2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 18

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

War veterans

D. Hayer

Quadra Island Volunteer Fire Department

C. Trevena

Roots of Empathy program

L. Mayencourt

Small business

M. Karagianis

Prebudget consultation

B. Lekstrom

Hartland landfill

D. Cubberley

Oral Questions

Government advertising on education

C. James

Hon. C. Taylor

J. Kwan

J. Horgan

C. Puchmayr

Hon. S. Bond

R. Fleming

M. Karagianis

B. Simpson

Hon. M. de

Jong

M. Farnworth

G. Robertson

Government support for aboriginal women

S. Fraser

Hon. I. Chong

Motions without Notice

Referral of reports to and powers of

Public Accounts Committee

Hon. M. de

Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Teachers' Collective Agreement Act

(Bill 12) (continued)

J. Horgan

C. Puchmayr

C. James

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

L. Krog

C. Evans

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and

the Olympics (continued)

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Hansen

M. Karagianis

G. Robertson

S. Simpson

C. Evans

H. Bains

[ Page 405 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: Visiting us today in the gallery are two very special guests. They're strong advocates for the disability community that has been part of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for a very, very long time. They are George Lawson and of course his lovely partner, Ghia Aweiba. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: I again have a guest in the gallery today. Francis Zeni is a teacher who lives in my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas and works on call in both Chilliwack and Mission. I would ask the House to please make Francis welcome.

[1405]

C. Puchmayr: It's an honour to rise here and introduce a guest. Patricia Douglas has been teaching for 35 years at David Thompson. She is a business education teacher representing the business education provincial specialists association. Please give her a big welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I would like to acknowledge today in the chambers the Salvation Army, particularly Capt. John Murray. He and I had the absolute privilege on Friday to open the Salvation Army Rotary Hospice House in Richmond — the addition of ten beds for the province of British Columbia. It will be a glorious facility. I would ask the House to please make Captain Murray and his colleagues welcome.

S. Hammell: I would like the House to welcome Karen Morley, president of the B.C. Science Teachers Association and one of those teachers who spends many hours out of her regular job working on behalf of the profession and her interests. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, I'm making an introduction on your behalf. I would like to introduce a constituent from Penticton–Okanagan Valley. Her name is Karen Litke, and she teaches grades three and four at Uplands Elementary School in Penticton. I would ask the House to please join me in making her welcome.

C. Trevena: I would like to introduce two guests, Maye Davis and Robbi Ling — two long-term and dedicated teachers at Lake Trail Middle School in the Comox Valley. I would like the House to make them welcome.

J. McIntyre: It is with great pleasure today that I introduce a grade 11 class from Rockridge Secondary School in West Vancouver. They're accompanied by their teachers Ms. Paula Waatainen,

Mr. Doug Smith and Mr. Craig Chubb. I have to also tell you that it is with

special pride that I do this, because my daughter Leigh Pottinger was in the very first class in the inaugural year at Rockridge when it first opened. I hope the whole House will join me in making them feel very welcome today.

H. Bains: Today in the gallery is Kevin Amboe, a teacher from Surrey. He's a past president of the Computer-Using Educators of B.C. and is currently district elementary ITC coordinator. Please join me to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Amboe.

H. Bloy: It gives me pleasure to introduce a teacher on call, Tanya Dow, who I had a great conversation with over lunch. It bodes well for the graduating teachers. Would the House please make Tanya welcome.

D. Thorne: I'd like the House to welcome Leo Hutchinson. He's a teacher from Coquitlam, and he is the president of the

Adult Educators Provincial Specialists Association. Not only that, Mr. Hutchinson has three children in the school district in Coquitlam — well, almost three, and his wife is expecting a fourth. One of his children is severely autistic. Mr. Hutchinson has spent a number of years doing wonderful work in the community with the step-by-step association. I'd like everyone to welcome him and thank him for his work.

J. Horgan: I would like to acknowledge in the gallery, from the republic of Cobble Hill, teacher on call Maggie Hughes. Maggie is here with us today, and I want to ask the House to make her welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, am pleased to make an introduction to the House: a constituent of mine, Michelle Kilborn, who is a teacher at Lambrick Park Secondary School, a very well-known school for providing excellence in sports. Michelle is president of the PEBC, the provincial specialist association on physical education, as well as chairperson of the Greater Victoria physical educators. I would ask all members of the House to please make her very welcome.

[1410]

L. Krog: In the gallery today is Ellen Ellis, a social studies teacher from Nanaimo District Secondary. Would the House please make her welcome.

D. Routley: With us today in the House is a teacher from my riding, from Duncan, a member of the provincial Culinary Arts Specialist Association, Al Irving. Could the House please make him welcome?

H. Lali: I, too, would like to join my colleague in recognizing Allen Irving. Allen Irving and I have been best friends from high school and university on. We're lifelong friends. He is a teacher from Duncan. I would like to join my colleague in welcoming Allen Irving. Would the House please make him welcome.

[ Page 406 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) WAR VETERANS

D. Hayer: We often talk in this House about freedoms and the wonderful lifestyle that we all enjoy in this province and in this country. It is unfortunate that those who sacrificed so much are only recognized and remembered on one day of the year, November 11. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the veterans who gave body and soul to make this country what it is today. There are few of them left who served this country and fought for our freedom during the First and Second World Wars.

We must be ever grateful to those few who carry the memories of fighting for our freedom to vote and our freedom to practise any religion of our choosing, of fighting for equality and against racism.

While the number of World War I and World War II veterans continues, sadly, to decline, there are new veterans — Canadian Armed Forces personnel, who have served us proudly as peacekeepers and personnel in war-torn and conflict-ridden countries overseas.

I'm proud to have been part of a government that created the B.C. veteran's licence plate, which serves as a significant reminder of those who have gone into harm's way to ensure that all of us in this House — all people of this country — can walk free, talk free and live free.

It is an honour to meet one of our veterans, and I recommend that all of us in the House go out of our way to shake a veteran's hand and offer him or her our sincere gratitude. In this way, we can remember their contribution to our freedom not only on Remembrance Day but every day of the year.

QUADRA ISLAND

VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT

C. Trevena: I'm happy to rise and tell the House about some good news that the Quadra Island Volunteer Fire Department recently received. Just over a week ago, the fire chief and members of the board were here in Victoria receiving the Solicitor General's Safety and Crime Prevention Award. The volunteers are extraordinarily proud of the award, and rightly so.

Quadra Island has a permanent population of about 3,000 and a volunteer fire department which is 29 strong. Every week almost all those firefighters turn out for practice and often give up their weekends as well.

But for the community, they're more than just firefighters. These volunteers, our neighbours on the island, are often first responders. When a siren is heard in a small community, you are very aware of it. At times the fire department arrives ahead of the ambulance crew — also volunteers — on a 911 call, and the paramedics among them are put into action.

The RCMP detachment on the island is just four strong, and often the fire department is called to assist when the Mounties are out on a job. It was the Quadra Island Volunteer Fire Department's work which a few years ago prevented Rebecca Spit provincial park being destroyed when a beach fire got out of control and spread into the forest.

The fire department was there to assist in setting up the community centre when the seniors held a provincial conference on the island. They provide a lunch at the elementary school every year and teach fire safety to our kids. They're there at Quadra Island's May Day parade, ready by tradition for the water bombs cast from the hillside, and they're there on July 1, running the concession for the island's Canada Day celebration.

[1415]

They're there at Halloween, offering safety reflectors for the kids and hot chocolate for all, and keeping an eye on the fireworks. They, like volunteer firefighters across the province, are there for their neighbours.

ROOTS OF EMPATHY PROGRAM

L. Mayencourt: Recently I learned that Mary Gordon, a friend of mine and a friend of many members of this Legislature as well, received the Order of Canada. Boy, does she ever deserve it. Mary created the Roots of Empathy program in Toronto and started it there, but it has spread to British Columbia. There is no other province in Canada that has more Roots of Empathy programs than B.C. That's because we put over a million dollars into this program to ensure that kids get access to this excellent, excellent program.

Roots of Empathy is a classroom-based program that brings a family with a young infant and some volunteers into an elementary school classroom to promote empathy and understanding. It's a wonderful program for children. It has the same objectives as a safe schools act, which I continue to press for. The program reduces aggression and bullying. It promotes empathy and compassion in children and fits perfectly with the Ministry of Education's mandate, which includes a focus on early learning and giving children the best start in life.

I know that schools that use this program have a stronger, more positive school environment with less bullying and more compassion, but you don't just have to take it from me. UBC is doing a study right now to show that this program actually does benefit kids in our school system. The program is so successful that we're now developing it into the Seeds of Empathy for preschoolers.

I'm proud to say that Roots of Empathy was first introduced to B.C. by my own school board, Vancouver school district. Last year 280 B.C. classrooms were involved, reaching over 7,000 students from kindergarten to grade eight. I would like to commend the hard-working teachers and school districts that are incorporating this valuable program into B.C. schools, but most especially, I want to congratulate Mary for a well-earned Order of Canada.

SMALL BUSINESS

M. Karagianis: October is Small Business Month. I would like to stand up today in the House to talk about

[ Page 407 ]

how we can celebrate the very backbone of the B.C. economy — the bread and butter industries of this province, if you would have it.

In British Columbia 98 percent of the business is small business. It represents one million people that have been employed in small businesses. Fifty-eight percent of them are from the private sector, and they represent private sector jobs. Thirty percent of the GDP in this province is produced by those small businesses. Last year $9.4 billion worth of merchandise was shipped out of British Columbia by small business.

They represent the self-employed, the mom-and-pops and almost all of the high-tech industry. A third of them are run by women. Often in the headlines we hear about big business, the big giants — forestry, oil and gas, mining. Yet small business is the support system around even those, many of them supplying the services and products to those industries.

Small business is a huge player in tourism — in fact, it is the basis of many tourism businesses — in the film industry, in new technologies, the corner store, the winemaker, the salal collector, the tour guide, the farmer and the artisan. In fact, some of these small businesses support communities that have been hit by things like softwood lumber and keep small communities alive. These businesses are very important to this province.

I would ask all members of the House to join in celebrating Small Business Month by avoiding the big multinational corporations. Buy local from your coffee shop, buy local from your business, employ a local service, and celebrate small business in British Columbia.

PREBUDGET CONSULTATION

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure to rise today to speak about a very important aspect in which British Columbians can participate in the coming weeks. I rise today to speak about the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and the tour that we're about to embark on throughout British Columbia. This is an all-party committee consisting of members from both sides of the House. The most important aspect of this — I've been involved with it for a couple of years — is the ability to engage British Columbians in the upcoming 2006 budget.

[1420]

We are going to tour. We have eight stops scheduled around the province. Certainly, time permitting, we would have liked to have more, but we're going to go out and…. It's not our job to go out and speak to British Columbians. It's our job to go out and listen to British Columbians — to listen to what their views are and what their choices are for the future budget of British Columbia, what our ability will be in British Columbia should we have the opportunity to invest more dollars and where those dollars should go.

We talk about democracy, and I think it's fair to say that both sides are here for that very reason. We want to make sure that we're here to listen to our constituents, to listen to British Columbians. I can't think of a greater opportunity for all British Columbians to become involved in that process than to come out and address the committee through the public consultation process.

Failing that in their busy lives, if they aren't able to make it to one of the eight scheduled meetings, we do accept written submissions. There is an on-line questionnaire that people can go on to let us know what their feelings are. There are 79 elected MLAs in this Legislature here today. We bring the wishes of the people that elected us and our constituents, but we want to hear most importantly from each and every British Columbian who has the opportunity and can take the time.

I want to thank the members that are on the committee. I look forward to the tour coming up. Again, I want to express my thanks to all the people of British Columbia who I know will do everything they can.

In closing, I'm just going to give a number that people can call in British Columbia if they're interested in attending one of these hearings. They can call 1-877-428-8337 — which is the Clerk's office — to participate, or they can go online at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. I'm sure they're writing this down eagerly.

I look forward to hearing from them, and again, it's going to be a privilege to report back to this House.

HARTLAND LANDFILL

D. Cubberley: It's my pleasure today to share an environmental achievement from my own constituency of Saanich South. I'm referring to the Hartland landfill, which is the final repository for this region's solid waste. But I'm not just talking trash. Once little more than the local tip, today Hartland, which is operated by the capital regional district, is being recognized for innovation and excellence in waste management.

Since the late 1980s a badly run private dump has become an engineered landfill with a strong commitment to waste diversion and impact reduction. Based on aggressive curbside recycling, bans on reusable or compostable materials, and environmental design and monitoring, Hartland recently won a silver award from the Solid Waste Association of North America. Last week at UBCM, Hartland received two community excellence awards — one for an innovative gas-to-electricity conversion project, generating enough energy for 1,600 homes; and another for its groundbreaking household hazardous waste collection program, which is the first of its kind in British Columbia.

Entities like Hartland are working hard to divert waste and reduce impacts in order to achieve sustainability. The stage for success was set by provincial initiatives in the '90s, which set targets and placed responsibility on producers and sellers for B.C.'s unique container deposit refund system and for paint, solvent and other recycling programs. Today we're overdue for new stewardship initiatives, such as the long-promised

[ Page 408 ]

mandatory recycling of e-wastes to keep heavy metals out of our landfills.

[1425]

I would like to ask the House to join me in celebrating Hartland's achievements, while keeping in mind the need to redouble our own efforts in order to reach provincial goals.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ON EDUCATION

C. James: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I would like the Minister of Finance to tell this House how much B.C. taxpayers are paying for the full-page partisan ad that's running in today's papers.

Hon. C. Taylor: It is essential that government communicate with parents, students and teachers about what we are doing at this particular time in government and what we are seeing looking forward. There are very important serious issues, and it would be a mistake not to communicate our points of view and our actions with parents, teachers and kids.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I didn't hear an answer, so I'd like to ask the question again. We know that a series of ads isn't cheap. We saw the ads in today's paper. Again I ask the Minister of Finance: how much did the ads cost today? How much will the ad campaign cost in total? How many more ads is the minister expecting to run?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, I say that it is really an important function of government to communicate with people and to make sure that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Excuse me for a second. Listen to the answer, please.

Hon. C. Taylor: I do believe it's an important function of government to communicate with the community. That means parents; it means students; it also means teachers. This is a very willful decision on our part to make sure that the conversation is there so that the community does understand what government is trying to do.

This is a very important, very serious situation. We can't rely on others to try and interpret our point of view, and so we will do it. As the Leader of the Opposition does know, when the public accounts are presented at the end of June, as I did this past year, I will produce the list of all the ads that are run throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I heard the Finance Minister, when she stood up to deliver the interim budget — or the budget update, as she called it — talk about the fact that being Finance Minister in government was about choices. I didn't hear from the Finance Minister what kind of a choice she made to spend the money on partisan ads rather than smaller class sizes, rather than support for students with special needs, rather than support for school libraries. I'd like the Minister of Finance to explain to this House how an expensive ad campaign helps the learning conditions for students in our schools.

Hon. C. Taylor: As I did say, I did make a choice — government did make a choice — to communicate with the public. We think it's absolutely essential that the community understands how seriously we take this situation. We are very concerned that since the provincial bargaining started, we have never been able to get a negotiated settlement with teachers. We believe, personally, that the system is dysfunctional. We think that actions are going to have to be taken to improve the situation.

Along the way, of course, we're making sure that the funding is there for the education system as a whole — this year alone, $150 million more into the system and $700 million more in capital for our schools. We're spending more per student than ever in the history of our province. We're making sure that the funding is there, but the system of negotiating is dysfunctional, and we want it fixed.

J. Kwan: We know what happened last time when the government said they would let us know how much the ad campaigns cost. It turns out it was $7 million over budget. The Minister of Finance admitted that only three months ago her government secretly spent over $7 million on an advertising campaign prior to the election. She promised openness; she promised accountability. Why is she already refusing to come clean on how much the government is spending on partisan political advertisements instead of putting that money into the education system?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's interesting to me that the opposition is deciding to talk about our ability to communicate with the public on this very important issue rather than concentrating on the very serious issue before us, which is: how do we get teachers negotiating in a way that works for everyone? That's the important issue.

It really is important that we not use words in this House that suggest things were secret or hidden when the Auditor General himself has given a clean bill of health to all of our public accounts.

[1430]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

[ Page 409 ]

J. Kwan: After the fact, the numbers came in, but not at the time when the government was spending tax dollars on an advertising campaign to advance their own political gain. You know what, Mr. Speaker? It is a serious issue. You better believe it.

Students and parents deserve to know how much the government is spending on spin-doctoring instead of putting money in the education system. According to the rate listings for the Vancouver Sun and the Province , these ads cost tens of thousands of dollars. For the cost of one day's ad the government could buy a library book for 4,500 students in the province.

Can the minister justify to parents whose tax dollars just funded this PR campaign that this was a worthy use of their money?

Hon. C. Taylor: Having sat through last night, I think that everyone who watched would understand why it is so essential for government to communicate directly with the public in order to get the facts out in the community. I will simply say that this is the largest education budget ever…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. C. Taylor: …in the history of the province and that, in fact, $10 million extra was put into books specifically to make sure there were enough textbooks there — $150 million this year into the school budget and more funding per student than ever before in the history of the province.

J. Horgan: The deadline for an advertisement in today's Province newspaper was Friday at noon — the same time that the fact-finder reported to the public and to the Minister of Labour on his findings and discussions with the parties in the negotiation in question.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Did you place those ads before you'd even had the opportunity to consider the fact-finder's report? Is it, in fact, a preconceived agenda on your part to bash teachers?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, we prepared for many eventualities. We were hoping right up to the moment that the minister stood up in the House that there would be some last-minute possibility of negotiation, despite the fact-finder's report. I assure this House that the call to place the ad was placed after the minister stood up in the House to speak.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again to the Minister of Finance: does it cost more to place an ad when you can pull it at the last minute in a paper as large as the Vancouver Province ? A full-page ad is pretty difficult to replace. I'm suggesting to the minister that this is a campaign preconceived well prior to the appointment of the fact-finder.

Will the minister stand in her place today and tell us that she fully considered the report and deliberately ignored the opportunity to sit down and discuss class size and class composition with the B.C. Teachers Federation, as the fact-finder pointed out?

Hon. C. Taylor: It really is extraordinary to me that the opposition does not want to talk about the real issue that we're here for, which is how to fix the system and help teachers negotiate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Taylor: It is essential that we go forward and make sure this was an extraordinary situation. None of us on this side of the House felt very happy about the fact that we had to bring in this legislation. We're concerned about it. We think that somehow we have to find a way to talk to our teachers, make sure that we can negotiate going forward. So we believe this particular piece of legislation does allow us to buy the time, to hopefully change the system, so that next spring we can do this better. Therefore, it's essential when it's such an extraordinary situation that we communicate with the public.

C. Puchmayr: I will talk about the reason we're here. I want to ask a question to the Finance Minister. Here is a classroom condition facing one teacher in school district 67 in the Okanagan: two students designated as special needs; five students with behavioral problems; one student has a severe speech impediment; three others have hearing difficulties; two more have attention deficit disorder. I can't imagine how the teacher is expected to cope with this.

Can the Minister of Finance tell this House how many special needs assistants this ad would have funded?

[1435]

Hon. S. Bond: The reason this government committed to adding $150 million, the largest single increase in over a decade, to the public education system is actually to allow school districts to make the kinds of decisions that are in the best interests of their students. There is absolutely no way that a decision made in Victoria about a number of students that should be in a classroom is in the best interests of children in this province. We believe that the people best suited to make that decision are locally elected trustees and parents, and in fact students and administrators, and that's precisely what we believe should happen.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: The government has taken away from classrooms for four years, and all the spin they can muster doesn't change the very real situation facing teachers and students. Here is another example. In a

[ Page 410 ]

grade two class, two students require individual education plans, nine need learning assistance, and one is diagnosed with behavioral problems. Because of the lack of resources for these special needs students, and the teacher is spread too thin to meet the needs, nine other students are falling behind and failing to meet expectations in reading or writing.

It seems that the Minister of Finance doesn't really understand the reality of the classrooms, but the Minister of Education should. Does the Minister of Education believe that spending thousands of dollars on partisan ads is the best way to help students learn?

Hon. S. Bond: First and foremost, this side of the House believes that what we need to do is assure the parents of British Columbia that education is essential, something that members on the opposite side of the House refused to do during the last…. In fact, we care very much that classes reflect the students, the teachers that are available and the resources that are given to school districts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member.

Hon. S. Bond: We gave school districts resources so they, within that framework, could make the best decisions about the type of teacher and students and who should be in those classrooms. We're seeing school districts add 1,600 new professionals to the system as a result of the $150 million.

R. Fleming: I don't want to see any ducking and weaving. I have a simple question for the Minister of Finance. You're in charge of the finances of this province. You should know the cost of the ad campaign. Tell this House what it is — very simply.

Hon. C. Taylor: Certainly, we will show all of the costs of all of the ads that we choose to do this year when we release the public accounts and know the final numbers. I will release the list the way I did last year, at the end of June.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I'm not sure that answer is to wait and see until next year once the political heat has blown off. Surely, there have been meetings about this. This campaign was well planned in advance, as members have said already. To the minister: can you give it to us in dollars and cents?

[1440]

Hon. C. Taylor: I think that the opposition really doesn't want to deal with the legislation that's before us and doesn't want to put on record what their feelings are about this dispute. So I will say once again that the ad dollars will be released by public accounts and authorized by the Auditor General in June. I will say on this whole issue, where we're pretending that a government shouldn't talk about disputes…. I will simply show an ad that the NDP ran during their dispute with doctors, and they placed the ad in the paper.

M. Karagianis: This morning at a quarter after seven I received a call from one of my constituents, a very dedicated teacher in my community, who talked to me about having 47 students in her class. This teacher is very dedicated and takes her job very seriously, but has actually reached breaking point and is getting ready to give up on the system. So I would like the Minister of Finance to explain to us how a big, fancy ad campaign that ran in every major newspaper in this province helps these teachers dealing with class sizes like that.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, the members opposite may want to make it sound like class size doesn't matter to this side of the House. Let me tell you what we have said we're going to do about class sizes in this province. For the first time we are going to ask school districts to record and be held accountable to the public, class by class. If there is a class like the one just described by the member opposite, we'd be happy to have that discussion and ask why a decision was made about putting that number of students in a class. We're going to have those numbers reported publicly, and we think that's the way that school boards should be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: In fact, that class size is the direct result of decisions made by this government over the last four years. I also have here an e-mail from another dedicated teacher in my community who spends literally "hundreds of hours of volunteer time" in the school system. This teacher now says: "I do it because I enjoy it, but if our government is not going to respect teachers, I think many teachers, including myself, will be forced to withdraw all of our volunteer services."

Again, I would like to know how this big ad campaign satisfies the need of the children that this dedicated teacher is now going to withdraw services from.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we know that teachers make a difference in the lives of children every single day in this province. But the issue of class size is a complicated one, and there isn't a magic number. The Leader of the Opposition shares a role that I had, or did in her past — the role of the school trustee charged with making very difficult decisions about class size.

I want to quote from the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the view of class size, and actually we share that view. From the Victoria Times Colonist on October 1, 1999: "Kids don't come in class-size packages, and it is causing some real problems. No one disagrees that smaller classes are good for kids, but putting kids into classes based straight on numbers and not on educational and social reasons…. I don't think that's good for

[ Page 411 ]

kids." I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and we agreed that class size was so essential that we put it in legislation to guarantee that.

B. Simpson: I guess I'm left wondering whether or not the Minister of Finance actually knows how much this ad campaign is costing her. Maybe that's why we're not getting the figures released today.

Does the Minister of Finance know what the plan is for these ads and what the full cost is for these ads? Does the minister know what the cost is and the plan for the ads?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will say once again that, of course, this is an evolving situation. We will know the full numbers at the end of the year. They will all be released in public accounts . The Auditor General will have every opportunity to look at them and question them.

[1445]

Let me paint a picture here, because even though the opposition doesn't want to talk about what's really going on, the fact is we've got parents at home who are sitting there wondering what's happening to their children at schools. They've heard all of these threats about teachers withdrawing services. They don't know how their kids are going to be taken care of if the teachers pull out. They don't know how this is going to elevate.

They're worried about their kids. They're worried about the education, and that's why we felt it was such a serious situation that we would step in with this legislation. The point of talking directly to parents, to students and to teachers is so that everyone understands where this government is coming from, what we're planning to do and what we're hoping for in the future in terms of trying to fix a system that is clearly dysfunctional.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The teachers in my community work very hard to deliver quality education to the students. Those teachers are calling my office, and they're telling us how difficult it is for them to keep their own morale up to deliver that quality education. Yet this government, rather than addressing that issue, chooses to spend money on partisan ads.

Will this minister clarify for this House whether or not she had a plan on Friday, as she indicated earlier in this discussion, for a course of action? She's now telling us that she doesn't know what the full plan is. What are the costs of the plan, if she had it on Friday? What will those costs be? Why won't the minister put that money into the education system rather than partisan advertising?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member seems mystified by what is taking place here, so maybe we should take a moment and review. In case he wasn't paying attention, we have just gone through a period of a year and a half of a labour dispute where two parties, which were supposed to be sitting down and negotiating together, haven't been doing that — although apparently they met 35 times. And how many items did they agree on? Not a single one; not a single item.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister. Members, let's listen to the answer, please. Go ahead, minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: So, confronted by that reality, we had a choice. We had a choice to allow that drift to continue, to listen to the threats of escalating job activity. Parents are out there wondering: is my child going to be in school tomorrow? Or can we act? Can we act in a way that is minimally intrusive, trying to preserve for these parties some hope for getting down and doing something they've never done before: negotiate a collective agreement without interference from government?

That's the objective. That's why we've got a bill before us. That's why we're appointing an industrial inquiry commission to re-establish a bargaining structure that stands some prospect of negotiating a final agreement without the intrusion of government. That's what this is all about.

M. Farnworth: This isn't about whether or not you're running an advertising campaign. This is about how much it is costing. The public wants to know.

The question to the Finance Minister is: how much is this costing? Do you as Finance Minister know what is going on in your own ministry? Do you know the budget for this campaign? If you don't, say so. If you do, stop hiding the number and tell the public the amount of money you are spending on this advertising campaign.

Hon. C. Taylor: I hope that those who are listening to this question period come away with two very clear ideas. One is that the opposition is refusing to express their opinions about this legislation. The opposition is refusing to talk about what we can do to protect our kids and keep them in schools, and to have it as an essential service. They're refusing to say what they would do if they were in this position where, once again, teachers are unable to negotiate with government.

[1450]

The second thing is that they are taking a lot of time to criticize the government for doing this and for having communications directly with the public, even though they did the same thing when they were in government — almost as if they don't plan on being in government again, because obviously they wouldn't ever spend any money communicating with the public.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The Minister of Finance said she'd paint a picture. Well, I'll paint a picture for her, and

[ Page 412 ]

that is of a ministry that overspent its budget on advertising by $7 million, of a government that has failed to fund energy costs in education; that has failed to fund teacher costs, increased salary costs; that has failed to fund MSP premiums and downloaded them onto the education system.

Now the government says it's okay to fund an advertising program. It's a question of priorities, and the public wants to know: how much are you spending on this advertising campaign? Not what you're saying, not how many papers you're running in, not all those things — how much are you spending? Come clean, and stop hiding the numbers.

Hon. C. Taylor: I think there are probably days such as this one, where the opposition regrets that they ever asked for 30 minutes of question period. They clearly are unwilling to talk about the legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides, the minister has the floor.

Hon. C. Taylor: They are clearly unable or unwilling to talk about what their position is on the very serious legislation that has been brought in. The answer to their question is that the numbers for this campaign will be released with all other communications numbers at the end of June in the public accounts.

G. Robertson: Well, as I add it up over here, we have 18 questions and zero answers right now. I will remind the Minister of Finance that we have lots of time to debate this bill. Don't worry. We will be debating this bill. There are 33 people sitting over here who are going to pour themselves into holding you accountable and debating this bill.

We have been asking a simple question 18 different ways, and we're not getting any answers. What this clearly demonstrates is that this government is not open to the public. This government does not support students and parents and teachers and the quality of our education system. This minister does not know what her own ministry is spending. She spends on ads rather than education.

My final attempt at a clear answer: will the minister please tell us how much she is intending on spending on this advertising campaign, so that we can move on with more questions that the public of British Columbia wants us to pursue?

Hon. C. Taylor: Just because the opposition doesn't like the answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR ABORIGINAL WOMEN

S. Fraser: I, for one, appreciate the 30-minute question period. Today marks the first anniversary of the Amnesty International report entitled Stolen Sisters . The report focused on the horrendous violence experienced by aboriginal women in Canada, especially in western Canada. My question will be to the Premier: can he explain what specific resources his government has brought to bear in response to this report to ensure that aboriginal women's rights and security are protected in B.C.?

[1455]

Hon. I. Chong: Our government is committed to ensuring the safety of women who are escaping violence and children who are witnessing abuse. Our government has provided the largest increase in over a decade to those direct essential services for those women, for those children. We have increased services for counselling, for outreach. We will continue to provide those services, and we will focus our taxpayers' dollars on those direct essential services.

[End of question period.]

Motions without Notice

REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO

AND POWERS OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I have a motion dealing with the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I'm proposing not to read the entire motion. The motion refers to a number of reports of the Auditor General to the select standing committee. It refers those reports to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which hasn't yet had the opportunity to review them. As well, the practice in the past in this House has been to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit while the House is in session and to meet elsewhere should they desire to do so, and this is also reflected in the motion. I have tabled a signed copy of that motion.

[1. The following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

a. Auditor General Report No. 7,

2003/2004 Building Better Reports: Our Review of the 2002/03 Annual Service Plan Reports of Government (March 2004)

b. Government of BC and Office of the

Auditor General Report An Assurance Program for BC: A Progress Report on the February 2002 Recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee of BC Related to Building Better Reports (September 2004)

c. Auditor General Report No. 6,

2004/2005 Leading the Way: Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Reporting – 2003/2004 (November 2004)

d. Auditor General Report No. 7,

2004/ 2005 Monitoring the Government's Finances (November 2004)

[ Page 413 ]

e. Auditor General Report No. 8, 2004/2005

Follow-up of 2002/2003 Report 5: Managing Contaminated Sites on Provincial Lands (November 2004)

f. Auditor General Report No. 9, 2004/2005

Follow-up of Two Health Risk Reports (December 2004)

g. Auditor General Report No. 10, 2004/2005, Building a Strong Public Service: Reassessing the Quality of the Work Environment in British Columbia's Public Service (February 2005)

h. Auditor General Review of Partnership BC's report

Achieving Value for Money: Abbotsford Regional Hospital Care Centre Project (February 2005)

i. Auditor General Report No. 11, 2004/2005,

Follow-up of A Review of Government Oversight of Multi-Employer Public Sector Pension Plans British Columbia (February 2005)

j. Auditor General Report No. 12, 2004/2005,

Third Follow-up Report of Management Consulting Engagements in Government (March 2005)

k. Auditor General Report No. 13, 2004/2005,

Building Momentum for Results-based Management: A Study about Managing for Results in British Columbia (March 2005)

l. Auditor General Report No. 1, 2005/2006,

Follow-up of the Recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts contained in its Fourth Report of the 3rd Session of the 36th Parliament: Earthquake Preparedness; Performance Audit (May 2005)

m. Auditor General Report No. 2, 2005/06,

Joint Follow-up of 2001/2002: Report 1 Managing Interface Fire Risks and Firestorm 2003 Provincial Review (May 2005)

n. Auditor General Report No. 3, 2005/2006,

Audit of the Government's Corporate Accounting System:

Part 1 (June 2005)

o. 2004/2005 Annual Report of the Auditor General of British Columbia,

Serving the Legislative Assembly and the People of British Columbia (June 2005)

p. Auditor General Report No. 4, 2005/2006,

Building Better Reports: Our Assessment of the 2003/04 Annual Service Plan Reports of Government (July 2005)

q. Auditor General Report No. 5, 2005/2006,

Keeping the Decks Clean: Managing Gaming Integrity Risks in Casinos (July 2005)

2. That Reports of the Auditor General

deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the Thirty-eighth Parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

3. That the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act.

In addition to the powers previously

conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the

House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist

the Committee, and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate on Bill 12, and in Committee A continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

Second Reading of Bills

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

J. Horgan: I just want to resume my comments and remarks on Bill 12. I will take the opportunity while the member for Vancouver-Langara is here to highlight that I have been talking about….

Mr. Speaker: Member, don't refer to members that are here and not here.

J. Horgan: I'll direct my comments towards the Minister of Finance while I have the opportunity and just remind her and the rest of the House that we have every intention of debating the substance of this legislation. That's our purpose and our function here on this side of the House.

What we intended to do in question period today was extract a single number, a dollar figure, and we weren't able to do that. By the count of the member from Fairview: 20 questions, no answers.

Getting back to the legislation, it seems quite clear to me, based on comments we've heard over the past number of hours, that there was never any intention by this government to seriously address the questions of class size and class composition which were put forward by the B.C. Teachers Federation.

I want to summarize my remarks on this bill at this time by saying that the fundamental objective of us in this chamber, and as legislators across this province, is to ensure that our children get the best education possible. It's our view on this side of the House that in order to do that, you have to have some comprehension of what's going on inside that classroom. It's our view, again, that the best way to find out what's going on in that classroom is to talk to teachers.

Yes, talk to parents. Yes, talk to students. But let's talk to the professionals. Let's talk to the people who

[ Page 414 ]

went to university, got an education, pursued a career — a profession, a vocation, a passion — to educate our children. Let's talk to those people. Let's hear what they have to say about class size, about class composition, about the importance of teachers' aides, about the importance of teacher-librarians, the importance of counsellors and other teaching assistants in the classroom right across this province.

[1500]

It's going to be a long week, Mr. Speaker. This is a contentious piece of legislation. We all understand that. It's going to be a long week, Mr. Speaker. This is a contentious piece of legislation. We all understand that. Clearly, the people on the other side of the House are not interested in addressing the issue today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, could you take your conversations outside the House, please.

Go ahead.

J. Horgan: It's clear that the members on the other side of the House are not interested in addressing the issue today. In fact, I heard comments from the minister just a few moments ago that their intention is to push this off into the future. "Let's continue to fan the flames. Let's have educators in classrooms demoralized, undervalued, disrespected, and then we'll deal with it again sometime in the future."

That's not why I was elected. That's not why my constituents sent me here. They sent me here to address problems as they emerge. We have a problem now. It's facing us clearly, square in the face. Teachers are unhappy. That's going to have a negative impact on parents and a negative impact on students.

Why don't we do something about it? What is unreasonable about that? What is unreasonable about saying: yeah, we've got a problem? Again, the guy from Malahat–Juan de Fuca is talking sense one more time today. The second time today — talking sense. A glimmer of insight into my psyche: I want to solve problems.

The Minister of Labour — I'm sure he wants to solve problems as well. He's highlighted some statistics about the absence of progress on this file. If I were sitting in his chair, I would have inserted myself in that process. I would have tried to find common ground. I would have tried to bring the parties together.

The fact-finder pointed out an opportunity. He said: "Let's have a parallel process. Let's sit down at a second table, a different forum, a venue — whatever you want to call it, whatever word you want to use to describe it — and let's talk about the fundamental question of what's going on in the classroom."

How are we going to get the best outcome for our kids? How are we going to be the most educated and most literate jurisdiction in North America? I hesitate to say "bar none," because I think that's supposed to be on one of the other phrases — bar none. I think it's an environmental goal to be bar none, and that puts me in mind of slot machines. I'll leave that, because that's not my passion. That's the passion of the people on the other side.

What we need to do during the course of this debate is clearly outline what's important, what are our priorities, what do we want to see in our education system today. Today we need to solve an impasse. What the government chose to do today is push that impasse on into the future and in fact, I would argue, inflame the situation by saying to teachers yet again: "Your views on these important issues that are happening in the classroom don't matter. We don't care. We're going to just press on.

In fact, we're going to put together very expensive ad campaigns." I would think, with priority placement in the Vancouver Sun , the Vancouver Province and the Times Colonist , right beside the editorial pages where they're getting praise for their policies on these questions, it's a few bucks for that — a few bucks, indeed.

It was startling, I think, after the Minister of Finance quickly responded, when the public accounts were tabled in the summer…. She quickly responded to media overtures. "What happened here? Where did all this money go, and what did you spend it on?" Within the hour she was back in the press theatre addressing that question.

Yet here where we have a new era of cooperation and consultation and respect from one side of the House to the other, we ask a simple question 18 times, by the count of the member from Fairview — 18 times and zero answers. The zero we're talking about here probably was followed by numerous other zeros when we got into multi-thousands of dollars on a partisan ad campaign designed to push a political agenda that is at its core anti-teacher, anti-union. It's unacceptable to people on this side of the House. We're not going to stand for it. You're going to hear more about that over the next number of days.

I'm smiling at my friend from Nelson-Creston, because I'm reminded that he is my friend, and I'm very pleased to be sitting in this House with him today as well as with all the others that are here and those on the other side whom I've struck up a relationship with over the past number of weeks. I know that the people on the other side, as I said earlier this morning, in their core want to solve problems too, but they're hamstrung. Their hands are tied by the spin doctors of the public affairs bureau, which grows like a fungus.

[1505]

I look at the list of staff over there, and I say, my goodness. The words "friends and insiders"…. I recall hearing — and perhaps the Minister of Labour could remember saying this on an occasion or two in previous parliaments — that the previous government was overflowing with friends and insiders, hacks, ne'er-do-wells. "We're going to have a merit commissioner," they said. They appointed a merit commissioner, and then I think they fired her not that long ago without cause — sent her on her way. I don't believe they have a merit commissioner now. Maybe they do, but I keep seeing the orders-in-council come through.

[ Page 415 ]

I see orders-in-council for the public affairs bureau — more people to monitor the opposition, more people to take every word that's spewing out of my mouth, including my red cardigan, including my homage to Bob Denver. They're going to throw it back at me at some point over the next four years. Well, good on you guys at public affairs. You're doing a great job.

The member from Burrard tells me that my cardigan was blue, and I have no reason to doubt that, because I can't tell one from the other. The fact remains that what I'm saying here today is being eagerly listened to by droves of people in a building across the street for no good reason. I'd send them all home.

The members on the opposite side are all very intelligent, thoughtful people. You don't need hacks holding your hands. Stand up and say what's on your minds. Say: "I don't want to look at the polls." The pollster's not very good, as it turns out, because the people in my neighbourhood think you're profoundly off base on this.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I won't get into that. This is the problem with this heckling. I just respond to it instinctively, intuitively. Someone opens their mouth, and I'm going down another river. I don't know why that is. The member from Cloverdale and the member from Burrard have got me on a string. I can't help myself.

This is an important bill, and I don't want to be overly glib, but again, as I said, I'm afflicted with this. I went to Europe to see my roots some years ago. I took my kids on a tour, and we went to Blarney, not surprisingly. I had the opportunity to kiss the Blarney stone, and it appears that it works. Also, like a good Irishman, if someone says something to me, I'll either break into a tune or break into tears. I'm not sure which it'll be at this point in time.

I want to say that as I wrap up debate on this question, from my perspective, the issue is about respect. The issue is about an opportunity to seize the day: Carpe diem, as they said. Robin Williams taught me that. I know another little bit of Latin. S emper ubi sub ubi is "Always wear underwear" — another good thing to remember when you're going out in the morning. That's what my mother taught me.

The question we have before us is: do we want to take an opportunity when it presents itself and do good? Or do we want to ignore challenges and say no, no, no? Our historic position is that we don't like teachers. They are suing us; we're suing them. We're calling them this; they're calling us that. It goes back and forth. The historic positions are boring. Our constituents don't want to hear about it anymore. They're tired of it. They say: "Oh, there they go again. The guy from Malahat–Juan de Fuca is talking sense."

It throws everybody else off. I understand that. I know that the spinners at public affairs are going: "How do we deal with this guy, this member? He's talking sense. What we want to talk about is the message box. The polling says: 'Bash the teachers. Porridge down their throats.' That's what it says. That's what we should do."

I appeal, once again, to members on the opposite side: think for yourselves. Say: "How can we have the most literate, most educated jurisdiction in North America with unhappy educators? How does that happen?"

I heard some of the members earlier saying that parents are saying: "Where are my kids going to be tomorrow?" Do you know what parents are saying, truly, in their constituency right now? They are worrying about what they're going to get for dinner tonight. They're worrying about what they're going to do. Are the kids going to be in bed on time? Those are real issues.

They're saying: "Oh gee, I sure hope they solve this. I'm sympathetic to my teachers. I want the government to do the right thing. Why won't they do that? Why won't they grasp common sense, even for a nanosecond?" Just for a moment let's embrace a good idea — the good idea that the fact-finder pointed out: let's sit down and talk. Gosh, what a revelation. Let's sit down and solve a problem.

We sent 79 people to this chamber. One of them — you, sir, an august member sitting in the chair to make sure that we're civil with each other and to ensure that I don't say the name Horgan when I could say Malahat–Juan de Fuca…. I will continue to do that from this point on, wiser for the opportunity this morning.

The challenge we all have is to take an opportunity when it presents itself and do the right thing. The right thing for the Minister of Labour to do right now is to yank this bill off the floor of this chamber and make a phone call, to get together with his cabinet colleagues and sit down with teachers and solve the problem.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to discussing this again before the end of the week.

C. Puchmayr: I rise in opposition to this bill as well. I just wanted to start by backing up a little bit about some comments made earlier by the Labour Minister.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

When he introduced this again for second reading today, he spoke about having no satisfaction in introducing this bill. He spoke about the alleged failure of the collective bargaining process, and he went as far as to claim that to say he's disappointed is an understatement.

[1510]

This process was designed to fail from the outset. There was no ability provided to the parties to come to an agreement when the mandate by the government to the negotiators was to not discuss wages, not discuss classroom conditions or learning conditions. It was designed to fail.

I commend the teachers for going to the table 35 times and trying to convince the government that there was a need to address the serious issues in the classroom that we're seeing today. Thirty-five times they tried to put that message across — to say there are

[ Page 416 ]

needs in our classrooms that have to be addressed so that our children are not left behind and so that certain children aren't benefiting while other children fail in an education system that is not adequately funded with learning assistants and class sizes that are reasonable, class sizes where our children are not left behind.

Boy, they tried. Believe me. I've spoken to teachers, and their primary concerns are with the children. They're seeing firsthand the irreparable damage that is being done by the fact that class sizes are too large and that adequate assistance and learning assistants are not being provided.

The government needs to address the working conditions in the classroom and address them for the needs of the children and for the needs of those parents, because those children that are left behind today are going to cost society tomorrow, and they are going to cost society a lot more than the cost of a learning assistant — even a lot more than those big full-page ads, I might add. Society will pay dearly for the lack of education of children with needs in the classroom, and there are a multitude of needs. As I go on, I will read some comments later about what teachers are saying in my community and what the concerns are in my community.

Even the courts have agreed that the issue of class sizes is relevant in this discussion. It's relevant in the collective bargaining process.

In 2002, with the enactment of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act and the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act…. I like it when the government uses words like "flexibility" and "choice." It's kind of like when they use words like "earth, land and water protection," and then we see a gutting of protection in those fields. Every time I see these types of words in legislation, the antennas rise. You have to start to look between the lines, because surely you will see that the actual term of the legislation is the beginning of the spin that will follow as they go on and on and try to convince you that this is something that's good for you as you're taking your cod liver oil.

The question of class sizes. I'm going to quote from a decision in February 2005 by the Hon. Mr. Justice Lambert in the Court of Appeal, the highest court in this province:

It seems to me that it is significant that the subject of class sizes was negotiated in collective bargaining between teachers and school boards before the 2002 legislation and was clearly, in the past, regarded by the parties as a term and condition of employment. The fact that the subject of class sizes can no longer be negotiated nor have any place in the collective agreement of the parties does not make that subject any less a term or a condition that affects the employment relationship…So I regard class sizes and aggregate class size as a significant part of the employment relationship.

[1515]

Who can doubt that? Who can say that class size isn't a significant part of the employment relationship, when we see the detrimental effects that we have when we don't address the needs in our classes, the needs of the specific children in our classes?

During the struggle by the negotiators for the teachers to communicate the needs of children to the negotiators for the government — while this process of supposedly free collective bargaining was ongoing — we continued to hear on the radio and to see on the television the Premier and the Education Minister doing the damage of the collective bargaining process, doing the spin. We continued to hear it over and over and over again — all part of the method of ensuring that there wasn't a collective agreement, throwing fuel on the fire of collective bargaining.

This is not only a breach of the free collective bargaining process, in my opinion; it is an absolute breach of collective bargaining. It's no different than an individual…. There are individuals on the other side and individuals on this side that have negotiated a contract — maybe for themselves, maybe in business, maybe the Finance Minister in her previous line of work. Surely she's negotiated a contract. Surely you don't work for corporations without going to the table and saying: "I want holidays. I want benefits. I want…." The Finance Minister might have needed an automobile, a fuel allowance, a pension, a clause for retirement. These are all parts of bargaining.

Collective bargaining is when you get your representatives elected to go before the bargainer, the employer, and bargain on your behalf. There's a consensus formed: these are the needs. You send them forward. They negotiate a collective agreement. They come back with a tentative agreement. You vote on it. You either accept it, or you reject it and go back to the bargaining table. At the end of the day, 99.9 percent of the time if not even more, most collective agreements are achieved.

When the executive negotiates a collective agreement and two years later they want more money, what do they do? They go back to the table. They negotiate their own agreement. If they're not satisfied with that agreement, what do they do? They move their services elsewhere. That's the way they strike. They say: "I will go elsewhere where I will get what I deserve."

I fear that is happening in this province. The seeds we're sowing now…. Tearing up collective agreements with the education system is merely creating an exodus of skilled knowledge that is going to leave this province and is going to leave us in a serious situation in the very near future.

Collective bargaining isn't anything new. It's been going on for over 100 years in this province, if you look at the records, at some of the old historic collective agreements. I've been involved in many collective agreements at many different locations. I never negotiated a strike; I pride myself on that. I know that when two parties sit down and they're genuine and they believe there is a deal to be had, there will be a deal. When you have issues of lockouts or strikes, one party

[ Page 417 ]

comes to the table with a position that is inflexible and ends in a dispute. Then what it needs is some time for the dispute to take its course during the process of a strike or a lockout, getting together again and negotiating the contract for the best interests of everybody.

[1520]

The best contracts to negotiate are the ones where the two parties, at the end of the day, shake hands across the table and say: "It was tough slugging, but here we are. We have a collective agreement. Now let's go back and do what we need to do." Those are the best kinds of collective agreements, but those can only be achieved with open mandates. There is not an open mandate by this government to their negotiators to even come close to that type of a collective bargaining environment — not even close.

In this province we've seen collective agreements torn up. We've seen legislation imposed. We see a knowledge base that our young people are bypassing.

Young people that I've spoken to are saying: "Why would I want to be a teacher and be treated like this?" Young people — who used to be proud to go into the profession of nursing, who used to feel motivated to go into a profession of nursing or health care — are saying: "Why would I want to go do this? Why would I want to be exposed to this?" They come out of university with student loans — tens of thousands of dollars, paying them back for years and years — and for what? So they can be exposed to this type of environment created by this government across from me, Madam Speaker?

This is our knowledge for the future. These are the children who are going to look after our parents and ourselves when we're in health care. These are the children who are going to teach our grandchildren. Where are we going to go when people aren't entering those fields because (

a) they're not competitive here as in other jurisdictions and (

b) they've been stripped of the basic right of free collective bargaining, a right that people fought for in the free world? People fought for that right.

Think of the society that we have today and the standard of living that we have today. Then think of a society prior to collective bargaining. The gains that are made help everyone. They benefit everyone. They benefit our society. They benefit small business. They benefit the car lot down the road, the barber shop.

How many banks do we have on every street corner? How many would we have, had there never been an ability for people to bargain collectively to get a decent wage and benefit, where they would even need a bank to put their money? That wasn't the case before collective bargaining. History shows that. You got your money at the end of the week, if you were lucky. It was required. You carried it in your pocket, you bought groceries, and you tried to put a roof over your head.

Once there was a fair and equitable distribution of that wealth, we started to see society flourish. Societies flourish when there is a fair distribution of wealth. It's good for business. It makes business sense. It's just a logical economic driver to have fair, balanced distribution.

It's also a good economic driver to have educated children — children who can go out and stimulate the economy by having their skills utilized and by having their skills pay them. Reward them for their skills while they're teaching our children and while they're pulling that child with a learning disability from the ranks of the back of the room, bringing that child up and finding that the child actually has skill. That child has knowledge. That child has something that was left behind because a learning assistant wasn't able to find it.

Just think of the value of saving that one child from that back row of the classroom, bringing them up and finding out what that child can produce for society. That child would probably not become homeless, would not need social assistance and could benefit in acquiring a skill that contributes to the great economy that we can build by having everyone with the same abilities treated equally.

[1525]

That's not happening right now. That absolutely is not happening. We have children that are falling through the cracks.

We heard earlier from one of the speakers about his experiences in school. You know, what I see is some schools…. When I grew up, some schools seemed to have a different socioeconomic standard depending on where the neighbourhood was. I actually grew up in a school that was in a very devalued neighbourhood, a poor neighbourhood. The school is no longer there. The area where I went to school has become an industrial zone. I sometimes would sit there and count the kids — who went to my school and were in my class or in classes around my age group — that never made it, that didn't survive.

We had large classes in those schools, and I finally thought we were getting away from that. I started seeing flickers of hope when I started hearing about learning assistants, the duties and roles that they play and the saving to society by having learning assistants — being able to find that child before the child becomes a drug addict or alcoholic or before that child ends up in prison.

That's a huge saving to society. You can't quantify that. It's almost impossible to fathom. The cost of one learning assistant for one year doesn't equate to the cost of paying the medical costs of one person for one year who has full-blown AIDS. Think about that. Think about the value of investing in our children. And think about the teachers who see this every day and of how frustrated they are when they start to see these children fall through the cracks and they see that they have no ability to reach out and pull them out. You can pull from the gutter, but you can never pull from the grave.

When I hear from the other side, "People are coming back to British Columbia," well, people weren't leaving British Columbia — not any more so than they are now. I know young people that are leaving British Columbia because they can't get a proper apprentice-

[ Page 418 ]

ship in this province. They get part of an apprenticeship. They get: "I'm a framer, but I can't be a Red Seal carpenter." They are leaving this province and going to Alberta. I see electricians that are leaving for Alberta because they are getting paid better money in Alberta. I see contracts that are opening up…. We're losing people. We need to do something.

I even heard the health authority talk at one of the first functions I attended with the Health Minister. I think one of the members from the other side brought up a concern about losing skills in the trades in the hospitals. Losing those skills is costing society, because if you lose a boiler engineer in a hospital, you have to contract that duty out. If you lose an elevator mechanic, you have to contract that duty out. It costs way more to contract that out, and there are horror stories with that, with losing skilled workers in our health care system, losing them to other jurisdictions that pay a fair wage.

It's no wonder their economies are flourishing. We can't have our youth passing by these very valuable trades, education and health care.

When the minister says that he's disappointed in the collective bargaining process, he should be disappointed, but he shouldn't be disappointed in the process, because he didn't give his side a mandate to bargain. He did a good thing, and I commend the Minister of Labour for getting Mr. Connolly in as a fact-finder. I thought, well there, that's great. You know, we've been saying: "Let's get active. Let's find ways of resolving this."

He gets Mr. Connolly in, and I'm thinking that this is part of the new relationship. We're going to suggest ideas, and maybe the government will actually look at some ideas and maybe entertain some of these.

[1530]

Mr. Connolly comes back, and when I read his report immediately after it was released…. He says that both teachers and the province agree that educators should be part of any dialogue that sets guidelines on class sizes. Bingo! Mr. Connolly stated that as a fact-finder on behalf of the Labour Minister.

Well, with my collective bargaining experience, if I were deadlocked and the company were deadlocked and we split from the table and I hired a fact-finder that came in and made such a move on such a significant part of a collective agreement, I would feel that the deal was right around the corner.

I would be very pleased to go back to the table, because I would understand that the most significant issue in my collective bargaining process had just been addressed in a positive manner, in a manner that upholds the Lambert decision, in a manner that satisfied what the teachers have been telling us and what the parents have been telling us. I would be saying, and I was saying: "Great, we can get a deal here. For once we can show that the new relationship works." And it's not just a relationship with each other. It's a relationship with our employees and with the employers.

What happens with this? Nothing. Legislation. Why? I thought we had a breakthrough, and they imposed legislation. They didn't want a deal. They didn't want a deal, and that's why that ad was sitting there in the mailrooms of all those newspapers. I submit to this House that it was possibly there before Mr. Connolly's assessment came forward, and that saddens me.

It saddens me, that kind of money being spent, when really there was a go-forward position put forward by Mr. Connolly, a go-forward position that could have — maybe with some assistance on this side and some hard work on the other side and some getting down and dirty with the bargainer and with the employees — for once broken this deadlock and said: "You're right. We need to address class sizes. We need to address learning assistance. We need to have an education system that leaves no one behind." That didn't happen. Why? I can only assume that somebody wanted to pick a fight.

They did, and they continued to do so, and it's shameful. It's absolutely shameful that we can't bargain because the government is only too pleased to implement legislation.

What does that do to the working conditions in the class? I think about the teachers that you remember in your mind, who were really excited, who were energetic, who really cared about students, and the students sitting there saying: "God, someday I want to be a teacher. You know, that teacher is so great. I wish I could give that energy to future generations, to other children." That's not happening anymore. It's shameful. It's not happening anymore. Young people are leaving that field, and we're going to be in for an education crisis in the very near future.

The International Labour Organization, which is a part of the United Nations, stationed in Geneva, Switzerland…. I'm going to just give you some quotes from them. The International Labour Organization has ruled that back-to-work contract-breaking legislation passed in 2002 by the B.C. Liberal government contravenes ILO convention 87, "freedom of association and protection of the right to organize." This is the United Nations. This is a significant body in this world that sees the detriment of these kinds of actions and that has seen the negative impacts on societies with these types of actions. That's why they're speaking out.

[1535]

The convention on freedom of association was signed by Canada and all ten provinces many years ago, in 1972. In uncharacteristically blunt language the ILO has ruled that the B.C. Liberal government repeatedly violated the rights of thousands of public sector employees by refusing to negotiate contracts and by using legislation to arbitrarily enforce its will.

The offending legislation includes Bill 2, the Health Care Services Continuation Act; Bill 15, the Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act; the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, which made education an essential service; Bill 27, the Education Services Collective Agreement Act imposed on employers, the last offer of a contract to teachers; Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which eliminated rights on class size, and other guarantees, to service students from kindergarten to post-secondary

[ Page 419 ]

— which I've been speaking so much about; Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act.

Again, we get these words: "Delivery Improvement Act." How do you improve delivery? Rip up contracts and hire workers at $8 an hour to clean your hospitals when you should be hiring microbiologists.

Education sector recommendations. Bill 18. "Workers in this sector enjoy and exercise the right to strike in accordance with the freedom-of-association principles." That was taken away. They amended Bill 27 to allow employees to negotiate issues that have been imposed unilaterally by legislation. They recommend to establish, with appropriate safeguards of neutrality and independence, a commission as provided for in Bill 27 to review collective bargaining structures and procedures in the education sector. They say to do so "with appropriate safeguards of neutrality and independence." We sure aren't seeing this here in this collective bargaining process. There's no neutrality here.

Other recommendations. "Refrain in future from imposing contract settlements and respect the autonomy of the bargaining partners in reaching negotiated settlements. Ensure in future that appropriate and meaningful consultations are held with unions when freedom of association and collective bargaining is affected. Provide the International Labour Organization with all judicial decisions related to the current core challenges involving the bills cited."

That's the United Nations. That's what the United Nations is saying about this little microcosm here of British Columbia and the big global picture. That says a lot — when the United Nations is commenting on the procedures of this government.

In closing, I'm just going to read a few of the comments from teachers in my community of New Westminster. Here's what some of the teachers are saying. This is a teacher with 26 to 30 years of teaching experience. "I have 24 students. Over half of my class is ESL. There is no ESL support for students and very limited support for students with social and emotional problems." Can you imagine that? Half the class is ESL, and no ESL support. Shame.

I guess if some of these parents are concerned, they can maybe move. That's what I've heard. Who can afford to move? We're trying to build our community from the inside up and onwards, not to move away to try and find better learning environments. We need to create the learning environments that are mandatory and necessary to develop our children.

Another teacher with 20 years of service is saying: "We have over 40 students in some classes. However, in the lower literacy classes there are fewer, fortunately." I guess it's the luck of the draw. My education is now based on how lucky I am, how lucky my child is. Did she get in a small class or a large class?

Deputy Speaker: Member, noting the time….

[1540]

C. Puchmayr: In closing, I just want to say that it is so important that we allow the free collective bargaining process to take its place. I see that there is an ability and an avenue to do so, and I ask the other side to please reconsider. Let's get back to the table, and let's get a contract so both sides can shake hands and go back and do what they need to do, and that's provide quality education for our children in this province.

C. James: I rise, as well, to discuss and debate second reading on Bill 12. I want to start off by talking a little bit about something the Minister of Labour said in opening debate on this bill. The Minister of Labour said something that, in fact, I agree with. He said that the bill before us represents a failure, and I would agree with that comment, Madam Speaker.

However, what he didn't acknowledge is that the failure here is the government's failure of leadership. The government has a responsibility to show leadership — to show leadership in a labour dispute, to step up to the plate and to try and look for solutions. At every step, instead, this government has chosen to pick a fight with teachers to the detriment of our education system.

I'd like to start by taking a look at this government's record on education. What was one of the first acts of this government when it came to education shortly after the election? One of the first acts was to tear up the teachers' contract. They tore up that contract without discussion, without debate, without negotiations.

The government had choices to make, and they made them. What was the result of these choices made by this government? The choices were larger class sizes, fewer supports for students, libraries opening with no librarians, students with special needs left to fall through the cracks, and a severely damaged relationship between teachers and the government.

I'd like us to ask ourselves a question. If the government truly wanted to demonstrate leadership, to move beyond the set of circumstances that they created, what could they do? Leadership means doing what's necessary to improve the situation. Did we see that? No. Real leadership would have meant rebuilding a scarred relationship. It would have meant sitting down with the teachers — the teachers who were affected by the government's choices.

This government knew that it had damaged its relationship with teachers. Did they spend the next few years trying to improve that relationship? Did they ever once acknowledge the role that they played in damaging the relationship? No. Instead, this government chose to do what it always does. They chose confrontation as their first and only option.

Earlier today, in opening the discussion on the bill, we heard the Minister of Labour say that this wasn't a place that anyone wanted to go. I heard those words from the Labour Minister. But if this government really believed those words, they had years to repair the relationship that they damaged. They had the opportunity to sit down with teachers and to talk about issues that mattered to parents, to school boards, to students and to teachers. They had a chance to show real leadership, and they failed again.

[ Page 420 ]

Sadly, this government has consistently viewed education as a political game, instead of viewing teachers and parents and school boards as partners in education. We even saw the Premier's election campaign focused on driving a wedge between parents and teachers. The government didn't need to take this confrontational approach.

[1545]

Why is it important to have a good relationship between teachers and government? I'd like us to just take a minute to take a look at our education system, because our school system relies on a number of partners. Everyone, all of our partners, has a critical role in our school system.

School trustees are locally elected members of their community who govern our school system on behalf of their community. Locally elected school boards are the key to ensuring that our school system remains the cornerstone of democracy, ensuring we have an informed, educated and engaged citizenry. Another player in the school system, another partner, is administrators — superintendents, school principals and vice-principals, who provide an important leadership component in our schools and in our districts. They are continually learning from educational research and pulling together the educational team to ensure the best possible instructional environment for our students.

One of the other partners in our school system is support staff, the people who provide the support services for our school grounds, maintenance, office and administration support in our schools, libraries and districts. They're also the people who provide critical supports to our students with special needs in classrooms around our province. Parents are a key partner in our education system. We all know that a child's first learning occurs at home, and the subsequent learning that occurs in classrooms could not happen without the support and involvement of parents.

Students. I think that sometimes, in the rhetoric that we hear, students get forgotten. Students are the reason we are here talking about this issue today. Students are the reason that all the adults we've talked about are spending their careers in the education system. Students are the future of our communities — and yes, teachers. Teachers prepare our students, our children, for the future. They're the educators of the next generation. They're the people who spend their time, their careers and their lives with our children. They're the people who spend their summers, holidays, days off and weekends preparing lessons and creating an effective classroom environment.

Teachers are people like my mother, who spent her entire career teaching students with special needs. I grew up in a house with a teacher who did spend her summer vacation fixing up classrooms, who spent her weekends marking lesson plans, making sure that things were in place for every single student in her classroom. That's who teachers are. Yes, teachers are people who teach knowledge, but they are also people who care deeply about their mission and their career. They are people who are there day in and day out, through the tears and the laughter of the children.

They're there for the children who didn't get a meal before they came to school. They're there for the kids who just need some support.

I've talked a lot about the partners in our system, and it's important that all the partners in our system deserve respect. But this government has missed an important point and has left teachers out of their agenda for education. To achieve success at the bargaining table requires a critical component. It requires respect for the people you're working with at the table, and I know this from personal experience.

[1550]

I was an elected school trustee in the Greater Victoria area for 11 years, and I spent time bargaining on the employer's side of the table. I know what it's like to make tough decisions, to talk about issues like ability to pay, to talk about how you can provide support for students and to talk about how you can ensure that you have a fair settlement for your employees. I know that negotiations mean give-and-take. Negotiations, yes, mean making tough decisions, but they also mean respecting the people on the other side of the table.

We're here today, Madam Speaker, because the government has not made an effort to fix what they acknowledge is broken. I just want to share a couple of thoughts from individual teachers in my riding, people who are incredibly committed to the work that they do, who care deeply about the work that they do. Just to read a quote from one of those teachers: I'm presently teaching in a grade four classroom. I have 30 students squished into a room where there's not enough space for my own desk. I have no science textbooks. I have no language arts materials.

I have no teaching resources for social and personal planning, no computer program. Where's the additional support in my school? For the entire school, we have 0.6 teacher-librarian time and a part-time learning assistance teacher. What is a caring and dedicated teacher supposed to do, and how can I sleep at night?

Those are the kinds of stories that we're hearing around the province from teachers who care deeply about their work, who simply want an opportunity to sit down across from government and talk about the impact that government had on their classrooms and on the students in their classrooms, and an opportunity to talk about how to improve those situations. Another e-mail from a teacher in my constituency says: "I felt I was forced to retire two years early. I tried moving schools to see if I could provide more support. I was given a classroom of 27 special needs students in grade nine and grade ten.

It's a room designated to hold ten students, a mini-resource room. I have children in the hallway. I love kids. I love teaching, but I was really not able to do either."

Those are the stories that we're hearing over and over and over again. The fact-finder that the government brought in provided an opportunity for progress. Both sides in the dispute acknowledged that establishing a process to discuss learning conditions could have

[ Page 421 ]

led to progress on other issues at the table without disrupting classrooms. I want to repeat that again — without disrupting classrooms. An opportunity, a solution, was here at the table. The government deliberately ignored that opportunity and went straight to a forced settlement, a confrontational approach that hurts education.

The government also instructed the employers association not to discuss class size and other issues at the table. I talked earlier about bargaining and the fact that bargaining is give-and-take. Negotiations mean sitting down and having some things to give and some things to take, and finding a solution that works for all parties. That's very difficult to do for the employers association when they have nothing to bargain with at the table, when they were not allowed to talk about class size or class composition or supports for students or wages — no discussion at the table.

It should be no surprise to anyone in this entire House that issues were not agreed on at that table. It's very tough to agree to issues when you have no opportunity to be able to talk about issues at the table.

We also have to remember who it was that removed those issues from the collective agreement. In fact, it was government who removed those issues from the collective agreement. So it makes sense, certainly to all of us on this side of the House, that it should be government who sits down with teachers to talk about the impact of their decision.

[1555]

The fact-finder made it very clear that these issues need to be discussed if progress is going to be made. At the end of the day the government had a choice. They had a choice to show leadership. They had a choice to show respect. They had a choice to solve problems and to build bridges. But this government, sadly, is doing what it always does. This government is imposing their views without discussion with those impacted by their actions.

I want to focus on this for a minute because I think it's very important to remember that showing respect to people means making sure you include them in the discussions on issues that are going to impact them directly. It's certainly a lesson that we teach to our children in classrooms.

We teach our children to solve problems. We teach our children to have discussions when they face a challenge. We teach our children to try and talk through those issues. I'm sad to say, standing here today, that we don't see the government learning a very fundamental lesson that we're working hard to encourage in our children, in our education system. I'm disappointed that we've reached this place.

The minister talked about a broken bargaining system, and I would expect that all the partners in the system — and certainly the members on this side of the House — agree that we need to improve the bargaining system. That discussion could have occurred.

That's what is so disappointing in all of this. There was an opportunity to be able to have that discussion about the bargaining process — about what it could have looked like, about improving that system — and to have that discussion with government, school boards and teachers, if this government wanted to solve the problem. That's the key here — if the government had wanted to solve this problem; if the government had respected all partners, including teachers; if the government had sat down with teachers and started rebuilding that relationship. But sadly, that didn't happen, and here we are today.

B.C. parents, B.C. taxpayers, expect the government to work with teachers, not against them, to improve education for our children. When I was a school trustee in Greater Victoria…. As most people in locally elected office know, it doesn't matter where you spend your time…. It doesn't matter whether you're out grocery shopping or you're spending some time with your own children, you get stopped by people in your community. That happened often in the 11 years that I served as an elected school trustee.

The issue that I most often was asked about was how to improve supports for students who are falling through the cracks in our school system. Those questions came from teachers, from parents and from students themselves.

I had a letter that came from a constituent in my riding, a grade 12 student who's in high school and who wrote an impassioned plea about improving the education system. He acknowledged that he's moving from the system. He'll graduate this year. He's managed to make it through the system, but this grade 12 student took some time to write a letter to me as his local MLA because he felt concerned for students coming after him.

He felt concerned because he saw in his 13 years of school that the system had deteriorated. He was concerned that in grade 12 he didn't have a textbook for every student in his classroom. He was concerned that he saw students who, if they'd had a little bit of extra support — from a learning-assistance teacher, from a school librarian, from someone who had some time to spend with him — wouldn't have fallen through the cracks.

[1600]

What's sad about this entire situation is that this is about students. This is about improving the lives of students, making sure that every student has an opportunity to excel, that every student has an opportunity not only to complete high school but to go on to a productive life. That's very difficult to do if we don't support the people who stand in front of those children every single day in classrooms in our province.

This government has let parents and children down. If we take a look at the record of this government over the last four years, we've seen 2,500 teaching positions cut. We've seen 113 schools closed. We saw education funding frozen for three years. We saw downloading of costs onto school boards, and I want to talk just a minute about that issue.

I've often heard the government talking about the increase in education funding and the fact that school boards have made choices to look at closing schools and at reducing programs and services. When the gov-

[ Page 422 ]

ernment increased education funding, they also downloaded costs onto school boards. In downloading those costs, they did not include the funding to cover those costs. That's why decisions were made by many school boards around this province.

No one runs for school board to close a school. No one runs for school board to eliminate a teacher-librarian from a school library. At a time when information technology is more and more important, teacher-librarians play a critical role in our education system. At a time when I hear the Premier and others in government talking about the need for literacy, talking about how important literacy is to our province…. At that time, we saw teacher-librarians being cut in school districts; we saw libraries opening without library books and without teacher-librarians. That's no commitment to literacy.

I think it's important to acknowledge the additional costs and pressures that have been put on school boards who have made many of the decisions because of those downloaded costs, so I want to take a minute again just to talk about why we're here, why we're at this place. I started off by talking about leadership, and I want to close off by talking about leadership.

Leadership, as I said earlier, is about facing challenges and looking for solutions. Leadership is about making sure that you do everything you can to resolve the problem you are facing. This government had an opportunity. They had an opportunity to be able to sit down across the table from the teachers to talk about issues that matter to the students in our province — things like class size, support for students with special needs, teacher-librarians. Instead, they gave up on that opportunity. They turned down that offer.

[1605]

The teachers made it very clear that they, in fact, would put aside their progressive job action if they saw progress occurring at that table. But the government didn't acknowledge that. They wouldn't sit down, they wouldn't have a discussion, and they wouldn't put students first. It's a sad day that we're here today to see a government bringing in a forced agreement on teachers when there was an opportunity to resolve the problem. It's a sad day for the students in our province, Madam Speaker.

N. Macdonald: I join with my colleagues here to speak strongly against this bill.

Before we begin, I'll just give you some background, some context for what I'm going to say. I've come here as a principal. I was the principal of Nicholson Elementary School just south of Golden. I've had 20 years as a teacher and a very short time as a teaching assistant. I share an experience with most people here in that I am a parent with students in the system. I've taught in other provinces; I've taught in other countries. I have a lot of experience in terms of talking about this issue.

Now, I'm not going to tell you that teaching is the toughest job in the world. I want to be clear on that. I've sat in hockey dressing rooms where people were talking about their jobs, and I've never been tempted, on those occasions, to say that I had the most difficult job. There were fallers out in camp all the time. There were people selling real estate that had to sell every single day. It was always a job that was good to me and good to my family.

Having said that, it is a difficult job, and it is a really important job. I think I could look around the chamber, and pretty well everyone has shared this experience. The experience I'll tell you about is one I witnessed last year. I was, like I said, a principal at a small school. I taught in a grade seven class halftime, and across the hall was the kindergarten room.

Sheila Nystruk was the kindergarten teacher who looked after that class. The first day, when you saw parents, grandparents and foster parents bringing kids in to drop them off and leave them with this woman, you had a sense that probably at that moment, for those parents or grandparents, it was the most important job.

Sheila Nystruk remains a brilliant teacher. She had met with the students in the summer. She had spent weeks in the summer getting the classroom perfect. She had memorized the students' names. As the year unfolded, you could just see the amount of care she had put into preparing for the year. She was there to hug them when they had falls or when somebody said something to hurt them. She was there to teach them in a systematic way a very difficult thing, which is how to work within a group, how to share. She would call me in at special moments when a student would make that connection between sounds they were practising and a letter on the piece of paper.

It is an important job. Those of you who have children know you are giving them to people that you want to treat your children in the same way you would treat them, to be careful with what you say and to push them to be their best. As a principal, then, what I saw as my job was to put them in a setting where they could excel. If you give the teachers a proper setting, they will be able to do the job that they need to do. If you do not give them the resources, if you do not give them the right composition of class, it makes it much more difficult. Very clearly, I felt my job was to make sure they were able to do their job.

The first thing I want to talk about — and there are three things I'm going to talk about that relate to this bill — is around learning conditions. That was something the government did not want to speak to teachers about, but learning conditions are a key to effective education. What I can tell you from my own teaching is that when you are in front of a class, you really want to do your best. You wouldn't be there if you did not want that class to be a success.

[1610]

I can also tell you that with certain situations, this is more possible than with others. The number of students you have in a class has an impact, the composition of the class, the support that you have.

The last class that I taught, I can honestly say…. Maybe Donna Mozell is out there; I had special ed sup-

[ Page 423 ]

port. If she had not been there, there are certain students who would have been very poorly served. It would have been just physically impossible for me to deal with them. I tried to keep the standards of the school as high as possible, but it became increasingly difficult.

I just want to talk to you a little bit about the challenges. First off, the $150 million that came with, I guess, the budget in February was most welcome. Before that, our school district was under tremendous strain. We were starting to talk about going from five days of schooling to four. I know that's not uncommon in the province, but most of us in our area thought that would be a very negative step. I feel strongly that it is. So it acted as a buffer, or it slowed down the process that many teachers see, which is a system consistently getting worse.

I'll just talk about a few things related to funding. It's true that the number of students provincewide and in our area are down. That's true. The amount of money that is given per student is up. That is true. But there is a third factor, and that is the cost of education. The cost of education has gone up, and that increase is greater than the amount per student that was put up by the government.

With the contract — that was part of it — imposed on teachers the last time around, but also with MSP costs and fuel costs, pretty well every school district in this province was put in a bind. What we did at a school level and as a district was to try to maintain class-size levels. We tried to keep the support that we needed, but everything else pretty well had to be cut. It meant closing eight schools in the riding that I represent. That is physically what happened: eight schools cut. Then we had cost savings around maintenance. But you can only cut maintenance for so long. You can only cut so far into cleaning before you run into difficulties.

The fact is that when teachers are talking about learning conditions and about the minimum standards that they need, these are important discussions as to the calibre of care that you're going to give to the students — your ability to really teach them and to get the excellent education that we all want. The government created a crisis there.

Now we have a full-page ad in all of the newspapers, and it says this: "The province believes that even one day of class lost is too long." But there are school districts that lose that one day every week. There are school districts that go four instead of five days. In Africa we went five days. For centuries here in Canada, I think, we went for five days. We don't choose to go four days. If you are paying to go to a private school, would you accept that you were going to pay the same amount and go for four days instead of five, or would you be concerned about that? To say that every lost day is crucial….

I agree with that, but it comes back to the funding. It comes back to the learning conditions that you're going to give to students.

Next is around respect. My two daughters went through the school system. The people who they came into contact with, the people who touched their lives were people like Dew Seward. Dew was a kindergarten teacher for my eldest. Dropping her off with Dew was something that was difficult for my wife, but she did an excellent job looking after her. Over the years, Patina Chaluck with my second youngest. Laurie MacDougall. Ben Wiggins. Colette Cottrell. These are people who actually made a difference to my children's lives. They are the ones that allow you to have an excellent school system.

[1615]

Superintendent Anita Ure has just recently retired. She was a superb administrator — and before that, a superb teacher. I was going out for a jog, and I met a neighbour who last year worked with me as a teaching assistant. We were talking about Anita and the fact that she'd retired. Polly had gone to the dinner, and she was interested in talking about Anita. She said that Anita was a fantastic administrator and a fantastic manager of the school system. Polly said: "The essence of her ability came down to the fact that she always treated everyone with respect.

You know, she would come into a building and talk to everyone in the same way that we would talk to her as the superintendent." I always found the same thing. We would have disagreements, but I never had the impression that she didn't listen or that she didn't value my experience.

I was working on a master's degree in educational management recently, and we were required to read books, of course. These books in one course in particular were around educational management, so we read books on educational management and on management technique in general. All of them had much the same theme: how you get the most out of your employees. If you're serious about trying to have an excellent school system, you listen to your employees, you empower them, and above all, you treat them with respect.

I was also talking to the member for Skeena. In his past life he was an executive. Well, he was in management with Four Seasons. Now, Four Seasons is probably the top chain of hotels in the world. I think it's a Canadian chain. I asked him: "What makes Four Seasons the top hotel chain in the world? Why do they have that reputation?" His answer was simple: "It's customer service." So the next question is: "Well, how do you get excellent customer service?" He said: "Treat your employees with respect. Make sure that your actions match up with your words. It's as simple as that."

Now, no educator wants disruption, but this government really has no idea about how to get the best out of the employees that are providing education. You ask the question: "Have they provided the learning conditions that allow them to excel?" I think anybody who is involved in the classroom would say no, and if given the opportunity to talk about it, there would be negotiations that would allow them to set a minimum set of standards so that they could be successful. If you asked them if they'd been treated respectfully, they would very clearly say no.

[ Page 424 ]

Teachers do not want disruption. Nobody wants disruption to the school. If they are contemplating that, it has to do with the fact that something is very seriously wrong within the system.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

There has been a series of very disrespectful statements from this government. It goes back to Christy Clark. Christy Clark would almost constantly make comments that were dismissive and diminish what teachers do. The standard hasn't hit that low since, but overall, the government is seen as uncaring to educators. This bill will do nothing to change that. It is just seen as one more sign of disrespect, of being unconcerned about what teachers are trying to say about learning conditions, about a lack of respect for the job that they do.

I would put it to you: if I were to ask people in my area what they thought the government's priorities were and to listen to them, they would not put education as one of the priorities they believe this government has. So despite all of the money that is spent on the five-great-goals propaganda, it presumes a tremendous stupidity that is simply not there. People know that this is not the priority of this government.

[1620]

You know, I think the idea of making B.C. the most literate province is a noble one and one that we should aim to attain. But if we're going to do that, there has to be a change in approach. That approach…. I mean, it is certainly possible. If you took the time as government, as the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Education, to sit down with the BCTF or the teachers' representatives, this is not a difficult one to solve. If you do not, you put us through another year of ill feeling and potential disruption. I think most British Columbians would ask themselves what the barrier is here.

The Minister of Labour talked about 35 meetings, but very clearly, the process is the third problem, and it's a problem because of this. It is a problem because there has not been one of those 35 meetings where there was genuine negotiation. The government set a position at the beginning, having removed learning conditions. The teachers know our problem. You've removed that, and you've made the classroom situation worse, so teachers have an obligation to talk about that. I would be very disappointed if they did not push for those things. They should.

If you're not going to talk about that — if government says that's not on the table — what is left? I guess wages, but that's going to be zero-zero-zero, and that's set. You've had 35 meetings that teachers have come to, but there has been no real discussion. Around that process, the refusal by the government to have real negotiations is a problem — from the beginning, no negotiations.

It is very difficult to not believe that it was the plan from the beginning. There seems to be a pattern, and I hope I haven't become cynical yet, of rewarding friends — we saw that with the budget — and punishing those who were seen as the enemies. How it came to be that teachers would be seen as the enemies to government is a very sad state of affairs. But as government, it should be incumbent upon you to take the first step to repair that. There is plenty of opportunity here. There is an opportunity to meet, to have genuine discussions, to talk about things that are real and very important and to come to a solution that works for everyone.

Full-page news ads ready to go, full of selected facts, twisted facts — I don't think they help the situation. I know they don't. It just makes a workforce see that it's being treated in a cynical and manipulative way.

Further to the process, I think a lot of people are offended by the process that seems to be similar to many others that went on over the last four years. There's arrogance. There is doing something regardless of the public concerns that are raised. There's the use of propaganda and confusing information. You're probably not the first government to do that. I know that you'll jump up and say that, but I don't know that that's a proper excuse.

What we want is to continually improve, and what we want is to make things better. You know, when I look at how seniors in our communities were treated, I look at issues in the environment, the lack of any process that is fair or balanced…. There's no question that people are bound to feel cynical about what's going on.

I would say, over all, people in B.C. want this dispute settled. They don't want it left to stew for another year or more. The Minister of Education should sit down and talk to the people that she depends upon to provide excellent education. They should sit down and find a solution.

[1625]

Education has been my life. I lived for six years in countries with little in the way of a public education system. The country in Africa I last taught in had 2 percent of females graduate from secondary school. There's a bumper sticker that says: "If you think education's expensive, you should try the cost of ignorance." There's a real dramatic truth to that. I mean, it sounds trite if it's a bumper sticker, but the reality is true. With only 2 percent of females able to get a secondary education, there are issues around empowerment for females. There are issues around how you do public health. What potential have you lost?

This government was given a system that was superb. I think it still is excellent, but it's a system that you cannot be reckless with. There are people that are sincerely trying to tell you what can make the system better. Very often the learning conditions are dismissed as something that is restrictive. There's no question that there is an expense attached to adequate learning conditions. It's true. Education is costly, but if you are serious about having an education system that is superb, then you have to listen to the people that are providing the service. I don't know how else it can work.

The three things. The learning conditions — make sure they're to the standard that is needed. That is something that could be talked about.

[ Page 425 ]

Secondly, around respect. I have seen it work in no place where you are not willing to talk and listen respectfully to others. Like I said, in pretty well every book that I've read on it, with pretty well every experience that I've had with people who manage who I feel are excellent, there has been that element of respect and a lack of arrogance, a willingness to listen to what somebody who's actually doing the job says and to garner their experience and make things better.

Finally, have a genuine process. We have not had a genuine process. The move to impose a bill looks very much like something that had been decided long ago. It looks heavy-handed. It looks arrogant to me. I don't see how that is in character for Canadians to do that. It looks to me more reckless than it is bold. Above everything, just realize that it's a precious system that you've been handed.

I would also encourage you to just begin the conversations with teachers to try to renew that relationship. You know, when is the last time a Minister of Education has actually gone and talked to the BCTF? I don't know that answer, but I ask: when is the last time that the Minister of Education went and talked to the BCTF? I'm sure that others…. The minister of mining goes….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Okay. The BCTF AGM.

Just like the minister of mining would go and meet with them, it's just a natural thing. When is the last time the minister went to the AGM and talked? Those sorts of things. Then begin the conversations, going into classrooms, listening carefully to what they say and having a discussion over this bill, over what makes a school system strong.

In closing, this bill should be pulled. I think a more competent approach would be to involve both sides in the discussion. I feel very confident that that is what the people of British Columbia want and would expect from you. To me, it just seems the reasonable and correct approach.

Deputy Speaker: Could I just remind members, please, to address their remarks through the Chair.

R. Fleming: Today, I think, is truly a sad day for this Legislature, because it reminds us of how inept government has been in "moving us forward to a new era of government-teacher relations."

[1630]

There's supposed to be a relationship of respect, of productive, cooperative responsibility to advance the achievement and learning of our children. I couldn't help but think about how poor the timing was earlier today when the member for Vancouver-Burrard made a statement about anti-bullying programs in the Vancouver school board. The member remarked on how we must teach a conflict-resolution approach to our children so that we can root out unfair behaviour in our society. How right he is, and how right our school boards are for pursuing those efforts right across the province.

But today we have a lesson from the government to students across British Columbia. While teaching professionals, administrators and the parent volunteers have been working to create lesson plans and to create a culture in our school systems that values dialogue, that places value on reaching compromise and that, most importantly, values respect, we have a group in this House who undermine those very efforts in all of our communities through their very action, through this bill, through the use of legislative hammers.

After a year and a half of unwillingness to even allow discussion on very basic teaching and learning conditions — and yes, on salaries, other than zero and zero…. To talk about salaries like everybody else does, like they do in the private sector and in every industry across British Columbia and across Canada and in every country in the world that believes in free and fair collective bargaining…. They talk about salaries, Madam Speaker.

Teachers should have the right to talk about special resources for libraries or teaching assistants, to talk about additional resources for children with special needs, because they teach them. Those are the working conditions that teachers learn in, and those are the learning conditions that parents place their children in.

The government's actions, in fact, are yet another example of government by imposition and bully tactics, despite the programs that we're trying to teach in our schools across B.C., and they threaten to tear apart what is one of the best public education systems in the world. Apparently