[ Page 1157 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reform Association of Canada conference. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1157

Use of knives as weapons. Mr. Barnes –– 1158

Timber supply for Columbia River Shake and Shingle Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 1158

Federal sales tax. Mr. Clark –– 1158

Port Clements public hearings. Mr. Miller –– 1159

Possible BCFP-Fletcher Challenge merger. Mr. Kempf –– 1159

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Mr. Mowat

Introduction and first reading –– 1159

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 1160

Mr. Jones

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Gabelmann

Engineers Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 1182

Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 15). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 1182

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 30). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 1182

Appendix –– 1183

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like, with pleasure, to introduce to the House today Judy and Tink Robinson, who are the major entertainment in the Wild Horse Theatre in Fort Steele. I'd like the House to give a special welcome to them.

MR. LOENEN: Some time ago there was a fund-raiser for the Rick Hansen fund. At that time there was a celebrity auction. The two people I'm about to introduce to the House offered to pay $650 to the Rick Hansen fund to have lunch with me today. We had a lovely lunch; I'm sure they didn't get $650 worth. I'd like to introduce the two principals of Pioneer Designs, a construction firm from Richmond: George Mueller and Gerry Metheral. Please make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today there are two residents of the top of the Okanagan, the riding of Okanagan North; they're both very good friends of mine. As a matter of fact, one of them is the brother-in-law of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). I'd like the House to make welcome Barbara and Douglas Fuhr.

MR. BLENCOE: In the galleries today we have a group of registered nurses from Victoria. They are Sheila Machin, Molly Butler, Siria Dhirani, Sue Smith, Bonnie Corck and Karen Locken. Would the House please welcome these dedicated health care professionals.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today there's a very special friend of mine from Richmond, Mr. Fred Durant, who is a safety officer. I'd be pleased to introduce Fred to the House.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, those of you who had the pleasure of passing through the rotunda area today at noon heard, I'm sure, some of the finest singing that's ever been done in this Legislative Assembly. The people responsible are visiting us today, and I'd like them to receive a very, very warm welcome. It's the teacher Mr. John Neufeld, and 73 students from the Mennonite Educational Institute in Abbotsford. Would you please welcome them.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to welcome to the House today, from Parksville, Mr. Ron Thwaites, a good supporter and hard-working gentleman from that area. Please welcome him.

Oral Questions

REFORM ASSOCIATION OF CANADA CONFERENCE

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. The Reform Association of Canada is holding a conference in Vancouver at the end of the month entitled: "A Western Assembly on Canada's Economic and Political Future." One of the stated goals of the conference is the possible establishment of a new federal political party. Can the minister advise the House whether this government is involved in any way with this conference or this association?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The Deputy Provincial Secretary, Mr. Mel Smith, Q.C., is certainly attending that meeting. He's involved only as a resource person because of his lifelong interest and expertise in Senate reform and constitutional changes that would give British Columbia a fair voice in Confederation. He is attending as a private citizen; he's not in any way representing the government of British Columbia. He will be present as an observer only and does not intend to cast a vote on any issues discussed. He is there as an interested citizen only.

MR. G. HANSON: As the Deputy Provincial Secretary, Mr. Smith is a very important constitutional adviser to the Premier. With his new organization — having deputies report to him — could the Premier explain to the House why Mr. Smith, as Deputy Provincial Secretary, would be attending that conference? Is it under the Premier's authority?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, he is not attending as the Deputy Provincial Secretary, as was already stated. He is there as a private citizen and an observer. Frankly, I think all British Columbians, or all westerners certainly, perhaps more than any other group, should be extremely interested in what we might do and how we might contribute to Senate reform. Anyone on that side or this side, or wherever in our province, should take an interest in any discussions on Senate reform.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As all members of this House are aware, the Deputy Provincial Secretary is generally the most senior public servant in the province of British Columbia. One of the Deputy Provincial Secretary's duties is to oversee the Election Act in the province of British Columbia. I would like to ask the Premier how he can justify having the senior public servant who oversees all of the elections apparatus in the province of British Columbia attending such a conference.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I won't comment on the premise of what he does with respect to the elections, but I will say it's not for me to tell Mr. Smith as to what he does in his own time, or how he attends various functions that he wishes to participate in as an observer.

MR. G. HANSON: Again to the Premier, one of the stated goals of this conference is to explore the possibilities of a new right-wing political party for this country representing western Canada. Again, has the Provincial Secretary's main deputy...?

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: That's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that's very interesting indeed. Because the Deputy Provincial Secretary, as I stated, is in charge of the elections apparatus in this province, and the formation of a new right-wing political party.... Why is this deputy attending this conference?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well now, Mr. Speaker, I know why the question is being asked; it has something to do

[ Page 1158 ]

with whether somebody is supportive of left-wing or rightwing, and that certainly didn't enter my mind and that shouldn't enter the conversation or the questions.

USE OF KNIVES AS WEAPONS

MR. BARNES: I notice the Attorney-General is absent and, if I may, I'd like to address a question to the acting Attorney-General, the Provincial Secretary, on a matter of urgent national concern. Members of the Legislature will recall that recently I distributed a study by the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association respecting the increasing use of dangerous knives in public places. The study made several recommendations including amendments to the Canada Criminal Code and certain amendments to provincial statutes as well as suggesting that studies be undertaken to determine the extent of knives and their association with deaths. This year alone there have been ten homicides....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member take his seat for a second. The Speaker tries to be fair, and allows some preamble, but I think the member is getting into a statement. If he could ask the minister his question.... I think it's unfair to all other members.

MR. BARNES: Well, I just wanted by way of introduction to indicate the seriousness of the situation, and I think Mr. Speaker will appreciate that the matter is one of life and death.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would appreciate the question.

MR. BARNES: Has the minister reviewed the report? In fact, I would like to know if any of the members have reviewed the report. Has the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) applied any pressure on the federal government with respect to amending the Criminal Code of Canada to prohibit the use of dangerous knives in public places and licensed premises?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I thank the hon. member for this question. It's a very important question and deserves a thorough answer, and as such I'll take it on notice for the Attorney-General.

TIMBER SUPPLY FOR COLUMBIA
RIVER SHAKE AND SHINGLE LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests, the huge tree-farm licence held by Westar in the Kootenay region of the Columbia basin is still held by Westar, despite the fact that the major plant that it fed, the Celgar pulp mill, was sold to Chinese and eastern Canadian interests and approved by this government. There is an industry in Nakusp, Columbia River Shake and Shingle, that is not now able to get timber from that tree-farm, and there was a trading relationship there. The plant will close down, and 100 people will be out of a job this weekend. Is the minister prepared to intervene to try to facilitate supply for the Columbia River shake mill?

HON. MR. PARKER: Thank you for the question. The Columbia River Shake and Shingle operation in Nakusp has been drawing some of its wood supply from tree-farm licence 23, and they expressed their concern, as the member has remarked today. We're presently tracing that through with Westar.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister be prepared to meet with representatives of the firm and the mayor of Nakusp to deal with some of these important questions for that small community?

HON. MR. PARKER: I've had the pleasure of meeting with the gentleman. The matter is being dealt with by the people that can make the wood supply happen as a result of the meeting I had earlier with these folks. I imagine if nothing suitable is accomplished in the near future, then certainly we'll meet with them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has the minister then reconsidered the whole question of a tree-farm licence held by a company without a mill or plant? Because people are in the midst of trees and yet have no access to work, or trees for their mills, and this is unprecedented in the history of British Columbia. Is the minister looking at that question of tree-farm licences without industrial plants tied to them?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, TFL 23 supplies a sawmill in Castlegar. I'm sure the workers at the sawmill count themselves as an industry, and they're looking for that wood supply. TFL 23 has been downsized, and it will help form an economic base for further operations in the Revelstoke area under a bid proposal at a later date.

FEDERAL SALES TAX

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier. A couple of days ago in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister refused to give assurances that there would not be a sales tax on food in this country. Has the Premier decided to speak out on behalf of British Columbians in opposition to the proposed federal sales tax on food?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're getting further information on that, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as I have the information available I'll report to the member or the House.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Premier. This tax will add approximately $330 a year to the food bill of citizens of British Columbia — for an average family. The Premier should know that governments of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba have all gone on record as opposed to any attempt to tax food in this country. Has the Premier decided to ask his House Leader to bring forward the motion standing under my name for debate — No. 68 — so that we may send an all-party message from this assembly to Ottawa that we are all opposed to any attempt to tax food in this country?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't like taxes any more than the hon. member, least of all taxes on food. Probably there's a great deal of agreement on that particular question. I will take it up with the hon. House Leader, and we'll let you know further.

[ Page 1159 ]

PORT CLEMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. As the minister is aware, the ten-month overdue plan by M&B for TFL No. 39, blocks 5 and 6, will be presented next week on the Queen Charlotte Islands in two very limited public viewings. The regional district, the mayor and the council of Port Clements have written, asking for a more extensive series of public meetings; company officials, as well as the minister's officials, could be questioned. Would the minister assure this House that he will agree to that request and make these public meetings available to the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen any correspondence to that effect, but the purpose of public hearings is to make it possible for the public to participate. We will undertake to accommodate them.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary to the minister. The hearing in Port Clements, representing some 4,700 people, is only two hours and 45 minutes for a very complicated plan. There are serious concerns in terms of a possible shortfall of timber if the AAC is continued at its present level.

Perhaps I didn't understand the minister. Is he assuring us that there will be further public meetings in addition to the public viewings?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen any of the correspondence that the member alluded to in his earlier question. When I see their request, I will be happy to follow through with it. As I say, the purpose of the public viewings is to make an opportunity for the public to have some input into the planning process. If time appears to be too short, we will undertake to make it a little longer.

POSSIBLE BCFP-FLETCHER CHALLENGE MERGER

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, last week I questioned the minister with respect to the possible Fletcher Challenge-BCFP merger, wanting to know how much of the newly formed company's annual allowable cut, should the merger be sanctioned, will be directed toward the small business enterprise program.

My question to the minister, in light of his response last week, is: whether or not the merger is a solid proposal at this time, has the minister decided to inform the two companies involved that perhaps in some of their operating areas as much as 25 percent of their annual allowable cut will be directed to the small business enterprise program? And if not, why not?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, this ministry has not responded, because that would be conjecture, and we don't respond to conjecture.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean to tell this House that merger talks are going on between two forest companies which could form the biggest forest products company in this province, and the minister has not told them that they could possibly be dealing on 25 percent less timber?

A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier decided to advise the companies of this possible situation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we have not received any proposal, and until we receive a proposal, we can't be going on rumour or talk or things that are perhaps coming through indirectly. Certainly when we hear and when we know a little more as to the details of the proposal, we will address it, I can assure the hon. member.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

Mr. Mowat presented a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is unique in the sense that Vancouver is a unique city, in a unique situation and in a beautiful location. The act will do a lot of housekeeping. Some of the highlights will be that the bill will provide for civic enumeration of the voters; it will provide for a three-year term instead of a two-year term for elected members of council; it will enable the city of Vancouver to adopt a ward system; it will give the city the right to indemnify council members and members who are employees of boards and societies assisting the city. It will also bring in a section providing the protection of employees and members of various boards from personal liability.

Bill PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, standing orders advise that if we have a point of order from question period, it is to be raised after question period. I am rising on such a point of order.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) asked a question about the position of his resolution dealing with food tax which was on the order paper. I have today's order paper, Thursday, May 14, at 2 p. m., and I don't see it. Is it there?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, it's not. Thank you. It's not on the order paper; the member has admitted that.

MR. BLENCOE: Just testing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is this a matter of privilege?

Interjections.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not there. We could have a matter of privilege here, but I'll review it. It seems to me I heard the member in question period indicate he had a resolution on the order paper with regard to value-added food tax, and I can't see it here. But that's just an observation.

Mr. Speaker, following the announcement by the Clerk of orders of the day, I will call committee on Bill 20.

[2:30]

[ Page 1160 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Section 53 as amended approved.

On section 54.

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: Could I ask the minister, please, Madam Chairman, why the minister felt the amendment was necessary?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It was pointed out to us in the negotiations that the wording indicated that it could only be a transfer from the school in which the teacher was originally employed, and in some districts teachers had been moved to different schools; and so to remove that confusion, we took that step. So it leaves the intent the same, except that it removes the "originally employed."

MR. JONES: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, I had difficulty hearing the minister's answer. Let me raise my concern about the.... The amendment here seems to be giving boards the unrestricted right to transfer a teacher without appeal. The teacher receives seven days' notice and there's no appeal. I did want to ask the minister, if we're on the same section, why he felt this amendment was necessary.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I believe we're on the section now, rather than the amendment. The intent has not been changed by this amendment. It is true that the teacher can be given seven days' notice to transfer from one school to another. That's not that unusual. What can be bargained is the terms and conditions if that happens.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam on the amendment.

MR. CASHORE: Pardon me, Madam Chairman, if we're still on the amendment. I thought that the last exchange was on the section. I take it you're going to call the vote on the amendment and then we'll go on to the discussion on the section. Is that correct?

Amendment approved.

On section 54 as amended.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, with regard to the question that was just answered, does the minister not think that in view of a concern that we have talked about earlier, that a change of teaching position or school can have a major impact on a teacher's professional and personal life.... Do you really feel that seven days for this type of traumatic action is adequate, given that the party is involved in the educational enterprise? On the basis of your experience in education, your experience as a principal, and your experience with the school system, do you really feel that seven days is adequate?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, the answer is yes. You have to look at situations. It's not done willy-nilly, but it is done if, for instance, the enrolments at the beginning of the year for some reason are way out. There may be another school where students are without a teacher, and in this school there are more teachers than the enrolment requires. It has not been unusual to make that move in a few days.

I might point out that it's always been in the act that teachers can be transferred to another school with seven days' notice, and this is just a continuation of that practice. As I indicated, now with full bargaining rights, teachers can actually bargain into the agreement that if it happens, then such and such should apply, and I'm sure that will occur.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, it seems to me that this is a rather unfortunate way of going about trying to achieve what you say your purpose is. By repealing this entire section and replacing it with this, it seems to me that some very decent and reasonable provisions that could well have remained in effect will not be there. For instance, the minister refers to the situation at the beginning of a teaching year. Well, the way this is worded it certainly doesn't seem to be directed to be dealing with that type of example in particular. Also, in the section being repealed there's provision for additional procedures that would make it possible for a teacher who wished to find other means of taking a look at this decision to do so. So it seems to me that when you say that seven days was really there all the time, the clauses of the act that are being repealed really do curtail the availability of what was previously the case.

One particular concern I have, just for example, and perhaps the minister would comment on this: what about some of our rural school districts, where this would necessitate a move of perhaps many miles from one setting to another? I'd be interested in your comments on this in general, but on that point in particular.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I know that as we get into the clause-by-clause — picking a phrase and trying to dissect it — you perhaps have lost track of the intent of this bill: that in this legislation teachers are being given full bargaining rights, the right to bargain all terms and conditions of employment. You cannot do that and then leave all the terms and conditions in the legislation. So that's the main reason behind that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't change it that drastically; the seven days doesn't change from the past, and the terms and conditions in the rural area transfers.

I would assume that most boards in the first place.... I know I'm not allowed to say good intent is ever out there; it has to be covered. But most boards would hardly take a teacher from a city, move them a hundred miles out into a rural school and expect to get away with it under the due process of appeal and so on that can kick in. I would assume that in the bargaining process many of these conditions were built into many school district contracts, and the agreement would include those sorts of things. So all of that is protected.

MR. CASHORE: The fact remains that the intent here is to repeal some sections that would provide for fair, reasonable and decent procedures. One wonders why the effort

[ Page 1161 ]

would be made to repeal that, when obviously the minister, from his comments, does agree with the intent of those clauses that are presently there. One wonders about the busy work that's involved in going about repealing those very reasonable sections. You talk about due process, teachers' bargaining rights and all of these things. That may well be, but I have not heard you cite an example from your experience, or from the experience of your predecessors, to suggest that there has been a problem with these clauses having been in legislation in the past. If you do have such examples, I think that would be very informative for this House.

With regard to the parts of this section that you plan to repeal, subsection (5) states: "If the salary of the teacher is to be decreased by the transfer, then the board may adjust the salary only at the beginning of the next school year." I would like to ask the minister if in his opinion it will be possible, once this is repealed, for that reduction in salary to take effect immediately, or at the seven days.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we can discuss every clause in the old legislation that is now being changed, and whether or not it should be maintained, but is the member now asking me to take away from teachers full bargaining rights for all terms and conditions? If he is, I wish he'd indicate that.

When we moved to full bargaining rights of all terms and conditions for teachers, which teachers asked for.... I might admit that many of you supported the concept of full bargaining rights for teachers. Now you're saying that you want everything left in the act, and full bargaining rights, and it can't be done, Mr. Member. Whether I agree or disagree with one section 1s I think irrelevant.

MR. CASHORE: I would point out that the kinds of comments the minister has made in response to my questions have not really cited examples, which I have requested; examples that would be from experience, that would support the need to remove these sections. Whatever your plan with regard to teachers' bargaining rights, I still don't think the minister has made a case for removing some sections and not other sections. If you're going to argue that point, then I'd assume that you would be removing an awful lot more than you are. There doesn't seem to be a consistent thread of responsibility in terms of what the minister would decide to repeal and what the minister would decide not to repeal. The only answer I seem to be getting is: "Well, why should we include all of it?" That doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense.

I would like to refer to subsection (6), where it points out that there is a procedure whereby a teacher could have his or her situation reviewed by the minister. That too will now be repealed. During the time that the minister has been Minister of Education, I would be interested in knowing if this has been an onerous part of the minister's responsibility. Has the minister been required to conduct several hearings with regard to this part of the legislation? And how many of these appeals have been referred directly to the minister? If he could answer that, perhaps I might understand better the reason for this clause being repealed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I can assure the member that I'm not trying to be obtuse. What you are in effect arguing here is terms and conditions of employment. The sections we have deleted in the public schools act are those in which terms and conditions of employment have been spelled out. We have given teachers full bargaining rights, including full terms and conditions of employment. Therefore the examples — whether I had bad experiences or good experiences with any of this — are irrelevant. I don't know what can be gained in this legislation.... We've certainly deleted some sections of the School Act; we have not deleted others. But we have carefully gone through the School Act and tried to delete those sections in which terms and conditions of employment were spelled out, because those terms and conditions are now bargainable and to be written into an agreement. You can't have it both ways — have the terms and conditions spelled out in the act and: which ones do I pick and choose if I get full bargaining rights?

[2:45]

MR. ROSE: The minister might like to tell us, Madam Chairperson, why the seven days were left in? You can't have it both ways. You can't have full bargaining rights and have it spelled out that you've got seven days for transfers. I'd like to know, once he's finished consulting with his officials, if he can answer that question. If it's going to be full bargaining rights, and we can't have it both ways, why are the seven days left in?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To give the minimum protection to teachers, I think that at least seven days' notice is required. It says at least seven days; it doesn't say how many days, so the number of days may be bargainable.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many times a year this might occur under the legislation. Could it occur once at the beginning of the year? Could it occur twice — say in the fall and at Christmastime because of population shifts? Could it occur under the legislation — not what the board's likely to do, but under the legislation, would it be legal for it to happen more than once a year? I'll leave it at that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Madam Chairman, under the legislation it could happen as many times in a year as the agreement that people negotiate will allow.

MR. ROSE: There may be a contract with a board that covers this matter, and it may well not be negotiable. That's the problem. The minister knows that this business of transfer has often been used by a board as a disciplinary measure against a teacher. Is he aware of cases where this has happened?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I am, and very rarely did it get anywhere, because it was generally appealable. Under the new legislation, now that terms and conditions are bargainable, I am assuming that the people who write the agreement are also aware that it could be abused, and will try to cover all that. If they don't cover all that, the person still has appeal through all the due process.

MR. ROSE: The minister has told us that the board could do it innumerable times in a year — as often as once a month, if they wanted to — under the present law and amendment. Since the appeal has gone, the only thing that protects the teacher is the contract between the board and the teaching

[ Page 1162 ]

association or union. So he agrees to that — if not.... I'll know that I've got his information correctly.

Teacher X gets into trouble in Kelowna. So we send him to Rutland — the minister's home town; his home school. So for punishment he gets sent where the minister is attending as a student in October — that could happen. Then he could be sent to the Joe Rich valley, and because the Joe Rich valley is a little further away — it requires chains in winter — he might even have his salary cut. And there's a new contract. But it won't matter really, because that change can't occur until the following year. Next month he's sent to Westbank. When I was up there, there was no bridge, so being sent to Westbank was almost like being sent to purgatory. You had to travel on the ferry, especially if your home was in Kelowna.

We're talking about teacher rights and teacher protection here. That is what we're concerned about, because a venal board could get away with almost anything in the old days; and I've seen some signs of that sort of pressure and power over teachers returning, if we're not careful. I'm not saying it's going to be widespread, but I'm saying it could exist.

In the minister's own district, where he now lives.... Since he's no longer privileged to live in Rutland, he's living up in the boonies — you know, they're all broke up there because wheat....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Point of privilege?

So he's up in the boondocks. His district, correct me if I'm wrong, could be hundreds of miles wide — not just one, but a hundred or even thousands of miles. Well now, if Mr. Joe Teacher got transferred once a month, and under this legislation the minister just told us that he could do that, wouldn't this be pretty supreme punishment? And what protection would the minister have if there were no contract negotiated with the board on that particular subject of transfers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Technically and legally, I suppose that could be done. But I've tried to suggest that the teachers have an appeal process and a due process. Can the member even visualize under common law or any law that any board could get away with that without being challenged as to what they were doing? I suppose, to paraphrase it, I could say there is no law against stupidity, but there is considerable protection should that stupidity be invoked.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether the minister's last remarks were meant to describe my questions. If they were, I'll take no umbrage, because there will be a mutual exchange of stupidity, perhaps, going across the floor.

I'd like to ask the minister, though: since an appeal process has been removed from the act, it therefore must be bargainable. If it isn't bargained in good faith, then none exists. Would the minister confirm that?

MR. JONES: I want to thank the minister again for his patience in dealing with this question. A valuable point is being made here in terms of the process that we're experiencing. From time to time in debate, the minister has used statements like "hypothetical straw man." I think some of the questioning is really necessary in order to fully understand the minister's intent.

I support the concept of bargaining the conditions of employment for teachers in the province, and therefore I suppose I have to accept some loss of protection here for this period. But the point I'm trying to make is the kind of question that arises and the fear and anxiety in the province with the teaching force during this transition period. That's a very natural consequence of this situation. Section 54 is a good example. There were formerly certain protections in the School Act. Now, by amendment, they're being removed so that they can be bargainable. But during the transition period there is nothing there, and it is this period that causes the fear and the anxiety. Perhaps that's why the minister is anxious to get this legislation passed: so it will be there and will be operative and perhaps some of the anxiety will be relieved as the bill proceeds.

I would like to make the point to the minister.... Some members of the House have accused the anxiety out there as being the product of disinformation, and I think even during the debate here where we have the unique opportunity to question the minister directly, get clear from the minister his intent in this legislation.... We've spent a fair number of hours at this now, and it's still in the process of becoming clear to members who are studying the legislation. Certainly it's more difficult for people in the field who may have a copy of the bill, may never have seen a bill before in their lives and do not have the time or the energy to put into a full understanding of the minister's intent here.

I hope that by my comments there is some appreciation of the anxiety being created by the introduction of this bill. I'm not suggesting it's the minister's fault or the government's fault, but it's a natural process of change to have fear of the unknown. What we have in this transition period is loss of protection. There was protection before; now, until it's negotiated.... I think the minister's main point in this section is that this can be bargained, and he fully expects these kinds of protections will, in good faith, be put back in by school boards. But in the interim we really have nothing there; we have lost the protection, and that does cause anxiety. I hope members opposite appreciate that that anxiety is there; it's real; it's genuine. It's not being stirred up; it's not being created; it's a natural product of the process that we're engaged in in changing conditions under which teachers operate.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have one question in connection with this clause. If a group of teachers decides to form an association rather than enter into a certified status, then if in their negotiations they are unable to reach an agreement, they may agree to go to arbitration. We will be dealing with this in a further clause, Madam Chair, and I don't want to presume on that discussion. But in respect to the matter of the transfer of teachers and the protection then available to them, it is conceivable that if teachers who are in an association are not able to reach an agreement with their board on that matter, they could stand unprotected, because there is no dispute resolution except arbitration available to them in regard to their failure to reach agreement. The arbitration, as I understand it, would be limited to salaries and bonuses.

So as for those teachers who chose an association route rather than a certification route, we could with this particular clause be taking away their protections as they pertain to transfer. I would presume, because the minister has indicated it, that where there are terms of employment in the act, these

[ Page 1163 ]

are being removed in the anticipation that they will become a part of the collective agreements of teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, the association or the certified body — the union, if you like — can negotiate all these terms and conditions. Yes, there is no automatic compulsory arbitration; it has to be by agreement. The assumption, of course, is that groups of teachers choose to form an association because they believe that they can negotiate responsibly with their boards the terms and conditions for these agreements without having to go to the strike-lockout option.

There is a remedy. Should a board be obstinate and not agree, obviously what would they expect the teachers' association to do? To certify, to go on strike to win those rights. So in other words, there is that remedy that is built in.

Section 54 as amended approved.

On section 55.

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

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Madam Chairman, this amendment and the section deal with the rights of principals, as I understand it. That is something that I have talked about at length.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I won't talk about it at length in this section, but I have one question on the amendment. Why has the government decided to insist that contracts for administrative officers must last no longer than five years? It seems to me that boards of administrative officers should have the right to enter into contracts for whatever length of time they want, particularly given that the rights of principals have been, I think, significantly limited in other sections of the act. So I am just wondering about the five years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The intent here was to move to term contracts, because it had been pointed out to us in the discussions that without any term specified it could be a month or a day, and there was no recourse on that. This way, the term can be one year, two years, three years and, we have said, up until five years. Then if a board appoints someone for a specified term and chooses to change their mind, the person has the protection of that term appointment.

We felt the five years was a reasonable figure. Superintendents have three-year terms. If we had said ten years or 15 years, then you almost have indefinite.... So this gives protection to the board and protection to the administrators to avoid any capricious action.

[3:00]

Amendment approved.

On section 55 as amended.

MR. CLARK: I just have a few questions around this section of the bill. I guess I would start by dealing with whether principals and vice-principals are managers or teachers. For example, the Premier indicated a few years ago that he felt that in large schools they should be managers and not teachers. We heard other members of the House on the other side mention that. I wonder if the minister would go on record to indicate his feeling on the intent of the legislation to allow for principals being managers rather than simply teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I could certainly go on record, but if we are going to stick to the legislation, the legislation requires that they be members of the college. Membership in the college is only open to people who have a professional teaching certificate, so regardless of what opinions may or may not have been expressed in the past, or whatever views anybody holds, they have to be professionally certified educators in order to hold these positions.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour the point, but I feel very strongly that principals really are principal teachers, that there's a collegial atmosphere in the schools, that it's critical to the morale of the school that they be part of a team, and I think what attempts really to impose an industrial relations setting in a school isn't going to work. All the experience I've had and my discussions with other teachers clearly indicate to me that this division imposed by this bill between administrators and teachers is going to have a negative impact on the teaching and learning conditions within each individual school.

Some questions regarding principals, because I'm very concerned. I've said before in the House that when I asked principals to discuss, for example, children who are going to school without lunches, repeatedly they have said to me, "Don't phone me if Bill 20 passes," because clearly their rights are limited and they become more of an individual contractual relationship rather than a collective bargaining relationship. So therefore they feel, I think, threatened, and I think clearly their rights are somewhat limited.

A question I really want to ask is: will principals be able to form an association? Is there anything in the act or in this section that allows principals to form associations?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman, on the last part there's nothing in the act that provides for them forming a legal collective bargaining association, because they are excluded personnel. There is nothing in the act to prohibit them from forming associations, as they now do, informally, but they don't have formally constituted bargaining rights as they are excluded personnel.

As to the reference about the concern that I know has been played up dramatically, that this is going to pit teachers against principals, and that sort of thing, I can't accept that. Principals have always had a management function in the schools. They have always been in the position where they have written reports on teachers, and they haven't necessarily been favourable. They have had to call teachers on to the mat but that has not prevented the total educational leadership that automatically goes with being a good educational manager.

MR. CLARK: So the minister is saying that principals, for example, specifically must have individual contracts with school boards, and it is not possible for them then to form an association to bargain on their behalf or to have consistent contracts across the board on any collective matter, as I understand it. Maybe he could clarify it, but I guess what I'm getting at then, if that's the case, is: is it possible — it seems

[ Page 1164 ]

eminently possible — for principals with essentially the same size school, the same essential number of teachers in two different schools, in two different districts....? It is clearly possible then — maybe the minister could confirm — for principals at those two different schools, even though they're virtually identical, to have completely different sets of pay, standards and conditions of work for the principals because they're in different districts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is the situation now, that the administrative allowances between districts vary considerably. So those vary now. In the new situation, yes, certainly between districts and other districts it can. I would think that within a district it would be highly unlikely in that boards would have difficulty dealing with this. As I said, in some of the districts now, although there have been no formal administrators' bargaining associations, administrators have formed associations and have reached sort of agreements on a set formula. But the act does provide that when they reach that, each administrative officer will have to sign an individual agreement with the board.

MR. CLARK: I recognize what you're saying and I think it's going to happen, but it seems to me logical to provide them with collective bargaining rights so that there can be some consistency and bargaining protection across the board, rather than just the individual contract.

Let me direct your attention, please, to subsection (5) of this section which requires that a board offer an administrative officer a teaching position only if it does not intend to rehire him or her at the end of the term of the contract. Subsection (2) says, however, that a board may discharge an administrative officer by majority vote. So is it correct then that under the act the board really need not offer an administrative officer a teaching position if it's not going to rehire him, because by simple majority they can dismiss him?

In other words, if you take subsection (2) and subsection (5) together, they in a sense nullify each other. It says under one section that if they don't want to rehire them as an administrative officer, they have to give them a teaching job. Then in the other section it says that they can be dismissed by simple majority vote. So in a sense they really don't have the security that's implicit in one section to go back to teaching. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? What I'm asking is that if you take subsection (2) and subsection (5) together, it really means that by a simple majority they can be removed; therefore there is no onus on the school board to give teaching positions to administrative officers if they decide not to rehire them as administrative officers. Understand?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member related that subsection (2) says how you can do it. Subsection (5) then says that if you don't renew the contract you must offer them a teaching position. So you have to read subsection (5). I'm sorry, you asked the question and then I know your attention got diverted. But as I said, subsection (2) says how you do it and subsection (5) says what happens if you don't renew the contract, and there it requires that they offer that person the teaching position.

MR. CLARK: I understand that. I simply want to say that because they can be removed by a majority vote of the school board, there really is no obligation to give an administrative officer a teaching position even though it states that in the act.

If they don't want to give them a teaching job, they can be removed by a majority vote. Right? If they're not going to rehire an administrator, one section says they have to be given a teaching job; but they really don't have to, because they can remove them by a majority vote — correct? In fact, I suspect that that would be likely, because under this bill an administrative officer will in effect become a management function.

I think it's more clearly delineated than in the past, and therefore it's unlikely that a school board is going to want to put someone who has been a manager back into the bargaining unit as a teacher. Do you understand what I'm saying? In fact, it's going to be unlikely that an administrative officer, who has become more like a manager under this bill.... If they don't want to renew their contract as a manager, they're not going to want them to bump back into the bargaining unit as a teacher, so by a simple majority they can simply remove them. Even though one section of the act says they have to give them a job as a teacher, prior to their contract expiring they could simply dismiss them. That's in fact what I perceive to be most likely.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, Madam Chairman, I've finally realized where the confusion is. You're reading subsection (5) in the original bill. Perhaps I could read you the amended subsection (5):

"Where a board of a school district

"(a) does not intend to renew the contract of an administrative officer in the district, or

"(b) discharges an administrative officer under subsection (2) (a), except where the discharge is for a cause that would have justified a dismissal for just and reasonable cause under section 122 (l) " — which is as a teacher

"the board shall offer the administrative officer a teaching position in the district before the end of the contract or the effective date of the discharge, as the case may be."

I think that answers your question.

MR. CLARK: It certainly clarifies subsection (5), but subsection (2) allows an administrative officer to be discharged by simple vote. So even though we have all this protection in subsection (5) as amended, which says you must give an administrative officer a teaching job if you're not going to give him a job as administrative officer, subsection (2) says that just prior to his contract expiring they can just move a motion and dismiss him or her. That's correct, is it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have to be careful or the member will have me confused. Subsection (2) says that the board may, by a simple majority resolution, dismiss an administrator. Okay, we agree on that. Then subsection (5) says that when they do dismiss an administrator, they must offer him a teaching position. Is that okay?

MR. ROSE: I have some questions about this. I know it's not second reading of the bill and therefore principles are really not debatable, but I'm concerned about the arrangements of the tenure of an administrator. I believe he's an educational leader, and I do think there will now be a gulf between his staff and his leadership. The reason I say this is that he's all by himself now out in that rowboat. He doesn't

[ Page 1165 ]

have a group of people to back him up at all. He really doesn't even have his own colleagues.

Really, what's happened to him now is that he's there at the pleasure of the board. He's cut off completely from his colleagues and the people with whom he works. As a former principal, I think the minister must know that the role of principal is much more than the factory model in which you turn out so many widgets and then you've done your job. I wonder if maybe educational efficiency will be how many people you can load in a particular class on a particular teacher. The minister may counter and say: "Well, that's all bargainable." Well, I'm not so sure it is, as long as the Ministry of Education has full control of the budget and funding formulas. I don't think it's necessarily that way. I think that principals, instead of being fearless educational leaders and thinkers, because they have some tenure, they have some protection.... I think that they'll tend to be authoritarian submissives. That's a very, very interesting concept, and you should study that, because I think you've got some over there on your side. In other words, they could be very, very authoritarian with those beneath them, but very submissive to those above them, including the board. I'm not sure that you're going to get creative leadership out of this.

The minister said, just a moment ago.... I wanted to know, since he said that during the term of the contract, by a simple majority of the board.... Does the minister not feel that this really takes a great deal of protection away from a principal, in terms of his own tenure and job security, which has at least the potential to turn the principal into somebody who is less likely to take bold, creative steps, or even certain political positions which may not be very popular in that particular community?

[3:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to determine how this — allowing the full collective bargaining route for teachers — differs so dramatically from any other union organization with excluded personnel. All of them have them. I don't see a protagonistic situation there. A good manager in any union, who is excluded personnel, does not have the protection of the union, but has to have, certainly if he's going to continue in a management function, at least credibility with the people there and the support of the people in the school. I'm trying to think of what protection I had when I was a principal, if the board had decided that I was done as a principal. I would perhaps have had protection as a teacher, which is all the organization afforded me. But certainly they could not have protected my administrative job, if the board had in the past moved by simple majority. It didn't seem to be the deciding factor — what the relations were between the staff and the principal. That was the human factor, if you like, and that human factor will continue.

From the professional side of things, they are still united; they are all members of the college. There is a professional role to play. In effect, all that's happened is like in other organizations that have full collective bargaining rights: there are excluded personnel, who often show up as district managers, or regional managers, or that sort of thing. If you want to take the provincial government employees or any industrial situation as an example, you don't have sort of an automatic them/us situation. Whenever it reaches that point, it's a bad situation.

MR. ROSE: Far be it from me to offer the experienced minister the results of my experience, but I still think he conceives of the school in a factory model, with managers managing people to turn out widgets. That is not what education is all about. A manager in a school is not just a matter of putting a certain amount of raw materials and resources to work to produce X. It's a much more abstract, much more professional, much more mysterious thing than that.

He asked rhetorically "what protection I had when I were a principal." It's hard to put that in the subjunctive when I'm quoting somebody else.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't want you to falter on the rock of the subjunctive.

The protection he had was the combined weight of his colleagues plus the BCTF, in terms of appeal and everything else. This person now is in a rowboat all by himself. By a simple majority of the board, he can be cast adrift. As for his being a confidential employee, he needs more than ever to be hooked in, if he's going to function properly as an educational leader in with his staff and not separated from his staff. The argument, I guess, boils down to whether or not his removal as a confidential manager breaks that bond. I am afraid that it does, and I am afraid that he is likely to be more interested in pleasing the board and the political climate within his community — if you like, sucking up to the community leaders — than in providing courageous, creative, educational leadership. That's what we're concerned about.

As far as the students are concerned, if this educational leader becomes the model, we won't be getting independent, creative, self-reliant, critical thinkers, but people coming out of our schools who are in fact widgets, who figure the best way to get along is to keep their mouths shut and be submissive. That is the whole point here, as far as I am concerned. It's the view of education and what kind of people you are trying to produce. Are you trying to produce people who are going to be willing, submissive, raw material for your factory system? Or are you trying to provide people who are able and willing to take chances, be creative, be critical of the environment around them — political, economic environment, nature, or something else?

The minister sits there, and I can't see into his head, but I think he is thinking.... Well, I am way out in left field. I'd certainly rather be there than in right field.

Nevertheless, that's the critically important part of education, because if education isn't about the things I'm talking about, then it's not about very much. What kind of future citizen does this country want? That is an essential and very profound question, and I don't see this act, nor this particular section, contributing to the enhancement of the future citizens of this country, this province, this community or whatever. That's what I'm concerned about.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think I've ever heard a finer denunciation of the professional ethics of those people who aspire to be administrators — that they would simply become lackeys and have no more interest in education or the board, but simply in protecting their own position. I suppose I could use the example that some years ago superintendents and assistant superintendents were appointed to those positions because they were considered educational leaders; they

[ Page 1166 ]

were asked to sign individual contracts. I have certainly not had any indication that they suddenly became muzzled, or muzzled themselves in speaking for the interests of education. I fully expect that that will go on. Certainly this legislation does not preclude people from speaking out in favour of education. It does not prevent people from being educational leaders.

I could get into an interesting debate: what kind of people do we want in our system? What kind of people do we want to turn out in the schools? Individual thinkers, people who have access to the total range of what teachers are willing to provide for students, not as pawns in a salary negotiation.

MR. ROSE: It would help, Madam Chairman, if the minister, in attempting to provide the total range, would be less restrictive in the number of options that our students can have as well. It isn't just a matter of personnel or what teachers or principals or the BCTF may be up to or not up to. It has a great deal to do with the narrow, restrictive academic fare which they're fed now because there are few options left in the system. That's done deliberately, because it's cheaper to do it that way, or there are some other motives that perhaps some of us hardly realize.

He mentions the superintendents. I'll tell you how the superintendents came about. Most of them started out in the north, as young people. For instance, they went up to the north. I think the minister, by being elected, just missed that path from the north as a principal. They gradually move south — that's how it happens.

But I'd like to ask him about the superintendents we have here without maligning any of them. Has it ever occurred to the minister how many of the superintendents in our major urban areas were not even trained in British Columbia? Examine some of the major metropolitan areas and where those superintendents got their training, and it wasn't British Columbia. As far as superintendents are concerned, the salaries were so rotten — because they had to be a step below that of the deputy minister — that for years you could hardly get them. They were not often drawn from the ranks of educational leadership at all. They came in to be superintendents in the old days, not from the eminent positions in the urban centres at all but from the Dawson Creeks and places like that. That's where they came from but that doesn't necessarily make them bad. Yes, there are many fine educational leaders in our province, but in the big jobs, examine where many of them came from. They were imported. They didn't come out of our system in many cases.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Are you talking about Prince George? Some of them did. That's a good idea. The minister suggests that we get back to the bill. Before I was provoked, he maintained that this is going to do nothing to affect the outspokenness, the educational leadership, the courage of principals. I maintain that it will be damaging because they will become vulnerable, and they will play it safe.

I think that is maybe what the intention is, because this government has systematically got rid of resource boards, hospital boards, college boards. It took away the powers of school boards even to set their own budget. Any time there is an opposing force or opposing forces, you either muzzle them or you abolish them,

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I have been provoked into getting off the bill myself. It is a very interesting debate, and you can draw analogies. In the BCTF code of ethics, it says I think in number 6 or number 7 that no teacher may speak out publicly other than on the position taken by the federation, and things of that nature. So if you want to start making comparisons, yes, it does. I am familiar with the code of ethics. As a matter of fact, the principals in the province were not allowed to talk to the Minister of Education on professional educational matters; they had to be represented by the BCTF.

So in other words, if you are going to make an argument here about how educational people and individual and critical thinking have been muzzled, we could have a long and wonderful debate on that. However, I would like to get back to the bill and suggest that how a person does a job and how they manage and how they work with their colleagues in a professional way is not prevented by this legislation. Nor does it put a sort of wall between administrators and teachers.

I think that when this legislation is in place and people clearly have to make the decisions of what they are and where they are and how they intend to do it, we can get back on to purely educational issues, many of which are going on, so that they are not mingled and mixed.

Section 55 as amended approved.

On section 56.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: On behalf of the opposition, I want to commend the minister for the amendments, particularly to subsection (c) and subsection (d). I think it is a very positive step to address the kinds of concerns that I think my colleague from Coquitlam-Port Moody was just alluding to, and certainly the elimination of those two sections goes part way to achieve that by the original suggestion that we would inject principals into disputes between boards and teachers and inject them into disputes on collective bargaining.

[3:30]

I think it very strongly made the point that the member from Coquitlam-Port Moody just made about the style and direction that this section is moving principal-teachers in. So I do want to commend the minister for removing this, because I think it does go part way to address the concerns that we have on this side of the House.

I would like to ask a couple of very small questions with respect to the amendment. But before I do that, I would also like to say that I would like to see the minister go further in amending this section, along the lines that my colleague just mentioned, to include in there some things to balance, a little bit, some of what the member for Coquitlam-Moody described as the managerial mentality or the top-down approach or the authoritarian approach that is illustrated here. Something might be added to suggest that it would be the responsibility of principals and vice-principals to assess and make known the educational needs in their schools. I think as a former principal you did that — perhaps without it being prescribed — but if we look at this act, that's the kind of thing we want to see, so that the principals are real leaders and are

[ Page 1167 ]

representing the needs and concerns in their schools to the authorities above. I think the addition of that one in section 56 would be a welcome asset.

Perhaps we could do a similar kind of one for the directors of instruction, so that the interests of the students and teachers in the schools and in the district can be reported from the principal and the directors of instruction in representing those areas that they are responsible for, so that this doesn't give the total appearance of a top-down approach.

So I welcome the amendments in (c) and (d). I suggest that some balance be made by making further amendments to suggest some more bottom-up kinds of approaches. I have just one very small question on the directors of instruction: I just don't understand why this section that had the reports countersigned by the superintendent was changed. It's a very small point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On the change in the directors: under the old regulations, as I understand, these were sort of legal reports that were submitted, and therefore the superintendent had to countersign them. That is no longer necessary, so that was removed. In other words, the director is an administrative officer and would submit the report to the superintendent. It doesn't necessarily have to be countersigned by the superintendent.

MR. JONES: Thank you to the minister. Madam Chairperson, I'm not clear whether we're on the amended motion or we're on the amendment still.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment to section 56.

MS. A. HAGEN: A note of explanation on the amendment, and again it's in that section that deals with the principal and the vice-principal and it's the old clause (i) — I guess that's the best way to identify it. Could the minister explain the reason for the change in the wording? It originally read "suspension or dismissal." It now states "dismissal or discipline." I think that that may have something to do with some of the changes that have been worked through in terms of due process, but could the minister just clarify that wording. At times, after one has dealt with the act, the bill and the amendments, one's mental processes in keeping track of the many different words we're using are not always as sharp as they might be, and I would just like to have that on record.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The main reason is that it makes it parallel to a section that's coming later and gives room for.... There are the opportunities for boards to discipline as well as to just suspend or dismiss.

MS. A. HAGEN: The dismissal and discipline I understand. I'm still not quite clear why the word "suspension" has been removed. Does a board not have the power to suspend? And would the minister in his response like to just alert us to the upcoming section where the language here is being paralleled with language that occurs there? He is probably more quick to find that than we will be.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, the upcoming section is section 122.

MS. A. HAGEN: And the omission of "suspension" — the significance?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose that suspension is, in effect, a form of discipline. We can look at that — so dismissal or discipline, rather than suspension or dismissal.

Amendment approved.

On section 56 as amended.

MR. JONES: I suppose the remarks I made with respect to the amendments, and the possible additions I suggested, indicated the kind of direction I thought this section should be going in. It's not going far enough. The amendments were a help, but what I think we're clearly doing in section 56 is defining the role of principals as managers. I know that for many years the government heard that principals should be taken out of the bargaining unit and that that would solve a lot of problems in our educational system. Although the Premier was a strong advocate of that when he was Education minister, I think that was a minority view; but I'm sure that's the view that has produced sections such as section 56.

It's a solution to a problem that I don't think will work. I don't think it will be successful. In fact, I think it will damage and make worse the kinds of situations that we have in the schools. I would like to try to convince the minister of that fact. Yes, principals to some degree are managers. But to see principals as managers is to understand principals in a business and industry metaphor. I suppose that's partly true. The world of education is likened to the world of business in the sense that business is interested in management and control; and I suppose that's necessary to pursue its goals of efficiency and profit. However, just because education does in part entail management — and the minister correctly suggests that that management has always been there; it does have a management function, and the principal in section 56 has a management function — doesn't mean that education is like a business. It doesn't have to be effective and efficient in the way a business has to. It doesn't have to make a profit the way a business does. Although management is part of education, it's not like it is in business, where profit is involved.

We have a partial similarity between business and education, but not enough to do what we're doing in section 56 and transpose what I see as an industrial model onto the school system. I suggest that's what we're doing in section 56, and I suggest to the minister that this is wrong. I'd like, from this side of the House, to emphasize that point. Certainly the goals of education can be made more effective and more efficient, but it doesn't require the kinds of things we're doing through section 56 to achieve that.

I think the minister has probably been reminded that the word "principal" was originally understood to be "principal teacher," meaning the first teacher in the school — and in some schools in this province the only teacher in the school. Principals are teachers, and I'm very pleased to hear the minister suggest that in this legislation it's necessary that they be teachers because they'd be certified through the college. Principals are the leading teachers. So if "principal" comes from "principal teacher," then "principal" at one time was an adjective; now it seems to have become a noun. What this legislation is doing is making that separation even greater. It's making the principal more separate from the teacher and destroying the concept of principal teacher.

[ Page 1168 ]

I think that recent development in terminology is to call principals administrators. That one always bothered me a bit. I liked the concept of principal teacher and wasn't too enamoured with administrators. Now we're going even further in the kinds of definitions we're injecting into this act, in terms of administrative officers. It seems to me that if principals are teachers and we've gone as far as administrators, then there's no need to go any further than that. That sort of management function, that business approach to things, was far enough already. I would suggest that there was a reason for principals wanting to call themselves administrators. I suppose it gave them a separate status, a greater importance, and perhaps there was some economic motive in their doing that. But in this section we are taking it too far, by the kinds of definitions that we find under the duties of principals and vice principals.

Madam Chairman, it's very clear that business — and I think my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody made this point — deals with materials and people as resources, as part of the process to produce something at the end. That member described the product as widgets. But in education it's a much different treatment of human beings, in that they're not things and they're not dehumanized. The people part is the essence of education. Education is a people process. Not keeping that idea of the educational enterprise being totally different from the economic enterprise of business and industry is a retrograde step.

If we look at the origin of the word "administer," the "ad" part means "to" and the "minister" part means "serve." So what we see in an administrator is someone who is there to serve others, to be a servant. What we're seeing now is quite a different process, a top-down process where rather than serving those in the school, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody has said, it's a different approach, a more authoritarian approach. So what we have now is not those that are the servants of the people in their schools, but the servants of those people above them.

What we lose in the process of this top-down approach is the leadership function. I know the minister disagrees with this, but I believe strongly that that's the kind of thing that we're doing. I suppose only time will tell. But I don't think leadership flows from the kinds of duties that we see in section 56 — I suppose it's (a) through (i) now, with the amended version. I don't think the duties that principals and vice-principals have there speak to leadership. It seems that these duties are not from leaders but more from persons who are led. If we went through each one of those, they would speak to somebody that was being led or being told to do something, rather than somebody representing his school. We've lost the leadership there, and I don't think through individual contracts we're going to be able to bargain that kind of leadership that we're losing in this section.

[3:45]

I mentioned the definition of "administer." I'd also like to remind the minister of the definition of "educate." The first part of that is "ex," meaning out of, and the second part,"ducere," means to lead. So education is "leading out." Leading in education essentially means leading people from where they are now to a new possibility in the future. That does require leadership. To lead in such a way requires that a leader follow what education really is, and that's a leading out. The duties in section 56 conspire against that and thwart that kind of leadership. The principal, as the leading teacher, must be one who leads others to new possibilities by essentially following what education is and being part of that process, not as one who is led but as a leader.

I would hope to be able to convince the minister of this. It's a concept that I think the minister understands. The metaphor of the factory is one that we understand, and it's easy to apply that in legislation. It's hard to find another metaphor that fits the situation. My friend from Vancouver Centre may appreciate this: the closest metaphor that I could think of was a football team. The role of the principal is not as the owner of the team, nor even the manager or the coach. It's something a little bit different. I would see the principal of the school as being the quarterback of the team. He is part of the action, part of the play, and not somebody who's receiving orders from above and transmitting those only in the downward process. There's a huddle, and there's cooperation in that huddle and working together.

The minister knows that that team approach is important. A recent publication that he sent out stated very clearly that research shows that the best results occur when the principal and the teachers in that school work together towards common goals. I think working together like a football team is the kind of thing that we should aspire to.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: A simile — like or as. Thank you, government House Leader.

The bill not only changes the direction that we'd like to go in in this province in terms of the leadership role of principals in the school, but.... I think going in the other direction hurts professionalism. I think section 56 does that. It diminishes professionalism in the school, because it injects this kind of model. I think it's more of a military model, and the term "administrative officer" suggests that. If we have officers, then I guess we have privates; and I guess the privates in the school system are the teachers, unfortunately, by this kind of description that we have in section 56. I don't think the description of privates is a professional kind of description, which is the whole intention of this act and the consequential amendments.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) mentioned the impact in terms of creativity that this approach takes. The minister has clearly said that he wants the school system to be more creative and the students in that school system to be more creative, as well as the teachers. This thwarts the direction that we need much more of in the schools, not less.

In second reading I talked at length about the delicate relationships between the parties in the school system. I won't repeat that argument, but I would like to say that in terms of the duties described here, it's going in the wrong direction, even though the amendments do make it better.

Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions of the minister. My guess is that although I probably don't provoke the kind of response that the member for Coquitlam-Moody does from the minister, I think perhaps he may want to respond to some of that.

But perhaps I could ask one other question on section 56 as amended, which I don't have here. Perhaps I could ask the minister a simple question: it relates to part (e), where it says that principals and vice-principals will "evaluate teachers under his supervision and report to the board." I don't know what was intended here by the minister, but I think I see a

[ Page 1169 ]

problem in this section, and I know some superintendents in the province saw a problem when they first read this bill.

It seems to me that the process that has happened up until this point, that when reports were written on teachers, they would be given to the superintendent, and elected public officials like school trustees seldom saw those reports unless it was essential that they did for purposes of discipline.... So the reports were kept in the professional house, if you like. Superintendents and principals and teachers saw those reports, but publicly elected officials like trustees did not see them. If we see under this section all these reports going to the board, and when I see board....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister would like to answer the question of the problem of confidentiality with those kinds of reports.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I guess the only question the member asked was: what about the report to the board? "The board" is the same as the board or its officers — no change, really. The superintendent is an officer of the board, so the report would likely go, as it always has, to the superintendent. The board has always had the right to look at these reports to the superintendent, if they so request, on any teacher.

But I would like to respond to some of the comments that the member has made about the factory model. That is not in this legislation. That is not intended; it is not stated in this legislation. It is something that the critics of the legislation have manufactured and said: it shall be a factory model, and therefore we can attack the factory model. In this situation there has been a lot of argument about the management rights and what these are. There's been a lot of discussion and argument between the administrators, the BCTF and others, so what this legislation has simply done is to take some of the existing management functions of the principals and spell them out. So maybe that argument will be dispelled. For even the criticism that somehow or other we have taken the term "administrative officers" and created some meaning, people have taken on that term in the system. The B.C. administrators' association and all of these sort of things, local administrators' associations, have taken on that term because it was easier than saying each time the principal, vice-principal, director, administrative assistant, etc., etc., and listing every category and that sort of thing. So administrators was an all-encompassing term that was put in.

I don't see any problem with that, but somehow inferred from that the member is saying that by changing the term principal to administrator we were moving to the factory model. How he makes that connection I don't know. The member has said that the principal must lead others, must be a member of the team. Of course. That's been the case in the past and it's the case in the future.

I suppose I've got to take the blame entirely upon myself. I never imagined that we would have to write into legislation that boards would appoint people as administrators for reasons other than that they had shown themselves to have leadership potential in the educational structure. I never dreamed that we would have to say: "You cannot appoint a principal unless he has educational leadership qualities." Quite frankly, I thought that was a given in any administrator.

I cannot anticipate anywhere in this province, for any reason, a board under this legislation appointing a bunch of wimps to run the school rather than looking for the people with the greatest educational leadership potential. So I didn't think we had to spell that out. I still don't know how you could spell out all of the duties or all of the functions that constitute educational leadership.

Educational leadership is both leading and being a part of the team. I didn't think there was any way you could spell that out in legislation. Yet here we are being told that we must say that they should lead others, that they must have leadership qualities, that they must have this. How do you say all of the things....? What constitutes leadership? I've been to conferences myself where people have tried to define what the elements are that constitute leadership. They vary greatly from one to the other.

They can be big people, small people; they can be a whole variety of educational backgrounds and that sort of thing. They can be men, women. They can be any one of these things, and there's nobody yet who has been able to pin down and define what all of the factors are that make up educational leadership. But there's everybody in this system and anybody in this system that can tell you that they recognize it when it happens in the system. It will happen under this legislation; it happened under the other.

So to suggest that suddenly, because some of the management duties that have been the role of principals for a long time have been defined, have been clarified, that turns them automatically into wimps instead of educational leaders.... I can't believe that is even conceivable, let alone somehow or other implicit in this legislation. So I suppose I have to take the blame. I didn't think we'd ever have to say that boards shall appoint as administrators or as principals or as superintendent only those people who show leadership qualities. I don't think it can be done and I don't think we need to do it. So yes, that has upset me — that somehow or other we have removed all vestiges of leadership among professional educators because we have given them the term administrators.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the comments of the minister and I sense his directions are not all that greatly different from mine, but I think he's wrong when he suggests that that kind of view comes from critics alone. I'm a critic and in opposition we're criticizing this legislation. I'm very strongly opposed to the kinds of tone that jump out in this section to me. But I have heard this same kind of comment from supporters of this specific section, that they think it's great that we now have a real separation, that we have the lieutenants and the captains and the officers up here, and we have the troops down here.

This is from supporters of this section of the legislation. They think that's great, because that's going to keep those teachers in line. This isn't from a critic of the legislation; this is from somebody who was at a conference that your deputy minister spoke at and who is a lawyer and who was advising on this legislation, and he supported it; and that was his interpretation, not my interpretation. That's the effect of what's happening in this legislation. At least, it was his interpretation before the amendments. That was a comment before the amendments; whether he's revised his opinion or not I don't know. So it's not just coming from critics of this bill.

[4:00]

[ Page 1170 ]

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that.... Yes, I know it's difficult, but if you have a creative opportunity — and we were talking of creativity — to write legislation that spells out the kind of things the minister talks about, so that that kind of leadership came out, and that kind of representing the school and not just the board, these kinds of things, then we could have a section of the bill that would be very acceptable. I suggested some possible amendments to it, but that wasn't done. So we are looking at the bill and at the kind of tone it creates. I don't think the minister can, in total honesty, suggest that that kind of ability to represent your school is going to carry on as effectively and efficiently as it did in the past. We do know how controversial education is in this province and we do know the delicate spot principals were in when they had a greater amount of security than I think they'll have under this legislation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I recall that not very long ago a principal in Richmond received scathing criticism from a minister of this government. Mr. Nielsen, who was the MLA for Richmond, attacked publicly a principal in the school system for speaking out on what he believed were denials of educational opportunities for his students. If that is not a definition of leadership that I accept and that the minister accepts.... When we see this kind of thing by government and this kind of legislation, I think we are diminishing the kind of creativity and leadership that I was talking about earlier. I do think school boards are going to appoint those that they perceive to be good people and good leaders, but the definition of leader becomes narrower and narrower with this kind of legislation.

It was not that long ago that the kind of person who was appointed to leadership positions within schools often came from the ranks of the teachers' association. Education then became more controversial in this province, and those people who represented teachers were put in the position of having to speak out critically of boards and of government. There seemed no end at that point to the succession of people at the local level whose leadership qualities were recognized, in terms of their being acknowledged by their peers to leadership positions in teachers' local associations. I'm sure that's very uncommon now in the province. That's certainly the kind of definition of leadership that I think is important and that has been eliminated recently, and which is being continued in this legislation. I saw a creative opportunity for a much more progressive view of leadership in schools. I do not see it reflected here, and I strongly oppose this section of the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will not carry further the themes that the member from Burnaby North has been discussing, but I want to associate myself again with those themes. I am concerned about the narrowing of the role of principal and the emphasis on managerial and administrative functions. I believe the minister has responded to that in some regard by introducing subsection (2), where some of the educational duties are spelled out. I think that's an attempt to recognize the role of the administrator as educational leader by making certain that in the act there's some specific reference to those roles. But again, we're talking about administering, and supervising, and there's no suggestion here that implicit in this understanding of the role of principal and vice-principal — collegiality, the role of peers — is that those principles are intrinsic to this prescription for an administrative officer. However, I think that particular matter has been well discussed by the minister and the debate leader, so I will not do what I would like to do: that is, to discuss it at some further length.

At second reading there was some discussion about how interlocked the roles of many principals are — certainly even more so those of vice-principals as managers, if you like— with their teaching roles. I note that in the new subclause (j), to perform teaching duties assigned by the board is one of the responsibilities assigned to principal and vice-principal.

In many of the schools of the province, even in metropolitan areas, we are in a very paradoxical situation in regard to the responsibilities these people will have in their specific schools. Certainly most vice-principals that I know, except in very large elementary and very large secondary schools, are teachers. In fact, I would wager that many of them spend more than 50 percent of their time teaching; and that's true as well of a significant number of principals. I think the minister has at some earlier time, perhaps in his commentary on second reading, canvassed this particular situation. But it does bear out that dichotomy in separating these people as administrative officers from their staffs. I'd like the minister in respect to this clause to discuss what he sees will be the role and the definition of those people who are very much involved with teaching in their schools although they serve as the principal or the vice-principal of their school.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if the member puts it in those terms,"those who are very much involved with teaching," I would say that any principal, vice-principal, assistant superintendent, director and superintendent is very much involved with teaching. If the member is trying to define the act, it's fairly clear that all people who are educators.... Every principal has to be a teacher before he can become a principal. They must all be teachers. Where the separation comes in is that they are excluded personnel under the full collective bargaining process. That's the only separation that this legislation makes. The other separations, I've tried to suggest, are the ones that have been made by the people who want to criticize the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just do what we have done a couple of times and take a hypothetical situation. I'll take a couple from my own school district. We have a small number of elementary schools, and they vary in size. One of the schools has what we often call a teaching principal. There is no question that that person is a principal in the full sense of her roles and responsibilities, but she, I think, spends better than 50 percent of her time in teaching duties. I don't want to get caught up in the question of whether all these people are teachers. Of course they're teachers. But I'm talking about people whose responsibilities within the system have a very large component of teaching duties as well as the administrative duties as principals and vice-principals. Is it the minister's intent that every single principal and, as I've noted, more significantly every single vice-principal — even the vice-principal whose administrative duties might be 25 percent of that individual's working time — will be an exempt person under contract in the school districts of this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm interested in why we're canvassing this again. I think I answered all those questions — the same questions, to the same member — during second

[ Page 1171 ]

reading debate. However, I suppose it serves a purpose. The answer is: not my intent. The legislation says that he or she who holds the title of principal, vice-principal or director is an administrative officer. The legislation says that administrative officers are excluded from the bargaining process, as are assistant superintendents and superintendents, as they are now. So that is what the legislation says. Head teachers, supervisors, consultants — all of those people who do not hold the titles that I've mentioned before — can be included as part of the bargaining unit. So I guess it's a matter of what title they get. And immediately someone said: "What about someone who is an administrative assistant?" Well, I guess there are a number of imaginative terms that people have given for vice-principals, and that sort of thing. My only answer is: decide. By deciding what you call them, you decide what role they play; and they would presumably want to be in on that decision.

MS. A. HAGEN: Might I speculate, Mr. Minister, that we might in fact have some new and interesting titles for people who are fulfilling administrative responsibilities in the schools, and that that is open under this act. We're really dealing with semantics here. We're dealing with titles that have existed. We have coordinators, we have supervisors, we may have admin. assistants, we may have business managers. There's a whole range of things that come under administrative duties. So in fact the act allows whatever latitude any board and its employees may wish to evolve to deal with the roles and responsibilities of people in administrative or managerial roles.

I think that's what he's saying by saying that we put vice-principals in one pot where they are under contract with their boards, and we put coordinators, supervisors, resource people, head teachers or other people who have administrative responsibilities in another pot. The head teacher in a school might have teaching duties that are exactly parallel to the teaching duties of a vice-principal in another school, but by virtue of the name, that person simply sits in a different kind of organization as far as the terms and working conditions that he or she has in the district are concerned.

Again I could quote an example. I know of vice-principals in our school district with that title who have exactly the same duties and responsibilities as a head teacher in a teaching annex, but one is going to be exempt under contract and the other is going to be a part of the association or the bargaining unit. It's what's in a name — that's what the minister is saying, I think, at this particular time.

Section 56 as amended approved.

On section 57.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend the minister for this amendment. The change that has been made here is certainly much more palatable than the previous wording. What's been done here to inject just and reasonable cause for the reason for dismissal of a teacher in this province is much preferable language. My understanding is that it's more common language in labour relations acts, and that this makes this in line. I understand also that as amended this section is going to allow the review and appeal for unionized persons or members of an association according to the negotiated contract, if they have negotiated; and if they do not have such a contract negotiated, then they can apply to the minister for an investigation. I think that's a good safeguard as well. I would like the minister to know that we support the amendment.

[4:15]

Amendment approved.

On section 57 as amended.

MR. JONES: A very short question of the minister. The section now allows the teacher 20 days from notice of suspension or dismissal to ask for an investigation of the minister. Previously, I understand, this limitation was 20 days from the beginning of the suspension or dismissal. I'm just wondering if it was the minister's intention to shorten the time that teachers have to ask for an investigation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think in the amendment where there is a grievance procedure in place or where the collective agreement spells that out, then it looks after itself. "The teacher may, within 20 days after being notified, apply to the minister for an investigation...." The intent is to get the investigation underway should there be a suspension or something of that nature, to make sure that it doesn't get drawn out indefinitely.

MR. JONES: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I don't think it necessarily follows from my question. What has happened here in the event that there isn't a local agreement.... It might be a short period of time by which right to ask for an investigation has been shortened, but formerly it was 20 days from the beginning of suspension or dismissal, and now it's 20 days from the notice of suspension. So we have the notice first and then we have the suspension, and I don't know how many days are in there. Now it's 20 days from the notice of suspension. So we have the notice first and then we have the suspension, and I don't know how many days are in there; now it's from the beginning of the suspension to the time to apply. So there is a loss of some period of time there, and I just wondered if that was the intention of the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm working on the assumption that the phrase "after he has been notified" means that the person has now become informed that this action is taken; so from that date forward there are 20 days.

Section 57 as amended approved.

On section 58.

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

On the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: The amendments here reduce the requirements for notice and lay out that there's no requirement

[ Page 1172 ]

for giving reason for dismissal to a teacher. There are some changes to the reasons that it's possible to dismiss a teacher, and then there are general changes there.

I'd like to deal for a minute with a phrase that has been put in under the new section 122.1, but before I discuss it I would just like to make the point that I hope the minister is listening to the suggestion that the language that we use is terribly important. To me, I find it odd that the minister doesn't think there's any difference in calling a person in a school a principal or an administrative officer, because there is a whole difference in that. I have not taught in the public school system but I've watched the college system change from when the principal person in the college changed from being a principal to becoming a chief executive officer, and the whole pattern of what that person expected to have to do changed.

The way that words work is important, and that's what we're looking at. I would be extremely disappointed if the minister were not highly sensitive to that, and would not say such things as "someone who is not a leader is a wimp." He is using those words to make a point. The words are powerful. I think that it's important that we look at the meaning of the words.

In section 122.1 it says: "Where a board considers that the learning situation in a class or classes of a teacher is less than satisfactory...." That is a very broad phrase: the learning situation in a class to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps the minister could explain how he expects that to be interpreted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm assuming that "satisfactory" has sort of a meaning — somebody who admits that's something that is either adequate or better in order for the job to be done. So the only time that less than satisfactory comes into play is when it's not adequate, not satisfactory, less than satisfactory. I don't know how I can define it. I suppose I could make an analogy that we have a term like something is tall, and then something is less than tall. Well, I suppose you could get into a whole range of definitions there. But with "satisfactory" or "less than satisfactory," I think it's very, very clear; and it's exactly the same thing as in the existing legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: I think your answer to me indicates that you are fairly well aware of the ambiguity of the language; that "satisfactory" of course says adequate to do what? Satisfactory for what purpose? Satisfactory to whose standards? That kind of thing. I wonder if you could tell me how you would interpret "learning situation."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Surely the member doesn't expect me to go into my whole background of experience. Is it "learning situation"? Am I to interpret that as part of this legislation; that I acknowledge the ambiguity of a term that is satisfactory? There are terms used such as "excellent," which I assume is satisfactory or a lot better. But when it's "less than satisfactory," I see no ambiguity in that; I really don't.

MS. EDWARDS: I think that those terms are terribly broad and that some of the teachers could be in particular jeopardy because of the broadness of these terms. I think, again, that there should at least be some indication that the minister recognizes that some of the learning situations in a classroom depend on things other than the teacher's teaching abilities. I don't think that's indicated in the proposed legislation.

Let me get back to the old standard that we're using. For example, what if there are not enough textbooks in a classroom? That makes the learning situation unsatisfactory, less than satisfactory. Is that the kind of situation under which a teacher would be subject to discipline? Again, it's whose standards of satisfaction? Is it the ministry? Will the ministry take a role in this? Perhaps I could just ask that question for now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have a difficult time, Mr. Chairman, hearing what I'm believing; or perhaps I should say believing what I'm hearing. If a report on a teacher came in to say that the learning situation in this teacher's classroom is unsatisfactory because there is a shortage of textbooks, I can just picture that withstanding any appeal process right to the Supreme Court — that the teacher has been dismissed because there weren't enough textbooks in the classroom, to use your analogy. If the learning situation is less than satisfactory, it would obviously and of necessity have to have something to do with the performance or non-performance of the teacher in the classroom.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think the legislation says that, Mr. Minister. I know that you've again got a situation where you're suggesting that there is always the process of appeal for the teacher, but it seems to me that the legislation should be much clearer on this. I find that the language is very broad: "learning situation" and "less than satisfactory." There are so many instances in which different interpretations could be put to either of these two phrases that it seems to me that the legislation should make some attempt to be more definitive.

Again, is there going to be some provincewide standard that is going to be recognized as satisfactory or....? I wonder how this is going to go on from district to district, for example. What is the ministry's role? Will there be different standards for what is satisfactory from district to district? Is that going to be suitable? What's satisfactory to the board in that district, to the taxpayers of that district, to the peers of the teacher within that district, to the students who are in the classroom of that teacher? How do you deal with that kind of thing under this legislation?

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister could advise me. There's been a fairly major change in terms of the amendment of the original wording, but I don't note that there's any requirement in there that when an action is taken with respect to a less than satisfactory performance, there's any responsibility or onus on the board to provide a letter or some document outlining the reasons why the performance.... I think that there was in the original proposal. Well, that actually dealt with terminating the contract, but there was a requirement that the teacher be notified as to the reasons why. I guess there is a question of arbitrariness in terms of the word "satisfaction." I remember my report card use to have a few G's, S's and U's on it. I always thought that was a pretty arbitrary process; sometimes I disagreed, and I didn't have any avenue of appeal either. Perhaps the minister could respond to that concern.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The legislation is certainly not specific as to whether it should be a stamped envelope or a

[ Page 1173 ]

hand-delivered envelope or something of that nature — the notification. We assume that some of that can be bargainable, but if it comes to dismissal, I would think it's awfully hard to dismiss somebody without making sure that they are aware of it or notified.

MR. MILLER: Again I will relate it to my own experience. Quite often, if there appears to be a cause for a board to be concerned about performance in a.... I hear this term "industrial model." Quite often if, for example, a foreman feels that there is some problem with an employee, the best procedure for dealing with that is for the person in authority to provide in written form the reasons why he feels that way, so that there's a basis, if you like, from which you can either go forward or eventually resolve the situation.

It's important that it be spelled out. I'm not asking for a procedure that requires registered mail or anything else; simply that where the board decides that they have to take action because of a less than satisfactory performance, they provide the individual involved with a written notice of the reasons why they feel the way they do. It could be quite a simple process. The individual would then have a reference point from which to carry on any appeals or any other action.

[4:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to respond to the member's question that in section 45 of this legislation, which refers to section 6 in the School Act.... In section 6 of the School Act there is the requirement that whenever a report is written on a teacher, the teacher must receive a copy of the report. In other words, as the process builds up, say, to required satisfaction.... Because of all of the appeal processes built in here, I can't imagine a board taking the risk of evaluation — of unsatisfactorily starting a dismissal action. I think that they would want supporting evidence. They're going to need it, because they have to state the reason for the dismissal, and that opens a whole appeal process. There's a lot of protection built in there.

MR. MILLER: I'm satisfied with that response, Mr. Chairman.

I have a concern on the variety of procedures contained in the legislation. For example, again relating it back to what happens between labour and management, there's a fairly well-defined system that has developed over the years in terms of a body of precedents relating to a variety of situations that labour arbitrators or people defending people can call on and cite, much the same as the court system works. I'm not aware if that has been built up with regard to teachers and school boards, but it seems to me that you've developed in the legislation at least three that I see, and possibly more, avenues for people in a variety of circumstances to have the right of appeal and the right of some protection, through a tribunal of some kind or another.

Whether or not you're going to get a conflict between these.... Are you going to get, for example, a case under the situation where the teacher has no union or association and makes an appeal to the minister to appoint a board, citing jurisprudence that's been obtained in another jurisdiction? You know, all this variety of things — is it not possible to develop one that would be applicable to all the variety of situations?

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, the amendments speak only to the case of teachers who, for example, are charged with criminal offences or being dangerous or harmful to students. I'm wondering if this is an oversight, because in other sections of this act the word "teacher" has been amended to encompass all members of the college. Is this an oversight, or is this meant to apply only to teachers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, it's not an oversight. Because of the exclusion of the administrative officers, if I dare use that term, the board can immediately dismiss them, and all that they have to concern themselves with is the term and what contract they have signed with the administrators. There is no requirement for this to apply to principals or the administrative officers.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay. If we proceed to section 122(4) as it is in the amendment, a person can be suspended without pay when he has simply been charged with a criminal offence. Now that, I would suggest, would seem to many people to be a case of considering that person to be guilty before he has been proven to be guilty, and of course in our country a person has the right of being considered innocent until proven guilty. The point I am making is that they would go without pay before they came before the bar.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not quite sure which section the member is referring to. For a criminal offence, the board may suspend with or without pay — section 122.1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, if I might interject, I think that subsection 122(4) is contained in the section itself, not in the amendment. We will have an opportunity to speak on that when we've taken care of the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: Was subsection 122(4) being renumbered? I think 122(2) is the one I'm talking about. No, it isn't that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. It's the one about criminal activities, 122.2. My question stands. In other words, a teacher can be suspended without pay when he has been charged with a criminal act; but the criminal proceedings have not necessarily...the case has not been heard. Is that not a contradiction of his right to be considered innocent until he has at least gone to the bar?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, that eventually comes into play, but I think you have to look at that section to recognize that: "Where a teacher has been charged with a criminal offence and the board believes that the circumstances created by it render it inadvisable for the teacher to continue his duties...." If a teacher has been charged with a criminal offence, and let's suppose that person has been incarcerated in jail for a month before his trial comes up, it would be fairly difficult to justify the board continuing his pay. We are using an extreme case to make the point. If the person is subsequently exonerated or found not guilty, then the board may reinstate the teacher without loss of salary. If there is an argument about that, then the teacher can get into the full due process of appeals and everything else, and demand that the salary be paid. That can he part of the whole process under the Industrial Relations Act, or under the association route. Failing that, you still have coverage under the School Act. I don't know whether we can protect it any more.

[ Page 1174 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I have some interest in this particular area because of a specific instance. I think your intent is probably not to have teachers going through appeal procedures when that is not necessary. I myself sat on a board of referees for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A teacher was suspended because he had been charged with a criminal act. He had appealed the fact that the commission had taken away his unemployment insurance. They said he had been dismissed for cause, had lost his employment for cause. Our decision was that we could not say that before he went to trial, and our action followed that. It doesn't matter what that action was, but that is what we said. That was appealed all the way to the top court, Mr. Minister, and they upheld our decision on that.

So I am really interested to know whether this is not going to set up a situation in which many appeals might make their way through. I am sure that the minister is not meaning to set up that kind of legislation. Maybe I will leave that. I think it is an important point, whether in fact, before someone goes to the bar when charged, you can take action that would indicate presumed guilt.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Really, much of this section and this particular reference has been lifted out of the public schools act which has been in existence for many years, to suspend with or without pay until the final decision has been reached by whatever routes are there.

MS. EDWARDS: I have one more question on the amendment. I'd like to know from the minister if he could explain — and this is under section 122.5 — how it would be determined that a teacher's behaviour would be harmful to students, and why would a person be suspended without pay under this section?

AN HON. MEMBER: Get serious.

MS. EDWARDS: It's not funny.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the member be just a little more specific? She refers to 122.5.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay, but I think the minister understands.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have a bit of sympathy because of the change of numbers there, because I'm racing to keep track of them myself. So I thank you, but I'm not nearly as mean as the Chairman is, to that.... No, I'd better not say that. Anyway, I think it is now section 122.3, and I think the question was: how would you determine whether a person would be "dangerous or harmful to the pupils"? I don't think you could set up any legislation in advance to discern that. It's a judgment call by people that have to make those kinds of judgment calls.

MR. JONES: I agree with that, and I agree that the Chairman isn't mean. I hope he's not mean, because I think we've got amendments to consequential amendments to acts as part of the bill. I'm impressed that the Chairman seems to be very much on top of it. I hope my question is in order under the amendment.

I would like to ask the minister, because I think it's very important.... I very much appreciated what he said before about the process leading up to the situation where we have dismissal for a less-than-satisfactory learning situation. The minister said at that time that it was the same language that had been existing in previous legislation. He also said he could not see that happening under natural justice; this would not proceed without the opportunity of a reporting process.

Although I know that language is not new language, it seems to me that under this section before, if I'm reading it correctly, we were looking at things like gross misconduct, neglect of duty, or refusing to obey an order of the board, which led up to dismissal. And the other section, where "less than satisfactory" came in, was the section where it was prescribed that there be reports and that those reports be within a certain specified period of time. I was very pleased to hear the minister say that he would anticipate that that would happen naturally, as a responsible board, and having to make sure that those procedures would be acceptable in light of appeals to courts, and that kind of thing.

But I would like the minister to expand a little bit, if he could, on the drastic change that I see here from what existed before, where there was a built-in evaluation process — I know there were school boards that felt that that was too long a period of time, where we had the built-in evaluation process with three reports, and "less than satisfactory" over a certain period of time, which I think was 12 months — to the point now, where in the bill it doesn't say even that there has to be any reporting, although the minister suggests that that will be a natural part of the process. It seems to me to be quite a drastic step. If there were concerns about the length of time between the reports, it would seem, if the minister was responding to those concerns, that to shorten the period of time.... But not to take out the natural built-in evaluation process that was there in the original legislation....

[4:45]

I think this is a critical part of the bill, and I would really appreciate the minister's explanation of the drastic change from what was before to what is now, eliminating that built-in evaluation process.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Very briefly, it's part of this process of moving to full bargaining rights. You can't very well write in all the terms and conditions, leave them in place and somehow or other offer full bargaining rights.

Where I think we have kept the protection in this legislation is that boards will have the right to dismiss, but they must state the reason. They must specify why they are dismissing, just to use that one example, and then that reason for dismissal is challengeable. We've made sure that the person can then, through various routes and considerable due process, challenge that dismissal. So because of that process, the board would have to be able to substantiate why — the reasons, whatever — through the full process. That is why I say "by interpretation."

I would hardly think that a board would, on somebody's word or somebody's brief statement, or on one vice-principal's report, let a teacher go. There are many traditional practices of several reports and that sort of thing. I just can't visualize that teachers, being faced with a due process as extensive and protective as it is for teachers in this legislation, would act precipitously without making sure they could substantiate it and prove it. So I think there's even greater protection in this legislation than there was before.

[ Page 1175 ]

MR. JONES: I see the minister's point. It's logical, and he may be right. Again I make the point that I've made a number of times: that when you read the legislation, you do read in the possibility of capricious action, because it's not prescribed. The minister says this flowed as a result of full collective bargaining rights being accorded to teachers. Does the minister envision the possibility that the kind of provisions that existed before could be bargained into a local collective agreement so that the teachers would end up with the same kind of protection and due process, or would this be precluded by this legislation? Could they be negotiated or precluded?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All the terms and conditions.

MR. JONES: Thank you.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to speak to this section, most notably 122.1. From the discussion that has gone on in the last ten minutes, it seems we're going from a situation where 122.1 has been ripped apart and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Rewritten.

MS. MARZARI: Well, rewritten. And where it did talk about misconduct, neglect of duty or refusal or neglect to obey a lawful order of the board, we have rewritten it to say: "the learning situation in a class...of a teacher is less than satisfactory." I'm sure the minister can understand why we would be concerned that simply eliminating causes and injecting a general statement about a learning situation doesn't relieve the anxieties of the opposition or of the teaching profession. As a matter of fact, one might think it could well exacerbate the anxieties they might be feeling when things become as loose as in fact they have become.

Also, by removing the 30 days — which I gather did exist in the unamended act — in effect, a teacher-principal relationship which involved the observation by a principal of a teacher's performance, perhaps over the period of a year, and a written evaluation done by the principal, observed by the teacher, and I think signed by both, with the teacher given an opportunity to improve and direction as to how to improve.... That has been replaced with a situation where the board now is expected to assess that the learning situation in a class is less than satisfactory. The board then, carried up to this level, is dismissing the teacher and encouraging the teacher to take remedial action which the principal might once have suggested that the teacher take. It seems to take a relationship that seemingly worked well, at least according to the teachers and principals in the riding that I represent, and to escalate it to a higher level of bureaucracy, creating an entirely new structure and strata which wasn't asked for in the first place.

My first question here is: is there any provision, or are we going to be talking about provisions, for ongoing relationship between principals and teachers in the classroom to prevent this new bureaucracy from becoming a costly new bureaucracy? Is there any thought that we are going to talk once again about what goes on between teacher and principal?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat at a loss even to know to what increased or greater bureaucracy the member refers. The people who are going to be dealing with these are the board, the principal — who might write reports — and the superintendent: the same people who now do the process.

When it comes to dismissal, that dismissal now has to be done by the board for reasons provided by their professional staff. To deal with the dismissal clause and how dismissal must take place and how it must be assured for just and reasonable cause.... To deal with that dismissal does not preclude the principal as a professional educator or as a professional leader from working with the teacher, writing the reports, writing the evaluations and asking for improvements.

As a matter of fact, under the college, which I think the member somehow or other got confused with this particular section.... Under the college route, one of the things that the college is supposed to do is to assist people with professional programs and requirements. In other words, all that is still over here. When we get just to this section, taken in isolation and talking about dismissals, that is when this process, with everything else that has happened, said: "It ain't working. It's unsatisfactory." That is when we get to this.

MS. MARZARI: I can understand then. We are just not writing into legislation the disciplinary activity or the relationship between principal and teacher. We are still saying, though, I gather, in another section that the principal can transfer within seven days. Am I right? The principal can sign a transfer notice for the teacher, and the teacher would be moved within seven days.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Transfer the teacher? No, only the board can. The principal would recommend it.

MS. MARZARI: The other question I have has to do with the 30 days' notice. Would it not make sense, since we are involved with people's lives here, that the 30 days be incorporated or kept in this particular section in the terms of the board's dismissal of the teacher or taking remedial action?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is a provision here that there must be 30 days' notice, and that is not that much different. If a board wants to let a teacher go under existing legislation, they need to notify him by the end of May that his job expires at the end of June. So the 30 days' notice to say that the teacher is going to be dismissed.... It may be that within 20 days after the teacher has notice of dismissal, he may submit to the minister that he wants to appeal this decision.

Amendment approved.

On section 58 as amended.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, as the section stands amended, there is missing a section that was in the original one, which says: "....and the chairman of the board of reference shall forward a copy of its findings and decision to the minister and to the parties to the investigation." That's in 122.7(9). At the end of subsection (9) that was in. It seems to me important that the chair should forward reports to the minister and to the parties. Otherwise the chair could forward reports only to the minister, or in effect could forward reports to the parties, or whatever. Surely the minister would want to receive the reports, and the parties should receive the reports.

[ Page 1176 ]

I am wondering if it is simply an oversight that it was not included again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Am I getting the question correct, Mr. Chairman? The legislation of the minister has appointed a board of reference; then the board has had its hearing, and the legislation doesn't say that the chairman of the board shall report. Surely we don't have to say that when I appoint a board, the board must report its decision. Obviously the person who is affected has the decision. The superintendent shall write a report, and they shall submit the report. You don't write things like that in legislation. You assume when people are required to write a report that they submit the report.

MS. EDWARDS: It was in the original amendment, so I assumed the minister thought it was necessary to put it in there. It's been brought to our attention to bring it to the minister's attention. Was that left out for some reason, or was it simply an oversight?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sorry, would you speak up?

MS. EDWARDS: It was suggested that perhaps it was simply an oversight, that it had not been put into the section when it was amended again. That's why I bring it up. To say that it's not needed is fine, but it seems to be a reasonable part of legislation to suggest that the chairman shall report his findings — that the chairman of the board of reference shall forward a copy of his findings and decision to the minister and to the parties of interest. So I think that was my question.

[5:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, this whole section was gone over by the BCSTA, the BCTF, our people and the legal people, and in the process of trying to rewrite the amendments to the School Act and the amendments here, they felt that there should be a tidying up. The decision was basically made by these people that you do not need to say in legislation that a board chairman and a board shall report their findings to the parties that have been under investigation, or to the minister. They felt that there was no need for this statement, that obviously a board of reference would hardly meet and then not tell the party that was there for the hearing what they decided. That's all. I don't know whether it's a big issue. I can only tell you this. You ask: was it an oversight, or was it this, that or the other thing? The answer is no, it was not an oversight. It was the recommendation, as these people went through it, that it was not necessary.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister; I'm glad to know it wasn't. If that's been agreed, then that's all I need to know. It was brought to my attention to clarify.

I have one other comment to make on the section as a whole. That is about the Employment Standards Act, which mandates that non-union employees who have been working for one employer for six consecutive months are entitled to two weeks' notice of dismissal, or two weeks' severance pay. This section applies to some non-union employees. I'm wondering if the requirements of this section do not go counter to the Employment Standards Act. In order to ensure that people's rights as employees are served, should the requirement be included in the bill?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I understand it, the Employment Standards Act already applies.

Section 58 as amended approved.

On section 59.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 59 as amended approved.

On section 60.

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

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Just briefly, this amendment appears to be a significant improvement and removes the restrictions to the powers of the boards to grant leaves of absence with pay. Unless I'm wrong — and the minister could respond — there was a six-month clause that they had to get approval by cabinet. That's gone, so am I correct in assuming that the boards are now free, for example, to grant maternity leave with pay for absences longer than six months?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, in the discussions and negotiations I believe it was pointed out that because of the changes, even though we were granting full bargaining rights, there were sections in the School Act that might preclude these from the bargaining rights. So this makes it possible for them to do it.

MR. CLARK: Very briefly, I'm just reflecting on an answer to a question you gave earlier on the Employment Standards Act. It does apply, again, with respect to this clause, because as I understand it, a couple of years ago the Employment Standards Act was amended so that collective agreements entered into by unions, for example, now take precedence over the Employment Standards Act. Therefore, if a union negotiates a clause in the collective agreement that is less than the amount awarded for any given clause in the Employment Standards Act, the former prevails. In other words, the union is free to enter into agreements that are lower than the Employment Standards Act.

Having said that, with respect to this clause, if there was anything in the Employment Standards Act that dealt with leaves of absence, etc., if a teachers' union wanted to negotiate a clause which was less than that required in the Employment Standards Act, can the minister confirm that the teachers' union would do that and it's not the Employment Standards Act but the collective agreement that prevails?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with this section. I know I made the remark that the Employment Standards Act applies. I assume that was with no collective agreement in place. I'm

[ Page 1177 ]

assuming that if an organization wants to negotiate a collective agreement that gives them less than the Employment Standards Act, perhaps they're trading off something else and should have the right to do that.

Amendment approved.

On section 60 as amended.

MR. CLARK: I may be stretching the clause a bit, but with respect to the answer to my last question, I would like clarification from the minister if he could. Associations enter into contracts now, as I understand it. If an association entered into a contract, would the Employment Standards Act or the contract signed by the association prevail? Understand? It's really quite an important point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to get into a total discussion of the Employment Standards Act, with which I have little familiarity, I'm going to demand to be represented by counsel.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Minister, I'm not trying to make a nitpicking point. It's really quite important, because two years ago the Employment Standards Act was amended to say that collective agreements are superior.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What's it got to do with this section?

MR. CLARK: It's got to do with the fact that if it's an association that enters into a contract on, say, leave of absence.... For example, if there are maternity-leave provisions in the Employment Standards Act, and a collective agreement by a union is entered into that is less than the Employment Standards Act, that's allowed. But if it's an association and they enter into a contract that is less than the Employment Standards Act, does the Employment Standards Act or the contract prevail?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think so.

MR. CLARK: One very specific question; I'm sure it doesn't mean anything. There is a section 125 of the School Act.... There's been an amendment of this section which says it shall, "in accordance with the regulations" — that's been removed — grant leaves of absence. Are any rights taken away? Let me put it this way. Boards now have the right to refuse leaves of absence that would have been required under the regulations before. Would boards now have the right to refuse leaves of absence that they would have been required to grant before under the regulations because "in accordance with the regulations" has been deleted?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I understand the question. I'm not sure whether you haven't lost yourself in that circle that you're weaving.

Previously these sorts of things were governed by the regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by the ministry. Since these are now bargainable rights, I can't hold them under the regulations. Therefore we removed the section that said "according to the regulations." There were some concerns that there may be some of these conditions that sections in the act might prevent the board from bargaining with their association, so we said they may bargain these sorts of things, and for any other purpose or reason that is acceptable to the board. So they can make their own agreement: full terms and conditions; not covered by regulations, governed by the agreement.

Section 60 as amended approved.

On section 61.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 61 as amended.

MR. JONES: As I understand it, this amended amendment is a slight change from the previous provision that required boards to notify the ministry and the council and to give reason of any dismissal or disciplinary action taken against a teacher or administrative officer. As I read it now, it has broadened slightly, such that the board is now required to inform the council of a teacher's resignation, when it's in the public interest to do so. I'm not really clear on the purpose of change — and the minister may help me with that.

I'd also like to inquire as to the possibility of the board informing the college of every teacher resigning. It seems to me that if the college has the responsibility of keeping up-to-date records of all members employed in the public school system, it might be a good thing to do this in 100 percent of the resignations, to help the college with their record-keeping. If it's just done when it's in the public interest, I'm not sure what that means and how the board defines that point.

It seems to me that if the board has a concern with a teacher, I suppose the teacher could resign. But it's not the resignation that's important to the college, in the public interest; it's probably the information surrounding that resignation. So it seems strange that that phrase is in there. And I'm wondering about the record-keeping of the college, and if it might be not in the interest of the college to have all resignations go to the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the first section is fairly clear. When a board dismisses or disciplines a teacher or an administrative officer, they must report it. We wanted to make sure it covered administrative officers as well.

In the second part of that, where a teacher resigns, we didn't necessarily want every resignation reported. But where it is felt.... For instance, if a teacher said,"Well, I'll resign rather than face charges of some kind...." Sexual abuse cases come to mind. Where the board considers that it is in the public interest to report that resignation, then they should do so. That's really what that is intended for. But we don't want them to have to report every single resignation; only when they feel that there's a good reason that they should.

Section 61 as amended approved.

On section 62.

[ Page 1178 ]

MR. JONES: What we're doing in section 62 is removing a couple of sections of the School Act, section 129 and section 130. Those sections dealt with the appeals procedure formerly in place for teachers. In the deleted section there was a provision that if an employee of a school board or college were appointed to a board of inquiry, that person would be given time off with pay. I don't see any similar provision here for people appointed under this new appeal procedure.

Maybe I could ask another question as well. The first question was about a similar provision whereby people are appointed to boards of inquiry. In addition to that, I would like the minister to outline — so that it can be clear on the record and clear to both sides of the House — what he sees as the difference between appeals and the review of termination proceedings, which were formally present in the School Act, and the new proceedings that will begin when this act is implemented.

[5:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, Mr. Chairman, this section simply repeals the section that previously set up the board of reference, and then the one that set up the review commission, because all of that — the board of reference and the review process — is now incorporated in the new legislation. Those are no longer operative in the public schools act, as far as, say, whether there's any provision for leave with pay or without pay, for hearings and that sort of thing; those are negotiable items now, under all the terms and conditions.

Section 62 approved.

On section 63.

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

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Just briefly, could the minister please explain the purpose of the amendment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Very quickly, the amendment simply removes some redundant references.

Amendment approved.

Section 63 as amended approved.

On section 64.

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

On the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could I ask the minister to clarify the purpose of the amendment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This amendment is intended to clarify the distinction between an association and a union under the Industrial Relations Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 64 as amended approved.

On section 64.1.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment adding section 64.1. [See appendix.]

Section 64.1 approved.

On section 64.2.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the addition of section 64.2. [See appendix.]

Section 64.2 approved.

On section 65.

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

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is on the amendment to section 65. Are we going too fast? [Laughter.] I don't mean that in a derogatory way, Mr. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Montreal Canadians are skating as quickly this evening as you are.

I was just puzzled about the way in which this was being done. The bill has section 64, yet amendments appear to be being brought in on separate sections. Either these are amendments to section 64 or they're not. This is a procedural question. They don't appear to me, at least, to be separate sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This arose earlier in this bill, and they were dealt with in the very same way. We dealt with them separately. Although they are amendments to the bill, they weren't there before.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. So you're on 64.2 right now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we're on 65 now, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: But you're on the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment to 65.

Amendment approved.

On section 65 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman — good, I'm glad to see zonal bargaining gone, which is the effect of all of this. I wonder what the minister's thinking is. Do you see this as an impractical approach in those few areas that may have associations, or what caused the abandonment of that possible concept?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is that the unit of certification now is the local association.

[ Page 1179 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Not to pursue it, but there are all kinds of situations where the unit of certification is such and such, but a bigger entity ends up bargaining: FIR, for example; the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association. There are dozens of examples. I'm not opposed; I think it's a good thing. I'm just curious to know why this approach has been abandoned, that's all.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, not being a legal person, I suppose that under the Industrial Relations Act the organization can choose to form a coordinating body, but we shouldn't order it.

MR. GABELMANN: B-plus, Mr. Chairman.

Section 65 as amended approved.

On section 66.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 66 as amended.

MR. JONES: I think I know the answer to the question of why the time-lines were removed in the bargaining process. I assume that becomes part of the bargaining process. However, it seems to me, although I agree with my colleague from North Island, that it was good that some things were removed, such as zonal bargaining. I think the time-lines, if I read it correctly, should still be prescribed in the act, and I would like to know why the government has chosen to remove them.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, as the member has indicated, Madam Chairman, it is because these are now bargainable. Where the Industrial Relations Act applies, there are perhaps time-lines specified there.

Section 66 as amended approved.

On section 67.

MR. JONES: Could I ask the minister to briefly clarify the purpose of this amendment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The intent here was that if the parties ask for the assistance of a conciliator to bring about an agreement, this empowers me with the right to do so.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It says "may."

MR. JONES: I thought what we were doing in this section was removing the requirement that the minister appoint a conciliator to assist in bringing about an agreement. I'm not quite sure how this ties in with Bill 19, but as I understand it, the minister may now appoint a conciliator if he so chooses, and it can even be done against the wishes of the parties. By removing this section, the minister seems to be removed from that conciliation opportunity; perhaps it's because of Bill 19. I would like the minister to clarify why that option has been removed from the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Of course, where the Industrial Relations Act applies, the minister would not be in this situation at all. It is only with associations, and the requirement of the minister appointing a conciliator has been removed. It says: "...should both parties ask for some assistance about an agreement." The minister may appoint a conciliator to assist in bringing about an agreement about other things than just the full agreement.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the answer, but it is still a change from the previous legislation, whereby even against the wishes of the parties, the minister had the opportunity to intervene if he so chose. Now that opportunity has been taken away; it must be at the request of the parties that the minister would intervene. So there is a change in the government's approach to these things. Is there a good reason for that change?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Section 67 approved.

On section 68.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, in section 68 we are amending 136 of the School Act, which signifies that we have a change from compulsory to voluntary salary arbitration. The new situation is that both sides now have to agree to go to arbitration, and there is no deadline for that arbitration. This is something that I know the school boards were in favour of. But I would like to ask the minister: in the minister's view, is it likely that this kind of situation is going to arise? If a board and an association cannot come to an agreement, are they likely to proceed to negotiation if it is not compulsory?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the intent here is predicated on the notion that associations will remain as associations if they believe they can resolve these situations through a negotiating process and by voluntary choice, by both of them agreeing to send it to arbitration. If that breaks down, then there is the certification process. So we did not want to put.... In other words, a teachers' association that could get nowhere with the board, and whose faith in negotiation was somehow or other undermined by the board, would have the other option to go where the board can't resist. So they've got that. Presumably there's a good-faith element built in here.

Section 68 approved.

On section 69.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 69 as amended approved.

[ Page 1180 ]

Section 70 approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, which adds section 70.1. [See appendix.]

Section 70.1 approved.

Section 71 approved.

On section 72.

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

On the amendment.

MR. MILLER: This is really just a clarification of the new subsection (2). Am I correct in interpreting that a board and an association or union could negotiate what we call "seniority retention clauses," which are quite common in industrial operations? For example, having worked in a particular school, say, for ten years, you can retain the right to recall for a period of time. Is it really the intent of that new subsection to allow that kind of arrangement to be negotiated?

[5:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes.

MR. JONES: I just want to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I think repealing the requirement that teachers belong to the B.C. Teachers' Federation is a dramatic step in the history of this province; this has been a requirement for many, many years. I think there has been a recent indication that it is the desire of teachers, not only recently but over a long period of time.... On several occasions when there has been an opportunity to show support for this organization, the vast majority of teachers did show their support. I know the minister does see this as a natural consequence of setting up the free collective bargaining process, but I didn't want to let this section go by without noting that it is a significant change in the history of education in this province.

Amendment approved.

Section 72 as amended approved.

On section 73.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 73 as amended approved.

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

MR. MILLER: There are too many "aye, ayes" there, Mr. Chairman. We want a little discussion here. Things are going a little too quickly.

My question with regard to section 75 is in relation to 145(1)(a), where in effect it says that people employed for 20 or fewer consecutive teaching days are not required to hold a certificate. The problem there is — I always seem to relate things to what can happen in industry — there's no time-frame for the 20 days in terms of its applicability. For example, if that was 20 days in a month or 20 days in six months or 20 days in a year I could understand it, but it's pretty well open-ended, and I guess it could be subject to interpretation and therefore is subject to abuse. Let's use a one-month or two-month period: it seems to me that a teacher teaching 20 days in that time period would in fact almost be a full-time teacher, and yet I think there's a loophole in there. So would it not be more appropriate to define the broader time-frame in which an individual could teach for 20 days without requiring a certificate? Otherwise I can see where you could get some abuse.

I'll just cite an example from industry where there's a requirement that after 30 days' employment the new employee must join the union. We've had situations, and I'm sure anybody who is familiar with it can tell you about it, where a company will hire an individual for 25 days, lay him off for a week, then hire him back for another 25 days and lay him off for a week, and it kind of gets repeated. Now unions manage to jump on those situations, but without defining that broader period of time it seems to me you've left the thing wide open.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The statement does say 20 or fewer consecutive days, and that's always been the system of bringing in a substitute teacher; but if it looks like it's going to carry on then you have to get somebody with a letter of permission if you cannot, as the clause states, find a teacher properly certified — where no teacher holding a certificate of qualification is available. So that, I think, has always been in practice. There's always a case for abuse, but I am sure that the local association, if that sort of thing were happening, would look at it, as they do now.

Sections 75 and 76 approved.

On section 77.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 77 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister has obtained a legal opinion from the Attorney-General's ministry about the question of mandatory retirement that's instituted into this legislation — the fixed age for mandatory retirement. It's the general question, and I don't think the charter has been tested on that yet. There's some suggestion that

[ Page 1181 ]

references to a fixed age should be eliminated from all legislation, and here we have new legislation with it being included. I wonder if an opinion was sought prior to the drafting of this language.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I did check and get legal advice on this, and this is being preserved in the legislation until a final determination is made.

Section 77 as amended approved.

Sections 78 to 80 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move that 80.1 is an amendment — I think I need to do that. [See appendix.]

Section 80.1 approved.

Section 81 approved.

On section 82.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: I think this amendment addresses a concern that I raised in earlier debate on this bill. I would just like the minister to clarify the purpose of the amendment, because it does address the concern I had.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We went into term contracts for administrators, and this is the process by which they come into effect; and it specifies certain dates that these term contracts must be in place. It's a new section.

MR. JONES: I think that does address it, but I would like to make sure with the minister. The concern that I raised earlier was with regard to the time sequence, and the difficult position that principals were in, given that they had a decision to make. They had to elect whether they were going to carry on in the roles that they had, and fall under the new category of administrative officer, or become classroom teachers. Unless they had some kind of crystal ball, and could look into the future and see what kind of arrangements they would be able to make with their school board under the new provisions of this act, it would be very difficult for them to make that decision. So I think what the minister is trying to do here is address that concern, but I'm not sure. I wonder if the minister could reassure me that that's the case.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, that's the concern we're trying to address here.

MR. MILLER: I want to talk about time; I don't necessarily want to take a lot of time, because I notice we're.... The minister must feel some relief at heading into the home stretch on this piece of legislation, but my question does relate to time.

In 82(2), it stipulates: "...each board of a school district shall offer each teacher employed by the board as a principal, vice-principal or director of instruction, a contract of employment...." Does the minister have any thoughts in terms of those contracts? Are they simply matters to be negotiated between the individual and the board? For example, is there any prohibition that — perhaps unlikely — the board would say: "Sure, we'll give you a ten-year contract"? Is it just a completely open process, or is that a yearly contract that must be renewed between those individuals and the board?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is a term contract, Mr. Chairman, and it may not exceed five years.

MR. MILLER: That's specified in another section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 82 as amended approved.

On section 83.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 83 as amended approved.

On section 84.

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

Amendment approved.

MR. JONES: Could I ask the Chairman if this is the last section that we'll be dealing with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a schedule, also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: And the title.

MR. JONES: Maybe I'll raise my point, if the Chairman will allow me, under the vote on the title.

Section 84 as amended approved.

Schedule approved.

On the title.

MR. JONES: Well, I've been thinking long and hard on this title.... No, actually what I would like to do is to compliment the minister. I don't see how a minister could have sat in his place, been so patient and worked so hard in clarifying legislation that he's bringing into this House. I hope this process of clarification has allayed some of the fears and anxieties that I know are in the education community in this province at this time, and I think the process was a worthwhile one.

I would like to ask the minister one question before I sit down. I raised the question very early in the bill, and I wonder if the minister would answer this. It does seem to be a

[ Page 1182 ]

problem that if we separate the consequential amendments from the bill there doesn't appear to be any section under the bill part that spells out that under the Teaching Profession Act, membership in the college is compulsory. It would seem to me appropriate that it be there. I know it's in the consequential amendments, but I don't think it's in the section under the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The quick answer is that it is in there implicitly and that you have to be a member of the college to teach in the public school system in British Columbia, so that makes membership compulsory. Terms and details, of course, are left.

I would like to respond to the member's comments, and thank him and his colleagues for their sincere interest, and their questioning to clarify. I hope that we have been able to clarify and will be able to do so in the future. I'd also like to take the opportunity very briefly to commend both my staff who worked on this — the drafting of the amendments particularly, and putting them together — and the people who negotiated with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and others. They negotiated some of the concepts and then expressed some of the concerns, but then the technical people from all three groups got together and bashed out all of these and then the cross-references of the legislative committee. So there are a lot of people to thank for this, and for informing me.

I would hope that the process that we've started here of any clarification that needs to be made will.... I welcome any questions on this in future. I'm not going to run away because I've finished section 84.

MR. JONES: I also wanted to thank the minister for a number of amendments which were raised in the House and outside the House. It was appropriate that the minister responded and did make an attempt to improve this legislation.

I would have to end my comments by saying that even though I think the amendments did make it better legislation, there are fundamentals in this bill that the opposition is opposed to and will continue to be opposed to.

[5:45]

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Teaching Profession Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after tomorrow.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Engineers Amendment Act, 1987.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ACCOUNTANTS (CHARTERED) AMENDMENT ACT,
1987

On behalf of Hon. B.R. Smith, Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987. 

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1987

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The liability provisions in this bill respond to the urgent requests of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Recent trends in liability insurance premiums have underscored the vulnerability of local governments and their officials. The liability provisions of this bill have been designed to balance increased protection for local government with adequate protection for individual citizens. This new balance should help to stabilize and perhaps eventually reduce municipal liability insurance costs without sacrificing fairness. We also expect local government to introduce tighter risk-management measures, and we will continue to support the UBCM in efforts to develop insurance-pooling options.

The land use and planning provisions are technical amendments to legislation enacted in December 1985. Since then, local governments and the development community have worked with the legislation and have found that it has contributed greatly to the approvals process, from both public and private perspectives.

These amendments further improve this highly successful legislation. They provide more certainty and greater accountability, and encourage faster processing times. Some corrections will reduce the potential for litigation which could result from lack of clarity in the current wording. Like the legislation enacted in 1985, these amendments have been developed through a consultative process involving the UBCM, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Planning Institute of British Columbia and the legal profession.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

[ Page 1183 ]

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 54, in the proposed section 120 of the School Act by deleting "from that in which the board originally employed him,".

SECTION 55,

(a) in the proposed section 120.1 of the School Act by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) A contract respecting an appointment under subsection (1) shall be for a term of not more than 5 years and the contract may be renewed, at any time, by mutual consent.,

(b) by deleting the proposed section 120.1 (5) of the School Act and substituting the following:

(5) Where a board of a school district

(a) does not intend to renew the contract of an administrative officer in the district, or

(b) discharges an administrative officer under subsection (2) (a), except where the discharge is for a cause that would have justified a dismissal for just and reasonable cause under section 122 (1),

the board shall offer the administrative officer a teaching position in the district before the end of the contract or the effective date of the discharge, as the case may be.

(5.1) Where there is a dispute between a former administrative officer and the board as to whether the discharge for cause directly related to the administrative officer's suitability to perform in a teaching position, the former administrative officer may apply to the minister to appoint a board of reference to conduct an investigation respecting the dispute, and

(a) sections 122.6 and 122.7 apply to the investigation, and

(b) the board of reference may order the board of the school district to make an offer under subsection (5).

SECTION 56,

(a) by renumbering the proposed section 121 of the School Act as section 121 (1) and by deleting paragraphs (c) and (d) and by renumbering paragraphs (e) to (k) as paragraphs (c) to (i),

(b) in the proposed section 121 (i) of the School Act by deleting "suspension or dismissal" and substituting "dismissal or discipline",

(c) in the proposed section 121 of the School Act by adding the following subsection:

(2) A principal is responsible for administering and supervising the school, including

(a) the placing and programming of pupils in the school,

(b) the timetables of teachers,

(c) the program of teaching and learning activities conducted by the school,

(d) the maintenance of school records, and

(e) the general conduct of pupils, both on school premises and during extracurricular activities that are off the school premises and that are organized or sponsored by the school,

and may, in his discretion, exercise paramount authority in matters concerning the discipline of pupils.,

(d) in the proposed section 121.1 (3) of the School Act by deleting paragraphs (c) and (d) and substituting the following:

[ Page 1184 ]

(c) inspect the work of principals and vice principals, and

(d) issue reports on any matter referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c)., and

(e) by deleting the proposed section 121.1 (4) of the School Act.

SECTION 57, by deleting section 57 and substituting the following:

57. Section 122 is repealed and the following substituted:

Dismissal and discipline

122. (1) A board may dismiss or discipline a teacher for just and reasonable cause.

(2) Where a board dismisses or disciplines a teacher whose employment is the subject of a collective agreement under the Industrial Relations Act, the grievance provisions of the collective agreement and Part 6 of the Industrial Relations Act, where applicable, apply to the dismissal or disciplinary action.

(3) Where a board dismisses a teacher whose employment is the subject of an agreement referred to in section 131.1 (1) between a board and an association, the grievance provisions of that agreement apply to the dismissal or disciplinary action.

(4) Where

(a) an agreement referred to in subsection (3) does not contain provisions dealing with grievance procedures to be followed where a teacher is dismissed or disciplined, or

(b) the teacher who is dismissed is not bound by either a collective agreement under the Industrial Relations Act or an agreement referred to in subsection (3),

the teacher may, within 20 days after being notified, apply to the minister for an investigation of the dismissal or disciplinary action by a board of reference appointed under section 122.6 and shall notify the school board of the application.

SECTION 58,

(a) by deleting the proposed sections 122.1, 122.4 and 122.5 of the School Act and substituting the following:

Unsatisfactory performance

122.1 (1) Where a board considers that the learning situation in a class or classes of a teacher is less than satisfactory, the board may

(a) dismiss the teacher, or

(b) order the teacher to take remedial action that the board considers necessary or advisable.

(2) A teacher who is the subject of an action by a board under subsection (1) has the same rights with respect to that action as though he were dismissed or disciplined under section 122 (1), and sections 122 (2) to (4) apply, except that the references to dismissal or disciplinary action apply as though they were references to the dismissal or remedial action.

Suspension where teacher charged
with criminal offence

122.2 (1) Where a teacher has been charged with a criminal offence and the board believes that the circumstances created by it render it inadvisable for the teacher to continue his duties, the board may suspend the teacher with or without pay.

(2) A teacher who is the subject of an action by a board under subsection (1) has the same rights with respect to that action as though he were dismissed or disciplined under section 122 (1), and sections 122 (2) to (4) apply as through the references to dismissal or disciplinary action were references to the suspension.

(3) Where a teacher is suspended under subsection (1) and the criminal proceedings have concluded, the board may

(a) reinstate the teacher without loss of salary, or

(b) take action under section 122 (1).

[ Page 1185 ]

Temporary suspension

122.3 (1) Where a board considers that the presence of a teacher in a school would be dangerous or harmful to the pupils, the board may suspend the teacher with or without pay.

(2) Where a board suspends a teacher under subsection (1), it shall inform the teacher in writing of the reasons for the suspension and shall appoint a day after that on which the teacher may meet with

(a) the board and the district superintendent of schools, or

(b) a committee of the board and the district superintendent of schools.

(3) The day appointed under subsection (2) shall not be later than 7 days after the day on which the suspension of the teacher takes effect.

(4) Where a teacher is suspended under subsection (1), the board shall, within 7 days after the day appointed under subsection (3)

(a) reinstate the teacher without loss of salary, or

(b) take action under section 122 (1).

(5) The board and the teacher may agree to extend the 7 day period in subsection (4).

(6) The power of a board to dismiss or discipline a teacher pursuant to subsection (4) (b) is not exercisable on grounds other than the grounds on which the teacher was suspended under subsection (1).

(7) A teacher who has been suspended under subsection (1) has the same rights with respect to the suspension as though he were dismissed or disciplined under section 122 (1), and sections 122 (2) to (4) apply as though the references to dismissal or disciplinary action were references to the suspension.

(b) by renumbering the proposed sections 122.2 and 122.3 of the School Act as sections 122.4 and 122.5 respectively,

(c) in the proposed section 122.6 of the School Act by deleting "of his suspension pursuant to section 122 (1) (b), or the termination of his contract of employment pursuant to section 122.1 or the termination of his contract of employment pursuant to section 122," and substituting "under section 122 (4) of action taken by a board under sections 122 to 122.3,", and

(d) by deleting the proposed section 122.7 (9) of the School Act and substituting the following:

(9) The board of reference may confirm the action taken by the board of the school district, or

(a) in respect of a dismissal for just and reasonable cause under section 122 (1), order the school board to reinstate the teacher with or without payment of all or part of the salary lost during the period before the reinstatement,

(b) in respect of disciplinary action taken under section 122 (1), determine that the disciplinary action is excessive in all circumstances of the case and impose a lesser penalty,

(c) in respect of a dismissal under section 122. 1, order the school board to reinstate the teacher with or without payment of all or part of the salary lost during the period before the reinstatement,

(d) in respect of a suspension under section 122.2, order the cancellation of the suspension with or without payment of all or part of the salary lost during the period of the suspension, and

(e) in respect of a suspension under section 122.3, order the school board to make payment of all or part of the salary lost during the period of suspension.

SECTION 59, in the proposed section 123 of the School Act by deleting "conducted pursuant to sections 122.1 to 122.7." and substituting "by a board of reference constituted under section 122.6."

[ Page 1186 ]

SECTION 60, by deleting section 60 and substituting the following:

60. Section 125 is repealed and the following substituted:

Leave of absence

125. A board may grant a leave of absence to a teacher or an administrative officer, with or without pay, for a stated period of time for professional improvement, maternity, illness or unavoidable quarantine or for any other purpose or reason that is acceptable to the board.

SECTION 61, by deleting section 61 and substituting the following:

61. Section 126 is repealed and the following substituted:

Report of dismissal, etc.

126. (1) Where a board dismisses or disciplines a teacher or an administrative officer it shall, without delay, report it to the ministry and the council of the college, giving reasons.

(2) Where a teacher resigns, the board shall inform the council of the college of the circumstances of the resignation where the board considers that it is in the public interest to do so.

SECTION 63, by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) by repealing subsections (4) and (5) and substituting the following:

(4) Where a board and an association referred to in section 131 do not have an agreement under subsection (2) of this section covering the period', after June 30, 1988, there shall be deemed to be an agreement between the board and the association containing the terms of the Schedule, and that deemed agreement is binding on the board, the association and all teachers employed under a continuing contract with the board.

(5) Where a teacher is not bound by a collective agreement or an agreement referred to in section 121.1 (1), the Schedule is deemed to form part of the contract between that teacher and the board that employs him. 

SECTION 64, by deleting section 64 and substituting the following:

64. Section 131 is amended

(a) by renumbering it as section 131 (1),

(b) by repealing the definition of "association" and substituting the following:

"association" means an incorporated or unincorporated association of teachers that is authorized by a majority of the teachers employed by a board of a school district to negotiate and execute an agreement on behalf of all of the teachers in that school district respecting the terms and conditions of employment of those teachers;,

(c) by adding the following definition:

"teachers' union" means an incorporated or unincorporated association of teachers that is certified as the bargaining agent for the teachers in a school district under the Industrial Relations Act., and

(d) by adding the following subsection:

(2) An association is not a trade union for purposes of the Industrial Relations Act unless a majority of its members vote to become a trade union for the purposes of that Act. 

SECTION 64.1, by adding the following section:

64.1 The following section is added:

Negotiations by association

131.1 (1) Where there is no teachers' union representing teachers in a school district, an association may negotiate with and enter into agreements respecting terms and conditions of employment with the board that employs the teachers represented by the association.

(2) Where an association enters into an agreement under subsection (1), the agreement is binding on the board, the association and all teachers employed by the board.

[ Page 1187 ]

SECTION 64.2, by adding the following section:

64.2 The following section is added:

Scope of bargaining

131.2 A teachers' union or an association may, on matters in respect of which a board has been given a power or discretion under this Act or the regulations, enter into a collective agreement or an agreement referred to in section 131.1 (1) containing provisions respecting

(a) the manner in which the power or the discretion may be exercised, and

(b) the consequences that flow from the exercise of the power or discretion, but where this Act or the regulations contain express provisions respecting any matter referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), those express provisions prevail over the collective agreement in the event of conflict.

SECTION 65, by deleting everything after "is repealed".

SECTION 66, by deleting the proposed section 134 (1) and (2) of the School Act and substituting the following:

(1) In each district a board and an association shall, 90 days before the expiry of an agreement between them, serve the other with written notice of its desire to negotiate or continue an agreement respecting the terms and conditions of employment of teachers covered by the agreement.

(2) A board shall forthwith notify the minister in writing of the name of the association that has served or has been served notice under subsection (1).

SECTION 69,

(a) by renumbering the proposed section 137 (1) of the School Act as section 137 (2) and by deleting "Subject to subsection (2)," from it and substituting "Subject to subsection (3),",

(b) by renumbering the proposed section 137 (2) of the School Act as section 137

(3), and

(c) by adding the following as section 137 (1) of the School Act:

(1) The jurisdiction of a salary arbitration board is to make an award respecting salaries and bonuses or salary and bonus schedules.

SECTION 70.1, by adding the following section:

70.1 Section 139 is repealed.

SECTION 72,

(a) by renumbering the proposed section 140 of the School Act as section 140 (1) and in paragraph (a) by adding "under section 119 (1) " after " appointment of teachers", and

(b) by adding the following subsection to the proposed section 140 of the School Act:

(2) Subsection (1) (a) does not prevent a collective agreement or an agreement referred to in section 131.1 (1) from containing a provision respecting hiring preferences for teachers who have previously been employed by the board.

SECTION 73, by deleting section 73 and substituting the following:

73. Section 141 is repealed and the following substituted:

Application of Industrial Relations Act

141. (1) Where there is a conflict between the Industrial Relations Act or the application of the Industrial Relations Act to teachers and this Act, this Act prevails, but nothing in this Act limits

(a) the right of a teachers' union to declare or authorize a strike,

(b) the right of a board to declare or authorize a lock out, or

(c) the right of a teacher to strike or of a board to lock out teachers, subject always to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.

[ Page 1188 ]

(2) Notwithstanding sections 34 (1) (i) and 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, the unit appropriate for collective bargaining in a school district is a unit comprised of all of the teachers employed by a board in the school district.

SECTION 77, in the proposed section 147 of the School Act by adding "or administrative officer" after "teacher" in the last 3 places where it appears.

SECTION 80.1, by adding the following section:

80.1 The heading to the Schedule is amended by striking out "130.1 (5) " and substituting "130.1 (4) and (5) ".

SECTION 82, by deleting the proposed section 82 and substituting the following:

Transitional

82. (1) In this section,"administrative officer" has the meaning given to it in the definition enacted by section 42 (a) of this Act.

(2) Before November 1, 1987 each board of a school district shall offer each teacher employed by the board as a principal, vice principal or director of instruction, a contract of employment as an administrative officer to take effect on January 1, 1988.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the board does not wish to employ a teacher referred to in subsection (2) in the capacity of an administrative officer after December 31, 1987.

(4) Where

(a) a teacher to whom an offer is made under subsection (2) fails to enter into a contract of employment with the board as an administrative officer, or

(b) a teacher referred to in subsection (2) does not receive an offer from the board to be employed as an administrative officer,

the following applies:

(c) the teacher ceases to be a principal, vice principal or director of instruction on January 1, 1988;

(d) the board that employs the teacher shall assign him to other educational duties;

(e) the salary and benefits of the teacher remain in effect for the remainder of the current school year.

(5) Where a teacher and a board enter into a contract of employment for the teacher to be employed as an administrative officer and the teacher has, before January 1, 1988, paid to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation annual membership fees in respect of any period after December 31, 1987, the amount of those fees attributable to that period is a debt due to the teacher by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and may be recovered accordingly.

SECTION 83,

(a) by renumbering it as section 83 (1) and by deleting "before this Act was enacted." and substituting "before this Act came into force.", and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(2) The repeal of section 125 (2) and (3) does not affect any rights of a teacher accrued under those subsections before their repeal.

SECTION 84,

(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Sections 42 to 59, 61, 62 and 64 to 80 come into force on January 1, 1988.

(1.1) Sections 60, 63 and 80.1 come into force on June 30, 1988.

(1.2) Section 82 comes into force on October 15, 1987., and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "other than sections 42 to 80," and substituting "other than the sections referred to in subsections (1), (1.1) and (1.2),".