otherwise notified by the council," and that is a provision — remember these are professional colleagues that are dealing with that — that if the reprimand is, I suppose, not sufficient in their opinion to be distributed, then they can otherwise notify the council.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you for your response, Mr. Minister.

We've noted on several occasions that there is a group of professionals who may choose not to remain as members of the college and who may still be teaching in the schools of the province. Some of these are people whose certificate of qualification will have been authenticated by the college, and some may have had their qualifications authenticated by a superintendent of private schools. I'm speaking of the teachers who work in the private schools of the province and who may either, by virtue of choice, leave the college or, by virtue of their certification coming through another process, be in no way in a system that provides for any checks and balances against their professional responsibilities.

Has the minister given any consideration.... ? I know one of his concerns in bringing forth this particular act with its professional College of Teachers is to ensure the highest professional standards for those who do work with children. Has he given any consideration to this loophole and to the fact that there are a significant number of people teaching in the private school system who come outside of any regulation except what may be available through their school boards? Well and proper though that kind of measure may be, there is no means to keep a record of any problems with teachers who may be discharged by a private school board; no record of the performance and competence of those people working with children.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, we do have in the independent school system an inspector of independent schools employed by the ministry. He can cancel their certificate; he has those powers.

Secondly, it has been brought to our attention that this could be a problem, and that if they weren't members of the college and had a B.C. teaching certificate, there is no action that the college could take against them. So you'll notice the addition in the amendment, section 35.1, to cover that.

[4:30]

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'm treating section 35 as a separate section which we can deal with, and then I can introduce, as the amendment, section 35.1.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I was really considering these as one motion — if I can just collect my thoughts here.

There are two suggestions about how a suspension of membership and certificate of qualification may occur under this particular clause, which is entitled "Effect of suspension." Subsection (a) refers to section 145 of the School Act, and it specifies the various regulations or stipulations that govern a person's membership.

Then clause (b) says: "other purposes the bylaws of the college specify." Because the minister has quite often helped us to understand the intent of these clauses by answering a question like the one I'm going to pose, I will now pose it. What other effects of suspension of membership and certification might the minister anticipate would be included in the bylaws of the college? In other words, what might come under clause 35(b)?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The bylaws the college may want to specify — just to make up an example — might be that when you are suspended, you don't have to pay fees. So it has to leave that for other purposes specified by the bylaws.

[ Page 1131 ]

That's all, really. The college will decide that when a member's certificate is cancelled — that's for the purpose of this first section — they can't teach in the public school system in British Columbia; secondly, the college may have another reason.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm interested in the minister's comment, and perhaps he could just briefly elaborate on what he might anticipate would be another reason. I think I heard you say, Mr. Minister, that section 145 of the School Act covers the right of that person to teach in the school system. The bylaws might cover something beyond that scope. Have you any suggestion about what that further stipulation or that further consequence might be?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In that section (b), no. It's for "other purposes the bylaws of the college specify," and I gave you one example. They might say: "When your certificate is suspended, you don't have to pay fees." They might make another bylaw to say that when your certificate is suspended, you may not vote. In other words, if we don't put that phrase in there, then the college may not be able to, say, take away the right to vote or other things of that nature.

Section 35 approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the addition of section 35.1 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On section 35.1.

MS. A. HAGEN: This amendment, it appears, does deal with a process by which the certificate of qualification of a person teaching in a private school may be lifted, and I presume it was made necessary because there was no clear means by which that could happen, although the minister did just mention that the inspector of schools has that prerogative.

It has been difficult in our discussion to really deal with the rights of teachers in the independent schools of the province. I am somewhat concerned about what protections would be available for such a person, if there is to be a possible lifting of her or his certificate. It seems to me that that person might very well be better off as a member of the college. We have been spending a good deal of time understanding the checks and balances that have been built in and the amendments which the minister has brought forward. Could the minister give us some idea of what due process would be brought forward in the suspension that the cabinet might authorize, and whether there would be opportunities for hearings — for all of the things that have been suggested as very important in the due processes that we have been discussing under the potential rules by which the college will operate?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think the first argument was: how am I going to get rid of incompetent teachers in the independent school system? Having established that I can and could, or that we have an inspector, now you want to know how I protect them. So it is an interesting debate.

However, it does say "for just and reasonable cause." So the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have to be able to show just and reasonable cause to lift that certificate. Again, in the phrase "who is not a member," a member has been defined as a member of the college.

As you know, any new teaching certificates, and anybody who has one now, would have to be issued by the college. So the college could issue a teaching certificate because the person qualifies. Yesterday or the day before — at some point in recent history — some members were concerned that a teacher could get the certificate, then duck out of the college and do all kinds of horrible things, and not be subject to any discipline. I am inferring certain comments here.

This was put in so that if they are not a member of the college, even if they get the certificate from the college, in effect the minister, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may cancel or suspend a certificate of qualification for just and reasonable cause. So there is that. There's the inspector of schools, and in the independent schools act there are certain processes spelled out. They also have boards, they have committees, and they have investigations that they can deal with in that process, whether it's hiring teachers.... Presumably if a board of an independent school was interested in the value of a teacher's certificate, they would certainly want to check before hiring. The minister will have the information about any suspended certificates. Every board in the province will have it, and in the register of members....

So if they phone and say: "Is this member registered in the college...?" That's one assurance. "Have you kicked him out?" Those are others. So there are all those processes between the independent schools act and the independent schools inspector and the minister, who can deal with any of those certificates.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, does the minister then see the same due process taking place for a teacher in an independent school that we've been discussing taking place before the college becomes involved in the matter, particularly of competence rather than professional conduct? Because we've been discussing those two issues. There's a due process in the matter of competence which stays in the purview, if you like, of the board before a college becomes involved; then there is a further process when professional misconduct is involved, which I presume might be dealt with by the inspector and then by the minister.

What I'm trying to get at here is the matter of the due process for the teacher in that private school system and to understand what avenues of appeal are available to her and how those are encompassed. Because that person comes under the jurisdiction of this act at least for the certificate of qualification; and, as you know, if anything happens while that person is a member of the college, in the way of suspension or reprimand, all of that information is presumably available. But I want to know exactly what the minister sees as the due process that would be accorded to this person and what appeal, other than through the courts, that person would have if there were suspension, cancellation of certificate, or what have you.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to answer. We're dealing with the Teaching Profession Act and the college. I think I've done my very best to explain how the relationship of independent school teachers, who have a B.C. teaching certificate.... I've done everything I possibly can. I'm not about to, nor am I capable of, anticipating any and every step in any process that can be taken anywhere in

[ Page 1132 ]

the independent school system. I can't answer your question, not because I'm being obtuse but simply because I can't anticipate every single step in every process. I'm saying, where it cuts into here, that all these processes are looked after.

If you want to get into a full discussion of the independent schools, I suggest there will probably be a couple of other full opportunities — one, if there are any amendments, which I believe we have to do in the independent schools act because of some of the budget considerations.... The other one would be in my estimates, where we talk about the funding. There are ample opportunities.

I find it difficult to anticipate whatever and anything that might or could or would be done.

MS. A. HAGEN: With a little latitude from the Chair, perhaps I should have canvassed this question under 34, but it is germane to the conduct of teachers in 35.1.

Am I to understand, Mr. Minister, that when the college is informing both boards of any action it may take on reprimands, suspension, or cancellation of certificate of qualification, the independent school boards would also be informed of that information? I should truly have asked that question with section 34, but if the Chair would allow that latitude....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think I suggested that the minister would be informed, and therefore the superintendent of independent schools has access to that information, and therefore every independent board, but we're not sending that out to every board necessarily.

MS. A. HAGEN: So contrary to what might happen under the college, where if this wasn't going out, people might have a central registry where they might check about the record of every teacher, with the independent schools there would be an accessible registry or record where they could check. But it would be incumbent on them to check, rather than there being information that would be available to them as a matter of course. There is that difference, I would presume, in what information is available to the boards of private schools as against the information that is sent out to the boards of public schools. Does that make sense?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We do get pinned down, don't we?

When a board is notified, I assume that the superintendent of that board is notified of this suspension. That superintendent, to me, in any school board is the equivalent of the inspector of independent schools, who is notified, and so the board would, when they're talking about hiring a teacher, expect their superintendent to give advice as to whether or not this person's name is on the list. An independent school hiring a teacher who says he has a certificate has the same access to the inspector of independent schools as any board has to the superintendent they have. So it's not as though we're doing it differently; it's just that there's a parallel situation there.

Section 35.1 approved.

On section 36.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, on the section on reinstatement there is a phrase there that I would like to inquire about, and it's the phrase at the end of subsection (1) that suggests that the college will "restore the person to membership in the college on conditions that the council considers fit to impose by the resolution." It's one of these legalistic-sounding phrases that I think is hard to get the meaning of, and I just wonder if the minister could clarify that. Does that mean the kinds of things that we were talking about earlier, such as completing a course of study or appearing before a board of examiners? Would that be the kind of conditions that the college may see fit to impose on that person?

[4:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I would suppose it does that. It also refers back to what we were talking about in section 33(f), where they suspend for a fixed or indeterminate period, and that notification might have to go out. Where there is a suspension, this section says that they can impose the conditions. For instance, if they tried to refer.... If the problem was one of, say, addiction to alcohol, they might say that they would suspend you for six months. I'm making up examples. I'm always leery of making up examples, because it's not taken as the total. But they might turn around and say that they were aware he had had counselling and that he had it under control, and so long as he kept it under control or continued counselling, or whatever they felt was necessary, they could reinstate the member. It's leaving the door open for that.

MR. JONES: I would also like to ask under that Section if there is.... This person is coming in from the other end, looking to be reinstated. In the earlier process there was an appeal to the courts, and I wonder if there is any appeal process envisioned here. Is there appeal to the courts, or are there other appeal processes that can be involved in the reinstatement of a former member?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not quite sure what the member is getting at here. If you followed the whole due process in order to suspend a certificate, surely if the person has met the terms and conditions of that suspension or has corrected his condition, or this council is satisfied that it's corrected, we shouldn't have a whole due process to prove it's corrected. If it's not corrected, the conditions may be that if this shows up again, he's out. So I don't see that we have to have a whole due process for reinstatement.

MR. JONES: I think that if there has been appropriate due process in the earlier part, perhaps it is not necessary in getting back into the college. But I would also like to refer back to hearings in the earlier part of the process conducted by the discipline committee, when certain provisions and processes are brought in under the Inquiry Act — the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence and that kind of thing. I just wonder if this process also allows for those protections, powers and procedures under the Inquiry Act. It seems to me that if it was important in the earlier disciplinary process, reinstatement should be treated equally. The reinstatement process, to me, should be as important as the discipline process. So I would like to ask the minister: shouldn't the provisions of the Inquiry Act be extended to this section as well?

[ Page 1133 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe I said that there is no elaborate inquiry process for reinstatement, and that's all I can say.

MR. JONES: It seems to me that it was important to decide whether the person was guilty or innocent of misconduct, or whatever, at an earlier stage, and it was important to have witnesses, for example, in that earlier process. Let's suppose somebody had a drinking problem. How would that member, after having corrected that problem, then prove that to the satisfaction of the board of examiners, unless he could bring witnesses in? If I was guilty of having a discipline problem and my membership suspended or terminated me, and I wanted to become a member again, shouldn't I have the right to subpoena witnesses to prove my renewed innocence or my correction of the problem of which I was originally found guilty?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would seem to me that the process that the member is suggesting is that there be the same or equivalent appeal process in reinstatement. The discipline committee could go through the whole inquiry and determine that because of misconduct, or whatever, the member is out. The member suggests that he could immediately say: "I ask for reinstatement. Having been found, through this whole process, not suitable to be a member of this profession, I now appeal for reinstatement." Going through that process, the inquiry could in effect come up with the decision: no. Then the member could say: "I would like to apply for reinstatement." You can see the possibilities there. There is a whole appeal process to defend your right to be a member and not to be thrown out; but having been thrown out.... I think it's up to the professional organization to let people in.

I would suggest that there may be another route, that if a while later the person came back to the qualifications and certification committee and said, "I meet these requirements. Will you consider my application?" they could in effect hear the person's application. But surely we can't have a series of appeals. "You threw me out after due process; now I want a due process to decide that I want back in." I don't think it works in any profession, and I don't see how it could possibly work here.

MR. JONES: I think I agreed earlier with the point that the minister has just made. There seems to be a little bit of confusion here about appeal and due process, and I see the two as different, really.

Suppose I've been thrown out of the college, and for good reason, but I've had an opportunity to correct that earlier problem; I've rectified that problem. Now I'm coming back for reinstatement, and I want the opportunity to prove to the college that I've been rehabilitated. The college had the opportunity to subpoena witnesses to prove that earlier I was guilty. When I've been thrown out and I'm trying to get back in, why can't I have the same kind of opportunity to assist me in proving my innocence at the reinstatement process? In throwing me out, I presume that the college — and hopefully I — had the opportunity, under the Inquiry Act, to subpoena witnesses to prove my guilt or innocence. Why, when I'm trying to get back in after being rehabilitated, can't I have witnesses at that stage, or subpoena witnesses, to assist me in proving my rehabilitation? I'm not suggesting that the act precludes that, but it seemed to be an important part in the earlier stages. I don't know why it's not an important part in the reinstatement process.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are two things here. Say the person applies for reinstatement and they grant it. I can't visualize anybody appealing against reinstatement. So we can get that one off the table quite nicely.

If you look at section 25(3), it says that the qualifications committee may hear applications for membership and for reinstatement of membership, and in a subsequent subsection, it says that they have the full powers of an inquiry commissioner. So you've got it. Much to even my amazement, we haven't missed anything. These people have been wonderful in drafting this.

MRS. BOONE: There is a section here, Mr. Minister, that once this person is reinstated, a notice goes out to the province and to the Minister of Education. I would imagine each board is involved there as well. Is there provision there to remove the original statement taking away their certificate so that it does not remain on a person's file forever? This is similar to union reprimands, where after a period of time you may ask to have that reprimand removed. I would think, if a person has been rehabilitated, that ought to be a provision, so that they can have it removed and it does not stay on their record for the rest of their lives.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any provision — I'm questioning whether there should be — for that to be removed. Once the person has gone through the process and been accepted for reinstatement, I would assume that that in itself would be commendation enough by the college — that they have been accepted for reinstatement.

You may note in subsection (2) that we have provided for informing boards of reinstatement unless the council, with the consent of the person, otherwise directs. I think that is a built-in protection there. The person may be reinstated by the college, and it may be a conditional reinstatement, such as an alcohol case or some addiction that has been cured. Perhaps the member says,"I don't want that broadcast," and the council may concur. Once they re-establish themselves in teaching, that would be their record. To say that anything that ever happened can and should be taken out of the file puts it in a difficult situation, because there could be evidence in the file of innocence as well as guilt.

MRS. BOONE: I'm not asking for everything in the file; I'm just asking that the fact that this person's certificate was removed at one point be deleted so that they start afresh if they have been reinstated. As you said, they are being treated as a new person, a new applicant. If they are being reinstated and they are coming off with a clean slate, then I think they should start with a clean slate and not have this background material left on their file for the rest of their lives.

Section 36 approved.

On section 37.

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

[ Page 1134 ]

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for the amendment. It was one of the concerns that this side of the House had on first reading of this bill. I see that the amendment, by deleting "on any question of law or jurisdiction," does have the effect of broadening the grounds of appeal to the courts. I see this as a very positive step. Although we have problems with the whole bill, this is a step in the right direction.

[5:00]

Amendment approved.

On section 37 as amended.

MR. JONES: The question that I have is on appeal procedures. It does seem to me that, although we are building up an elaborate process here, and there are checks and balances in that process, under existing laws there are appeal provisions — for misconduct to a board of reference and for incompetence to a review commission. I know the minister is setting up legislation that will allow negotiations of grievance procedures that will be a further appeal process under the new provisions. But particularly when we consider the process again with the complaints of five members, and because the appeal to the Supreme Court is an important one.... I am pleased to see the amendment, and I am pleased to see this provision. I think it does provide due process.

I would like to inquire of the minister if he does not think that there should be an opportunity for a final appeal prior to appeal to the Supreme Court.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to think of what final appeal there might be in between this one.... The person, for incompetence, has had appeal to the board, appeal to the board of reference, appeal to.... We're talking now about the council, but there is a massive appeal program. This one is an appeal from a decision by the council or one of its major committees. When that council, having corroborated the decision, in particular if it's an adverse decision.... I can't imagine too many good or favourable decisions that are going to be appealed to the court process. But if it's an adverse decision, the person has already had the chance to appeal to the council. Beyond that, they have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, and if they don't like that decision, they can go on to the appeal court. So I don't know what other final appeal you can toss in between the final appeal process of the council and the court system.

Section 37 as amended approved.

On section 38.

MR. JONES: It goes back to a comment by the minister earlier, on the question of confidentiality. In referring to another section, the minister seemed very unconcerned about confidentiality. From my experience, these kinds of questions are very sensitive, delicate ones. In section 38 we have a registrar maintaining a register. If we assume that the register of members will be open to other members or perhaps even members of the general public, it does raise a concern about confidentiality.

These are personal records, and I would like to ask the minister if the register will simply be a list of members or will also contain the decisions of the discipline committee and that kind of thing regarding reprimands, suspensions and terminations. If so, does the minister see it as appropriate, if it does contain those other things other than just a list of members, that it not be confidential?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat intrigued. The register of all members is a list of all members. That's the definition that I take from it, and I assume that's the definition that is there. In terms of confidentiality, we have already — in section 34 — on various actions notified each board in the province, notified the Minister of Education, and recorded the fact in the register of members, so it's already out there to the people. So this section shall "maintain a register of members." That's what it is: a list of the members.

Section 38 approved.

On section 39.

MRS. BOONE: This section provides a protection for council members against suits of damage, and coverage for any costs resulting from legal action against them in their capacity as council members. Could the minister explain the meaning of the phrase "purporting to act on behalf of the college under this act." The word "purporting" seems to give a wide latitude to members of the council. Perhaps it has some legal meaning that I'm not aware of. Could the minister explain this, please?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe that's a standard legal phrase — "acting or purporting to act." As I understand the legality of it, a member could in good conscience believe that he was acting on behalf of the school board, say, and in a further court decision or something someone might determine that he was not actually officially acting, but really thought he was. That covers that. I've seen the phrase in other legislation, and I think that's all that's intended there.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment to section 40 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, this is a change that's most welcome, especially as the teachers have not requested the establishment of the college, nor has the college come about as the result of the process of consultation. Costs are unknown and may be large, and I'm glad that the government has taken this move and made this amendment. I support this.

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

[ Page 1135 ]

On section 41.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for the amendment. I think it does clarify the intent of the section. It clarifies that intent to be that the government may make regulations with regard to reports only, and that those reports be in three areas. I said earlier in the debate that the minister did have wide powers to make such regulations, and this amendment certainly clarifies that. We on this side of the House appreciate the amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 41 as amended.

MR. JONES: I would like to ask a simple question, particularly as it relates to clause (b), where we are providing reports on the performance of teachers and administrative officers in particular. I'm wondering about the possible implications of this kind of thing and the reports that the minister might be interested in receiving. A possible implication would be that the minister may request some sort of provincewide testing or evaluation of teachers or administrators. I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to request that this kind of program and reporting be undertaken.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the intent is there that the minister may ask for reports on the performance of the teachers and administrative officers.

MR. JONES: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman; I did not hear the first part of the answer and I don't know if it really answered my question. Perhaps the minister could clarify. Is it the intention that under this section of the act the government would request some sort of provincewide testing or evaluation of teachers or administrators?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think we have to go back to the initial change here, that the minister may ask for reports from the college. So it's only what the college does that the minister can ask for a report on.

Section 41 as amended approved.

On section 42.

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

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is where things really get complicated, because we're now beginning to work with the bill as it's presently presented, with amendments to the bill and with the public schools act. So I hope you will bear with me and us. I will try to be as clear and cogent as I can, but it really does convolute one's head to be dealing with amending bills.

These next, I guess, ten sections have all of those complications included.

Let's just clarify what we are dealing with here. We were dealing originally with an amendment to definitions in the School Act, section 1(1). I'm not sure what RSBC means. Does that mean regulations? I haven't got that one figured out.

At any rate, the definition of "association" has, by this amendment, been moved to a further section where we are dealing with matters having to do with unions and associations. I want to just leave that.

Then we have a broadened definition of "teacher". "Teacher" in the original clause means a person who holds "a valid and subsisting certificate of qualification issued by the college who is appointed or employed by a board to give tuition or instruction in a public school" — and then we're adding a new phrase, "or to provide other educational services to the board that employs him" — "and includes a person to whom the college issues a letter of permission for teaching, but does not include a person appointed by a board as superintendent of schools, assistant superintendent of schools or administrative officer."

We're in the process here of beginning to look at that part of the act which deals with principals and vice-principals, who are now going to be called administrative officers. Under this amendment, I would like to ask the minister to give us some indication of who will be included in this amended definition of teachers under the new category of those who provide other educational services to the board. It's not superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals or vice-principals. Presumably it is people who do something other than giving tuition or instruction in a public school. So could the minister please advise us what these other educational services to the board might be.

[5:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, with respect to the term "association," it was applicable, really, only in the bargaining process. It has been taken here and moved over where it can be more specifically defined. So that deals with that one.

On the second one, to me it was perfectly clear that "teacher" meant other than what is excluded here — superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals and vice-principals. In the discussions, there was a lot of concern about where you include supervisors, head teachers, operators of the resource centre, and that sort of thing. I tried valiantly, believe me, to say that if they are not one of the ones that are excluded, they are a teacher. But there was so much concern about it that we said that, okay, we'd include that, to include these people who provide other educational service to the board — consultants, supervisors, head teachers and that sort of thing. To me it is self-evident, but it certainly wasn't to the negotiating committee.

Amendment approved.

On section 42 as amended.

MS. A. HAGEN: Because we are dealing in 42 with definition, I want to briefly pursue, if I may, the matter of "administrative officer." In the definition of the School Act, we've now created a whole category of people who, it appears, are excluded for the purposes of collective bargaining.

[ Page 1136 ]

Can the minister give us some idea, in terms of looking at this group of people who are now defined separately from the teaching group as administrative officers, how many people there are in the province in the public schools who would be covered by this section? Can he give me any numbers on those people who will fit into the administrative officer category once this definition has been accepted through this subsection? I know we have about 30,000 teachers, but in most of our calculations that number does include principals and vice-principals, because they have all been members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and have been classified for bargaining purposes under the one umbrella.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sorry. I had that information; and I may have it in my kit, if I could look it up. But it seems to me that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 to 1,200 who are in administrative officer.... The reason I even hesitate on that is that I don't know whether that includes supervisors, because the list that I had of total head office or central office staff.... I know I've got that figure somewhere. I will certainly give the member afterwards, to the best of my knowledge, the information that is there. I know there are some 1,500 schools in the province. I can't tell you that there are principals for each one of the schools, because some of them may be smaller schools. It's in that area; I can give you exact numbers.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster. Are you still on section 42?

MS. A. HAGEN: I am still on section 42, yes.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Can I just clarify for the members that section 42 as amended has actually passed?

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN: Madam Chairman, as long as I have some latitude....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You go ahead with your comments, and then I'll call the question again.

MS. A. HAGEN: I don't want to get us locked in any procedural things, but I do have one further question. I would appreciate having the information from the minister, and we will look forward to getting that exact number.

Again, I am exploring, in somewhat the same manner as we did when we began our discussion of the bill, this new category of person within the education system, the administrative officer. Although I know we will be canvassing some of these issues much more extensively in later clauses of the bill, I want to just ask the minister if he can give us some indication of whether these administrative officers, who up until now have been represented under the B.C. Teachers' Federation, will have the opportunity to form organizations to deal with contracts for themselves. There is some indication that these people are individual employees, each of them under individual contract with the board, much the same way that a superintendent or an assistant superintendent — or, in other sectors than the education sector, the secretary-treasurer — is under individual contract. Will administrative officers have some means by which they may form organizations that will represent them in terms of contractual arrangements with their boards, either as locals of administrative officers or in a larger kind of unit?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, the administrators can, on a voluntary basis — and I say "voluntary" advisedly — form an organization or an association as they do now. They can bargain, but there is no way under this legislation that they can be certified as a bargaining unit. They will be signing individual contracts with the board according to the legislation, but that does not prevent them from bargaining as a group with their board.

Section 42 as amended approved.

On section 43.

MR. JONES: Madam Chairman, as the member for New Westminster pointed out, this is a difficult process, dealing with the amendments, the bill and the School Act, and I think the minister will find the questioning on this part less convoluted, less specific, and maybe less interesting for him. I would simply like to ask on section 43 if my interpretation of what's happening here.... I think it's a very simple thing, but maybe there is something I'm missing. My reading of what this amendment is doing to the School Act is that it is really just transferring the authority to issue certificates from the minister to the newly created college. Is that all there is to this section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, when translated from the legalese into the public schools act it simply cancels the sections where the minister shall issue certificates, or the minister may deal with certificates and temporary.... All that has been turned over to the college— that's all that's in there.

Section 43 approved.

On section 44.

MR. JONES: I would like to ask the same question on section 44, which does the same thing — as I read the section — for temporary certificates and letters of permission. Again, they're simply being transferred from the previous authority of the minister to the newly created authority of the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In my last comments, I guess I was covering both sections. The repeal of section 5 takes away from the minister the authority to issue temporary certificates and require reports to the minister on teacher certificates.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is one of those clauses.... We have a new 45.1, and I presume that in a moment the minister is going to move that amendment. Again for clarity — and I think that we'll probably discuss this more extensively in 45.I — let me just understand that what we're dealing with,

[ Page 1137 ]

in both these clauses perhaps, is the broadening of the powers of the superintendent, particularly in regard to the responsibility and right of the superintendent to assign and transfer teachers. I think it also deals, if I'm understanding the clause, with reports going to the college instead of the minister. It also deals with the responsibility and power of the superintendent to assign and reassign administrative officers. It's a fairly significant section that I think we'll want to canvass. There's the broadening of the powers of the superintendent here, in the assigning of teachers, principals and vice-principals. I'm going to have a very difficult time beginning to call these people administrative officers. I made no question of my dislike of that particular label. Also, it has to do with the matter of sending reports to the college instead of to the ministry. So if we can perhaps have the minister clarify what this is all about, then we will have some further questions as we proceed through.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It doesn't broaden the powers of superintendents. They had in this section, subject to the approval of the board, the right to assign, and we've added "and reassign," teachers to clarify that if schools are rearranged they can assign and reassign teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm just trying to find the actual section of the act here, Madam Chairman. We're repealing section 6 of the School Act. In relation to the "subject to the approval of the board" in each instance, does this mean that the board will no longer have to deal with each individual in terms of transfers, that one could be dealing with a whole shuffle, if you like, of teachers within the system, rather than due process for each individual? The matter of transfer is something that teachers have guarded quite carefully. There has been a fairly extensive process involved with the transfer of teachers — notice, the right to appeal and so on. I just want to understand here whether there's any change in the due process that's available through the act regarding transfer rights of teachers.

[5:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: These are minor consequential amendments, but fully defensible. In the first part, by putting "assign and reassign" and then eliminating the section where the board may transfer a teacher from one school to another.... Furthermore, with the full bargaining rights the teachers' associations will have, they will of course be able to work into the agreement the terms for transfer, the terms and conditions. In other words, all terms and conditions of employment are now negotiable by the teachers.

That is really all that that section 45 does to deal with the School Act. Probably another way of doing it would have been to delete the section and rewrite it entirely, but for some reason or another, it doesn't always happen that way.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would assume, then, that we are moving into a period here, possibly of some limits on the protections that have been afforded to teachers through the act as they move into a process of negotiating, with their respective boards, terms and conditions of employment.

Has the minister given any consideration to a period of transition, as we do move into an expanded scope of bargaining, where these matters may, with each board, be determined by the teachers and the board — and the terms and conditions of matters such as those relating to transfers be put in place? We have already had some concern about those matters around things like sick leave and so on, because there is a process and a time-frame here where there is going to be a no-teacher's land, if you like, where some of the protections that have been available may no longer be there. Has the minister given any thought to that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member is aware that the contracts now in place don't expire until June 30, 1988, by which time it is fully expected that new contracts will be in place to cover the period from July 1. So no, it is not being omitted. Unfortunately, the concern about the sick leave was to a large extent unnecessary. But anyway, it is there. It doesn't leave a gap in which teachers are unprotected.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to raise that same concern in the matter of reassignment of administrative officers. Perhaps the minister can help me to understand whether principals and vice-principals are now without any protection regarding their reassignment in their roles. They have, in fact, a very different means by which they may bargain the terms and conditions of their employment — a voluntary association. Would the minister care to comment on whether there would be any limits on what principals and vice-principals may bargain for in their associations around matters relating to transfer?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Many of the things that we are discussing are coming up in subsequent sections. But just to try and answer the question, the limits that people may or may not bargain.... If they're bargaining as individuals, as a group or as an association, I suppose anybody could put anything on the table in the bargaining process. Whether they get it or not is part of the bargaining process.

MS. A. HAGEN: Part (c) of the amendment requires superintendents to submit reports on the teaching ability and efficiency of the teachers to the college. That kind of report, up until now, has been something that the minister has required. In the due process that we've been talking about over the last two or three days in respect to the college, it's my understanding that the disciplinary powers of the college, as they pertain to competence, have been removed from the mandate of the college.

So I want to ask why the college should receive those reports at this time. Rather than their being simply filed with the board, why are they going to the college? Is it some anticipation that the college will review them? Is that prior to any further action that the college might take in respect to a teacher? Could the minister please explain why they're going further, since that disciplinary power has been removed and we're going through due process after the fact?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Up to now, the certification, qualification process for teachers and the decision whether they keep their certificates or get a commendation for excellent teaching have all been the prerogative of the minister. They've been under the minister's mandate. Now that we've turned over the certification process to the college, the superintendents would of course be sending whatever reports they send to the new body that's now in charge of certification — the college. We've turned over the issuance of certificates to

[ Page 1138 ]

the college. We've turned over to the college — their own professional colleagues — the evaluation of teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: So, Mr. Minister, assuming that evaluation will continue apace in the schools of this province and that every teacher will be supervised and evaluated by the superintendent or an administrative officer or an assistant superintendent, is it indeed the intent of this particular clause that every single evaluation of a teacher will be in the files of the College of Teachers? Are we creating here a kind of repository of all of the rules and responsibilities of the school boards of this province to supervise and evaluate teachers — creating a repository where all of those are available? I find that quite a shocking and surprising intent of this particular clause, and I would really like to have clarification. It seems that we're backing away from the role of the school board as employer being responsible for checking on the competence of employees and taking appropriate action if as a result of that evaluation there is any concern about the performance and the competence of that teacher in that school district.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They do not write reports on every teacher every year now. There's no change to that. They do not necessarily send in reports to the minister on every teacher they write reports on. There's no requirement that all reports be sent in. All we've changed here is "to the college" instead of "to the minister." The rest of the section remains basically the same. Superintendents are required by the legislation to provide one copy to the board whenever they do an evaluation, and one copy to the teacher; I presume the superintendents keep the third copy so that if any questions arise.... That's all that happened here. There's no sort of new reassignment, so that everybody's got to have a report every year, and that sort of thing. As indicated under the previous section, I think that when we're dealing with incompetency or things of that nature, the board will have to determine how many reports they feel they can move, and that sort of thing.

The other thing you have to remember is that the college may have these reports sent in on file, but they don't deal with these until, say, a misconduct or incompetence report comes all the way through the pipeline, with all of the due process.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would imagine that the minister has some idea of how many reports are filed with him each year, and the reasons for those reports coming to him. Would it be fair for me to presume that those reports would not go forward to the college, any more than they would go forward to the minister, unless there was in fact some action that might flow from the minister, and now the college, being in receipt of those reports? Let me ask that question, and then I have one further one I'd like to ask.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The superintendents can send in reports to the college on every report they make. So much emphasis has been placed on the very small percentage of teachers we're dealing with for incompetence. Somebody seems to think that no group, no minister, nobody is at all interested in the excellent teachers. How many teachers are getting excellent reports? Just this week, while we've been talking here, I sent out some more letters to people who had received excellent reports as teachers or as administrators. When a person gets an excellent rating, that comes to my attention and I send out a letter commending him for having achieved this fairly rare thing. I would think that the college would be interested if the minister were to say: "How are the teachers doing?" "Well, we got 5,000 reports this year; 10 percent of them are excellent." There is a whole, I would imagine, normal bell curve that would apply. Those are the kinds of things that may be useful information to the college, as to the minister. Nothing has changed except that the reports now sent to the minister or ministry will be sent to the college.

MS. A. HAGEN: I just have one final question. The word "requires" has some element of compulsion to me; in other words, under the clause that is being amended the minister could require a board to forward a report on a teacher. Could the minister advise us whether the college has the prerogatives of the minister: that they may then request any or all reports on teachers to be filed with them? Would that be a prerogative that the college might in fact exercise?

Again, I guess we're talking about matters of confidentiality, and matters of personnel. Is there any concern that this College of Teachers might have access to a very significant part of the personnel files of every teacher in the province? I can see the minister, in his exalted position, having that right. I have some concerns about those rights being available to the college. I would like some reassurance that this word "require" doesn't give that prerogative in an absolute sense to the College of Teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly can't give the member that assurance. Right now that word "require" is in there so that if the minister has an investigation on a teacher going on, he must be able to require a copy of the report. The college, taking over that function, must be able to require a copy of that report. It says nothing in this section about the whole personnel file. It says require a copy of the report written by the superintendent and presented to the board. As far as the confidentiality is concerned, right now the reports come into the ministry and are filed in the ministry; I don't take them home in a briefcase myself to guard them. I and my senior ministry staff have access to them, and we consider that confidentiality. We don't spread that out. Now surely there is going to be as much trust in the elected representatives of the teachers themselves, to protect the confidentiality of the teachers, as they ever gave to the minister.

[5:45]

MR. JONES: I think I have an understanding now of the reporting process as envisioned by the minister under this bill, but the line of questioning that the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) was originally starting on suggested perhaps an incredible amount of paperwork for the minister. I'm pleased, too, that when excellent reports are received by the minister, that's recognized, because there's far too little recognition of teachers in this province for the excellent work that they do. I'm not blaming the minister for that by any stretch of the imagination.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

However, it seems to me that the minister must be receiving something in the order of 10,000 reports per year. If a report is done every three years, as I think is required, and if there are something like 30,000 teachers in the province, then the minister would receive 10,000 reports in a year. I

[ Page 1139 ]

don't know how many of those the minister responds to. I would see the minister responding to the excellent reports. Those are a rare and wonderful thing. I don't know how many there are, but I don't think there are that many reports that are given an excellent rating. I'm sure many are deserved and not given.

Also, I don't know how many are the unsatisfactory kind that may flag the desire for the minister to take action at some point — or, in future, the college or boards to take action. But it seems to me that 10,000 reports per year in a government that is concerned about efficiency is an overwhelming number. If the minister dealt with the excellent reports and had those sent, and those were sent to the college, perhaps the college would want to commend those teachers. If maybe the small fraction of 1 percent of reports that are unsatisfactory were received by the minister and now received by the college, we would certainly reduce the amount of paperwork.

So do I have it clear?

Interjection.

MR. JONES: The Premier who says "aye" is the same Premier who, when he went to the national conference on entrenchment of native Indian rights, said very clearly that he wanted to know what each thing meant and what the cost of each thing was. So this is the process that we're engaged in at this time. I know the Premier appreciates that.

My question to the minister: am I reading it correctly as to the volume of paper that the minister is processing and that the college will be processing in the future, and does he see any merit in my suggestion to reduce that amount of paperwork by dealing with the excellent reports and the unsatisfactory reports, which may require some action on the part of the minister or the college, and not bother with the rest of the paper?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose the only way I'd find out whether there are some excellent reports in the batch is to have the batch and have the ministry.... I don't go through the 10,000 reports myself. That's why I've made it clear that they come into myself or the ministry. They would go into the college and then they could screen those out.

I suppose the college, once in place with superintendents as part of the members of the college, might work out a system to reduce that paper flow — to say that we would like "available on request," or something of that nature. Right now, what we're in effect doing, the material that comes in to the minister.... It doesn't say that every report has to be sent in. We haven't found the word "require," but I still will defend the right of the minister or someone to be able to request a report and expect to get it. That to me is what is meant by "require." So they could probably work out a system of reducing that paper flow. I hope they do.

What we're turning around is that the files that come to us now, as material comes in, will be turned over to the college as we turned over the certification. I guess that's why we felt this was simply a consequential amendment, but I'm quite happy to explain it.

Section 45 approved.

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

Section 45.1 approved.

On section 46.

MR. JONES: It seems to me that what we're doing in section 46 — and I would like the minister to clarify my interpretation of this section — is removing the right of a superintendent or an assistant superintendent to go back to a teaching position in the event that that contract is not renewed at the end of his term. It seems that what we're doing here is reducing the job security of those very important people in our school system. I would like to know why this amendment was introduced, and why the government has chosen to eliminate this degree of job security for superintendents.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The statement in the legislation precedes when the superintendents started to write separate contracts with the boards — term contracts and that sort of thing. It has never happened that a superintendent has retired, or has gotten out of being a superintendent and gone into teaching. They don't want it. Everybody considers it nothing, an irrelevant section. So while we were at it, we took those out.

MR. JONES: I agree with the minister that I don't know of any case where a superintendent, after having his contract not renewed, has gone back to teaching. Perhaps they are at a stage in their career where they are quite capable of retiring at that point. However, there certainly could be a case where a young superintendent would have a difficult time getting a job if his contract was not renewed and he wished to continue in the education profession.

I also think it is possible, Mr. Minister, to envision steps on a career ladder whereby an assistant superintendent, whose major responsibilities were for elementary education, would want to go back to gain further experience, perhaps in secondary education, and at a later point to become a superintendent again. So it does seem to me that it would be possible or desirable that such steps not be disallowed.

Merely because statistics indicate that this doesn't happen or hasn't happened in the province of British Columbia.... It is still removing a right that superintendents and assistant superintendents formerly had, and is reducing their job security. So I am disappointed in this amendment, because ensuring the right of superintendents and assistant superintendents to return to their teaching positions at the end of this process certainly has some positive benefits for the system. It encourages teachers to desire and work towards those positions, and if those positions have the kind of job security that other positions have, it is a valuable thing and does encourage people to pursue those very important positions in our education system.

Secondly, it allows superintendents some independent voice. There is a degree of job security there, and because it hasn't been taken advantage of in the past doesn't mean it's unimportant. For a long time superintendents in this province did not take an active voice as advocates for education. In the last few years I have seen them change their attitude, and I think it's important that that be encouraged. A couple of years ago, the superintendents' association spoke out strongly against this government in its cutbacks to education, and I think it's proper that we encourage their important voice. Certainly the minister recognizes that the superintendents' association is a group of men and women who are leaders in

[ Page 1140 ]

education and whose voice should be encouraged in educational matters and should not be stifled.

So I am disappointed in this amendment, because I do see it reducing the job security of those important people. It will diminish their free and unfettered voice in speaking out for the education of children in our province.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to add some comments to those of the member for Burnaby North. In this province, we have many very small school districts. There are school districts with numbers of pupils that, in fact, are about the same as the number of students in large secondary schools in many of the urban areas. I think that the expanding of opportunity for people to go into the superintendency from other than a pool of people coming from the ministry has given us a chance to have people work in administration in very significant ways,

But sometimes those moves prove to not be good moves for that individual, and I think it's most unfortunate that a person who decides that he or she has an aspiration to be a superintendent and is in fact accorded a contract by a board then, by virtue of this amendment, has cut off the opportunity for further work as a teacher in that district. It is a regressive move. It isolates people more in these roles, and it doesn't give them an opportunity to continue to provide valuable service in another way within the profession in their school district. So I do have a concern, shared by the member for Burnaby North, about that amendment.

Section 46 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

20        The Hon. A. J. Brummet to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 20) intituled Teaching Profession Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 33, in the proposed subsection 2 (b), (d), (e) and (f) by deleting "to teach" wherever it appears and substituting "to carry out his responsibilities as an employee of the board".

SECTION 35.1, by adding the following section:

Cancellation of certificate of non-member

35.1 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, for just and reasonable cause, cancel or suspend a certificate of qualification of a person who is not a member.

SECTION 37, in the proposed section 37 by deleting "on any question of law or jurisdiction".

SECTION 40, by deleting the proposed section 40 and substituting the following:

Interim expenses of the college

40. The minister may, from the consolidated revenue fund, make grants that he considers necessary or advisable to

(a) cover the costs of conducting the first election, and

(b) assist the college in defraying interim expenses that are incurred by it.

SECTION 41, by deleting the proposed section 41 and substituting the following:

Regulations

41. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations requiring the submission to the minister of reports on

(a) the financial affairs and administration of the college,

(b) the performance of teachers and administrative officers, and

(c) education matters generally, and the regulations may delegate to the minister the power to make regulations or issue guidelines respecting those reports.

[ Page 1141 ]

SECTION 42,

(a) by deleting the proposed definition of "association" in section 1 (1) of the School Act, and

(b) in the proposed definition of "teacher" in section 1 (1) of the School Act by adding "or to provide other educational services to the board that employs him" after "public school".

SECTION 45.1, by adding the following section:

45.1 Section 9 (3) is amended by adding "and is a member of the college" at the end.