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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

World Teachers Day

J. Horgan

Substance abuse services on North Shore

K. Whittred

Aboriginal cultural events on North

Coast

G. Coons

Kay Meek Centre for the Performing Arts

R. Sultan

Women's resources in Nanaimo

L. Krog

Government assistance for Okanagan

fruit growers

A. Horning

Oral Questions

Conflict-of-interest guidelines for

2010 Olympic Games

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

Funding for 2010 Olympic Games and role

of Auditor General

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

Legacy project and Mount St. Joseph

Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Abbott

Terms of sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder

Morgan

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

S. Simpson

N. Macdonald

Softwood lumber negotiations

M. Farnworth

Hon. R.

Coleman

Compensation for sawmill workers

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Second Reading of Bills

Teachers' Collective Agreement Act

(Bill 12) (continued)

A. Dix

B. Ralston

D. Chudnovsky

H. Lali

N. Simons

Hon. S. Bond

H. Bains

S. Simpson

S. Fraser

C. Wyse

B. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business

and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Deregulation

Hon. R. Thorpe

M. Karagianis

C. Trevena

[ Page 455 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2005

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased this afternoon to introduce to the House Randi Hermans, who is a teacher-librarian in the Chilliwack school district. In fact, she is the vice-president of the B.C. Teacher-Librarians Association. She teaches at Evans Elementary School in my riding. A few years ago she taught at East Chilliwack Elementary, where I joined her with a class of students and read a few books — East Chilliwack being the place where I started my schooling many years ago. I ask the House to please make Randi welcome.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to welcome a guest to the House: a sometime teacher-librarian, Fred Robertson, who teaches grades three and four at Port McNeill. I hope the House will welcome him.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the visitors' gallery we have two special visitors from the republic of Trinidad and Tobago. His Excellency Arnold Piggott, High Commissioner for the republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and Mrs. Allison Wendy Kitson-Piggott are making their first official visit to Victoria. I ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

H. Bains: Today in the gallery is Shelley Wilcox, who has been a teacher for 20 years. She is from my constituency of Surrey-Newton, and she helps teachers with integrated technology and curriculum. Please join me in extending a warm welcome to Shelley to the House.

[1405]

Hon. W. Oppal: It is a pleasure for me to introduce Brian Hue, a teacher from David Thompson Secondary School in my riding. I'd ask the House to give a warm welcome to Mr. Hue.

S. Simpson: It's a pleasure for me to introduce one of my constituents, Suzie Mah, who is an elementary school teacher in Vancouver, grades six and seven, in the Greater Vancouver Distance Education School where she teaches 34 students. These students come from Whistler to Delta. I would hope the House would make her welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to welcome a tourism industry delegation from Guangzhou province in China. They represent the tourism administration of Guangzhou province. They came to Vancouver today after visiting Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto, and this morning they visited Butchart Gardens here in the capital city. The group is led by

Mr. Mah. I'm especially pleased because we are currently negotiating an approved destination status with China, through the federal government. We hope to welcome many more delegations to our province over the next number of years. So I hope they will go back to China and spread the word about what a fabulous province we are. I would like everybody to welcome them and wish them a great day in the best place on earth, beautiful British Columbia.

R. Austin: It is my pleasure today to introduce one of my constituents,

Maryka Gregg, who is a teacher-librarian from school district 82. Maryka teaches at Clarence Michiel Elementary School in Terrace. She's also the chair of the working and learning conditions for the BCTLA. I ask that the House please welcome

Maryka.

I. Black: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House today ten students from Simon Fraser University, with whom I had the pleasure of sharing lunch and enjoying the fine fare of our dining room. I'd ask the House to make them feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, have the pleasure of welcoming a teacher-librarian from my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, Pat Parungao. I would ask the House to please make her feel welcome.

J. Rustad: Today visiting in the gallery is a constituent, Carolyn Rowland. She's an elementary teacher, and she's also the past president of the Prince George District Teachers' Association. I look forward to meeting with her later this afternoon, and I ask the House to please make her welcome.

A. Horning: I am pleased to introduce to the House today a special guest, Angie McRitchie, who is a teacher and librarian in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country. Would the House please make her welcome today.

R. Hawes: I rise to make three introductions today. The first one is Brandon Langhjelm. He's a member of the Young Liberals and a director of my riding association at home. I also have the pleasure of introducing, from arguably the best independent school in British Columbia, Mr. Parker, who is a grade 11 teacher, with 25 of his students from Meadowridge Secondary School in Maple Ridge. Could the House please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is Norma Eaton with Sophia Pacino. Norma is the director of the Cosmetologists Association of British Columbia and represents 18,000 women and about 10,000 businesses in British Columbia working hard to make British Columbia a better place. Could the House please make Norma and Sophia welcome.

[1410]

Hon. I. Chong: We're joined in the House today by a constituent of mine, Karen Lindsay. Karen is a longtime educator in Victoria with 22 years of classroom teaching and four years as a teacher-librarian to her credit. While she resides in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, she is actually currently a teacher-

[ Page 456 ]

librarian at Reynolds Secondary School in Saanich South. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

H. Bloy: It's an honour to stand here today and introduce students from Simon Fraser University — the B.C. Liberal group. They've been extraordinarily hard workers on a number of campaigns across the province through this last election, and a couple of them were from the riding of Burquitlam.

We have Woosang Lee, the president, and Silvester Law. We also have Brandon Langhjelm, Brock Stephenson, Jacqueline Halliburn, Derek Turner, David Yau, Henry Ma, Richard Ly, Shaun Webb and Yang King. Would the House please welcome these dedicated, hard workers from Simon Fraser University.

N. Simons: I'd just like to draw the attention of the House to a visiting group of

Young New Democrats in the gallery from the University of Victoria. Please let them be welcome.

R. Cantelon: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to you a constituent, Dorda

Pitaway, a teacher at Georgia Avenue School. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: I have one more guest to introduce. I have the great pleasure of introducing a very special guest, Rayyann Alibhai-Maherali, who is a student with the Meadowridge School in Maple Ridge and a granddaughter of a very special friend of mine, a person called Sadrudin Nasser Alibhai. May the House please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two very good friends from Salmon Arm. Nancy Cooper is a former colleague at Okanagan College and today is a city councillor at Salmon Arm. With her is her husband Harry van Warden.

Harry is special for a whole lot of reasons. He's the manager of the employment assistance office in Salmon Arm and does a wonderful, wonderful job there. I can tell you that he is an invaluable asset to our constituency office there and does a great job. Even more special, he is one of those wonderful British Columbians who today are receiving a long-service award, so I think we want to extend special congratulations and welcome to him.

Hon. P. Bell: It's always a pleasure for me to be able to introduce someone from my constituency. Today I'm especially proud to be able to introduce a neighbour, a friend and a great teacher from Prince George North, Raine Harding. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) WORLD TEACHERS DAY

J. Horgan: Today is World Teachers Day. First celebrated in 1994, World Teachers Day was put in place by the United Nations agency UNESCO to recognize the vital contributions teachers make to the intellectual, cultural and social growth of our communities all over the world.

Today I'm very proud to stand in this place to celebrate World Teachers Day, and I am pleased that there are teachers in the gallery joining us for that opportunity. It is a day to recognize the teachers of B.C. and to let them know how very much they are valued, respected and appreciated.

Teachers play a crucial role in helping shape our children in the communities that we live in. The role teachers play should never be underestimated or undervalued, for without them our society would not grow and prosper. Teachers are the people we entrust our children to every day. As I said yesterday, these are the people that help many of us through challenging and perplexing childhoods in the past, in the present and into the future.

Teachers all across this province guide our children through tricky math problems, teach our children the history of our country, coach our soccer teams, sponsor clubs, teach cello, chaperone at dances and many, many, many more extracurricular activities.

[1415]

This is their day across the world, yet in British Columbia it's a sombre day — regretfully, a sombre day. In Manitoba today the Legislature is celebrating and honouring teachers. Here in this place we are a bit more sombre, and that's unfortunate. Despite the situation, I urge all members of this place to join with me in acknowledging the absolutely incredible, invaluable role teachers play in the life and vibrancy of our province.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES

ON NORTH SHORE

K. Whittred: Four years ago the communities of the North Shore began a journey to address the plague of substance abuse. Our substance abuse task force is taking a comprehensive four-pillar approach to dealing with drug addiction through prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction. This task force brings together partners from across the community spectrum. It includes Vancouver Coastal Health's mental health and addiction unit. It includes the North Shore Youth Safe House, the school districts of West Van and North Van communities, five separate municipalities, the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh first nations, the West Vancouver police and the RCMP.

Every organization that can effect a positive change is stepping up to the plate in this community endeavour. It's looking at issues and innovative solutions including drug courts, community treatment programs and preventive programs for youth and families. I would like to commend the task force and all its partners for their hard work and creative solutions. Working with the province and with the recent $7 million announced to fight crystal meth, we will be closer to solving our communities' drug problems.

[ Page 457 ]

I commend the North Shore community for the model they have demonstrated. It has become a template for other communities to follow.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL EVENTS

ON NORTH COAST

G. Coons: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about two celebrations that occurred in my riding this past weekend. Lax Kw'alaams, a Tsimshian community outside of Prince Rupert, hosted more than a thousand people at a three-day event that honoured their elders and youth. Lax Kw'alaams band council, chiefs, matriarchs and residents officially recognized the completion of Tuck Road that leads to their village from the ferry dock. A trip that took one hour and ten minutes now takes 25 minutes.

Also celebrated was the village's $16 million investment in TFL 1 and the Terrace licence, which will bring a large component of the northwest forest industry under local control.

One of the highlights was a grand opening of the leisure centre and pool — actually, with a waterslide, elder centre and renovated rec centre. The completion of this project grew out of the input from the youth in the community. What a tribute to them to see their dreams come true. Lax Kw'alaams not only respects the past through their elders, but they have honoured the future through their young people.

I also had the privilege of attending the raising of four totem poles in the village of New Aiyansh. Raising four poles at the same time has never been done before. The totems represent the four tribes of the Nisga'a Nation. Each tribe — the wolf, eagle, killer whale and frog — told their story through what is termed as a Breath of Life Ceremony. Residents and many visitors physically and emotionally participated in this cultural event. The four totems, which bring together the Nisga'a as one, are located in front of the village of the New Aiyansh government office. It's a sight not to be missed.

In closing, I would like to thank Albert Tate, an internationally acclaimed art carver, for inviting me and taking me under his wing to join the eagle clan for the tribal picnic and evening festivities.

[1420]

KAY MEEK CENTRE

FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

R. Sultan: I ask this House to celebrate the opening of the Kay Meek Centre, a new $10-million cultural jewel located in my riding. The project, a joint venture of the Kay Meek Foundation and West Vancouver school district 45, features two state-of-the-art theatres: a 500-seat main theatre and a 200-seat studio theatre. It's an example of generous private philanthropy combining with innovative public school management.

Kay Meek, a longtime supporter of the arts, died at age 91 on the very day her dream of a learning-based performing arts centre had its first performance. That first performance featured the African Children's Choir. It has 35 children, ages seven to 12, from Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda — children who call themselves the princes of Africa, because they lost their parents to war and to AIDS. Proceeds will help keep them in school. You couldn't find a dry eye in the house.

Another memorable performance I attended recently featured the gospel music of our own Marcus Mosley's Good Noise Choir. West Vancouver politicians don't usually jump up and shout hallelujah, but I was tempted. Finally, our high school students offered audiences their version of the musical Grease — with references to Brylcreem, fast cars and pregnancy — which for me brought back alarming memories of King Edward High School.

Here we have a new cultural asset built by one of the truly superb teaching units of our provincially funded public school system, facilitated by the dreams of a lady who wanted to help the kids. I invite you to dig out your worst shoes and attend this month's Kay Meek fundraiser, the Sneakers Ball, and check out what our dedicated teachers, talented students and smart management can offer — good entertainment and great education.

WOMEN'S RESOURCES IN NANAIMO

L. Krog: I want to talk about the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society today. It has a proud 25-year history of providing service to women in Nanaimo. Since 1981 it's been an organized non-profit. Its staff and volunteers have always been available to help women in crisis. They serve some 300 to 400 clients a month during the 60 hours that they can actually afford to stay open — just 15 hours a week.

October is Women's History Month, but there's not much celebration at the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society since they've lost their core funding. They had to lose their executive director, and they have to struggle to make their rent every month. In September they managed to raise $1,700 at a beer-and-burger night so they can stay open for another three months.

Nanaimo has one of the highest rates of single-women parenting. Child poverty, the rates of teen pregnancy, spousal assault and illicit drug use are higher in Nanaimo than the B.C. average. Nanaimo female single-parent families earn $4,500 less per year than the B.C. average. Compared with other communities in B.C., Nanaimo has the second-highest rate of dependent elderly women. Between 1997 and 2002 Nanaimo saw a 130-percent increase in family violence and, more recently, a steady and sharp decline, obviously, in accessible legal services.

This centre provides free counselling, legal clinics and workshops, and free computer, photocopier and fax services. It offers programs to help women with substance abuse, a free clothing exchange, parenting support — even free diapers, soap, bus tickets and more.

They are keen to continue their work in our community, but without support it becomes almost impossible for them to do so. So particularly as we celebrate

[ Page 458 ]

Women's History Month, I would ask this House to recognize the important work that the staff and volunteers at this agency do, but I also ask this House to consider its obligations to all citizens and groups that require our support in this province.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR

OKANAGAN FRUIT GROWERS

A. Horning: Orchardists in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country and across B.C.'s beautiful Okanagan are facing a financial crunch that's putting a damper on what normally would be a bumper-crop year in 2004. U.S. fruit is glutting the market, lowering prices and making it tough to turn a profit for close to 1,000 growers.

The good news is that a federal-provincial program, the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, exists to provide a financial safety net for growers. But Okanagan growers are finding it difficult to tap into the program, which is based out of Winnipeg. There are also cultural and language barriers for Indo-Canadian growers trying to access CAIS.

[1425]

Some growers are simply throwing up their hands in frustration with the application process, as evidenced by the fact that only 20 percent of growers have applied to CAIS for assistance with last year's low crop returns.

The truth is that CAIS has great potential. That's been proven by how successful the program has been in helping farmers close to its home base in Manitoba, but the Okanagan is a long way from Winnipeg. The federal government needs to seriously look at having an Okanagan-based representative from CAIS who can work face to face with our local growers and assist them in navigating the CAIS bureaucracy. That kind of face-to-face contact would also be of huge assistance in breaking down cultural and language barriers that may be keeping many Indo-Canadian orchardists from tapping into this aid program. This is a simple fix but one that could make a huge difference to B.C.'s fruit growers.

I also want to acknowledge the proactive work of the provincial Agriculture Minister in bringing federal representatives to the Okanagan Valley to assess the problems and work towards overcoming the barriers that our growers face.

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

FOR 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES

C. James: Can the Minister of Economic Development define what constitutes a conflict of interest and an apparent conflict of interest? This morning he said it was complicated. Does he have a better answer for us now?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would be pleased to refer the member to the conflict commissioner, who is an independent officer of this House, and the conflict-of-interest legislation. I'm sure she can find her

definitions there.

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

C. James: I'd like to present to the minister a specific case to speak about conflict of interest, since he seemed unable to do it earlier. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Concert Properties is considering a bid on Olympic facilities. Concert's chair is leading the Vancouver organizing committee. Another Concert director sits on VANOC. Concert's president headed up the Olympic Yes campaign. Could the Minister of Economic Development tell us if that's an apparent conflict of interest?

Hon. C. Hansen: Concert Properties, at the time that the bid was put in on behalf of the city of Vancouver, made a commitment to the people of British Columbia that they would not bid on Olympic construction. We expect them to live up to that commitment. I have talked to Jack Poole this morning, and he has assured me that Concert Properties has not and will not bid on Olympic construction.

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

C. James: I'm sure many are pleased to hear that, but it doesn't take away from the issue. Can the Minister of Economic Development please outline the conflict-of-interest guidelines that are in place to ensure that government will protect taxpayers on the construction of Olympic facilities?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm sure the member is aware that VANOC is a federally chartered not-for-profit society independent of the provincial government. Therefore, they do not fall under the conflict-of-interest legislation that we have in place for the province, but they do have in place their own conflict provisions. They have actually gone to the extent of putting in place an ethics adviser within VANOC. I am very confident, in the case that is in the media today, that they are living up to those conflict-of-interest requirements, because Concert Properties has not and will not be bidding on Olympic construction.

FUNDING FOR 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES

AND ROLE OF AUDITOR GENERAL

H. Bains: We're talking about taxpayers owing $600 million. The Minister of Economic Development has trouble getting straight answers as to how taxpayers are being protected. Given these concerns, will the government now agree to give the Auditor General full oversight over Olympic spending?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased that the hon. member, the critic for the Olympics, asked the identical question

[ Page 459 ]

in estimates in Committee A last night. I will give exactly the same answer today as I gave to him on that occasion, which is in Hansard , and that is that the Auditor General of British Columbia is an independent officer of this Legislature. He has the authority to review all commitments made by the province of British Columbia to the Olympic Games. He does not need to have direction from us to do that. He has the power and the independence to investigate any and all aspects of the commitment that the province has made to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1430]

LEGACY PROJECT AND

MOUNT ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL

J. Kwan: Of course, the issue with the Auditor General is around the budgeting, and the watchdogs around the Legislature are not getting more money to do the work that needs to be done.

Having said that, I'd like to move on to another issue. Last April the then Minister of Health said unequivocally that the government had no plans to close Mount

St. Joseph Hospital. In fact, her statement came after the opposition raised the concerns coming from families and patients at the facility.

At the time the minister said the opposition was fearmongering. Yet shortly after the election, the Providence health authority released a study entitled Providence Health Care Legacy Planning Projections , which revealed the authority does indeed have plans to close the hospital. The authority currently operates St. Paul's Hospital and Mount St. Joe's. The report cites: "The goal of the legacy project is to consolidate those two remaining acute care sites onto one site."

Does the Minister of Health still stand by his colleague's earlier statement that the government has no plans to see Mount

St. Joseph Hospital closed?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly do stand by my former colleagues. In fact, I sit by them here each and every day, and I'm happy to stand by them on this issue as well.

The member quotes from the planning equivalent of the Dead Sea scrolls. This is not only an antiquated document, but also an inaccurate one. The hospital in question will not be closed. It is not part of the consideration around the legacy project, and I'm glad to reassure the member on this point. I look forward to seeing her ability here to take a straight answer to, perhaps, a difficult question.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: That's very interesting. Maybe the minister should actually tell that answer to Providence. They released a document two months after the election, stating: "The goal of the legacy project is to consolidate these two remaining acute care sites onto one site" — two months after the election. Who's telling the truth — Providence or the government?

Hon. G. Abbott: Or (c)? Has the opposition got it hopelessly muddled? My guess would be on (c), actually — that they have got this hopelessly, hopelessly muddled. The straight answer to the question is that the legacy project does not involve Mount St. Joe's. It does not. The member should be very happy about that instead of trying to create issues where there are no issues.

TERMS OF SALE OF TERASEN GAS

TO KINDER MORGAN

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Welcome back, Minister.

The business

section of the New York Times ran an

article on August 27 of this year, and it was titled "Memo to the United States: Pay Attention to Canada." The American author interviewed for his

article Senator Pat Carney on the softwood issue. He wrote: "She wants the Canadian government to begin scrutinizing American investment in Canada. She pointed in particular to the…$6.9 billion acquisition of Terasen, a Canadian natural gas pipeline company, by Kinder Morgan."

Then the writer goes on to say: "Memo to American business: Pay attention to this. It could cause trouble. That goes double for you, Richard Kinder. As a Texan, and president of Enron in the mid-1990's, you are on friendly terms with President Bush. You should whisper in his ear to settle this thing fast. It's in everyone's best interest."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: It's all right. Let them holler.

Minister, here's the question.

Mr. Speaker: Member, put your questions through to the Chair.

[1435]

C. Evans: Oh, sorry. Hon. Chair, please put to the Minister of Energy the question: will you ask the B.C. Utilities Commission to put on hold the Terasen decision for 90 days to give Mr. Kinder a chance to talk to Mr. Bush?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm certainly not here to start telling Mr. Kinder who to talk to and when to talk about anything. As far as the proposal of Terasen Gas, there was a procedural hearing on September 9, where the B.C. Utilities Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body in British Columbia, heard presentations by stakeholders as to what should happen in regards to this proposal. The B.C. Utilities Commission actually decided to have written presentations made, and they have given till October 17 for those folks that actually wish to put forward their yea or nay to make that to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

[ Page 460 ]

We respect the B.C. Utilities Commission in its ability to look after British Columbians in the best interests of British Columbians without political interference. We don't intend to politically interfere with that process with a quasi-judicial body. We expect that they will make the decision amongst about four other bodies that this proposal would have to go through, including the Canadian government, to make them in the best interest of Canadians and the best interest of British Columbians, which they have done over the last four years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: My supplemental is also for the Minister of Energy. It would appear to me — and, I think, to all British Columbians — that the government actually does have a position. Pat Carney, the senator who negotiated the free trade deal with the United States; the New York Times ; now the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada all expect that the government of British Columbia might have an opinion about this sale. The minister sent his staff to the Utilities Commission to say, on purpose, 29 words. "We have no opinion on hearings." So, minister, you have sent a message.

Mr. Speaker: Member, direct your….

C. Evans: Through the hon. Speaker, maybe the minister could please tell us if he doesn't think his statement to the Utilities Commission rings all over North America as a position and a message and an invitation to plunder.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting. At least the staff from the Ministry of Energy and Mines stayed till the end of the hearing, unlike the two members from the NDP caucus who left shortly after saying what they thought should happen.

What we have done in British Columbia is return to a B.C. Utilities Commission that is not interfered with by government. Unfortunately, over the ten years previous to our government, under the government of the member who has asked the question, who was part of government…. His government continually wrote directions — secret directions — to the B.C. Utilities Commission about what they should do with decisions made in backrooms by their cronies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We took that process and changed it, and we put back in the B.C. Utilities Commission the authority to make these decisions on behalf of all British Columbians. We should all be reminded: this is a publicly owned company traded on the stock exchange.

Maybe the member doesn't understand "publicly owned." That means that a lot of people across this province own Terasen — shareholders. In fact, pension funds from unions own Terasen. They, at the end of the day, will have the authority by voting in excess of 75 percent whether this sale should go through or not. The shareholders of Terasen will make that decision.

[1440]

S. Simpson: It's interesting that the minister talks about the hearing. He would note, if he had attended the hearing, that the only people who spoke opposed to having public hearings were Kinder Morgan and Terasen. Every other British Columbian said: "Let's have hearings." But that's the public interest, not his interest.

As people will know, Kinder Morgan has been fined over $5 million for environmental violations. They have faced 44 violations on environmental matters. They are facing $100,000 a day in fines by the U.S. Department of Transportation if they don't deal with these within 120 days. On Monday the Minister of Environment said there is nothing for us to worry about on this matter, that they will meet all the environmental standards.

So my question, considering how poor Kinder Morgan's record is, is to the Premier. He is the author of the five great goals, including the best environmental standards in the world. Can the Premier please tell me: does he agree that the idea of not paying attention to environmental considerations in this sale is, in fact, meeting his five great goals?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have strict environmental rules in this province. They are as strong as any rules there are around North America. Whether Kinder Morgan owns Terasen, or whether Terasen continues to own Terasen, those rules and regulations must be adhered to. We take the environment seriously, unlike an administration past.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat for a second. Members, the courtesy was directed to listening to the question. The courtesy should also be extended to hearing the answer.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We take seriously our environmental concerns here in British Columbia. We know that the rules and regulations we have in place that are administered by the Oil and Gas Commission, by the Ministry of Environment and by numerous other ministries are adhered to regardless of the ownership of Terasen.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, the minister has certainly demonstrated: anything for a buck, including destroying

[ Page 461 ]

our environment. I'm very disappointed in him and disappointed in the Premier for not thinking this is an important enough issue to comment on.

Kinder Morgan has a long and serious track record of environmental violations. The problem we have is that the B.C. Utilities Commission won't look at those matters unless they get special direction from the cabinet. They just don't do that. We now have the U.S. Department of Transportation doing the job and putting Kinder Morgan on notice that they need to clean up their act within 120 days.

My question is to the Attorney General, who has responsibility for the B.C. Utilities Commission in this government. Since the Premier won't deal with the issue, the Minister of Environment won't deal with it, nor will the Minister of Energy, will the Attorney General at least hoist this application — direct it to be hoisted — until the U.S. Department of Transportation finishes their business? If you won't do the investigation, they'll do it for you. Will you hoist it until the U.S. investigation is completed?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to draw the attention…. I know the member tries to say that we don't have a good environmental record in the province. We have an excellent environmental record in British Columbia, and we continue to move forward with that.

You know, contrary to the last administration, who actually ordered the B.C. Utilities Commission to tell B.C. Hydro to build a pipeline from the U.S. to Vancouver Island, interestingly enough, to build a gas-fired plant on Vancouver Island and to actually give direction to move land out of the ALR, given by the member for Nelson-Creston when he was Minister of Agriculture…..

It's interesting that none of those members opposite have any idea what a quasi-judicial body is in British Columbia. We respect that quasi-judicial body to actually work in the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians — along with the federal Competition Act, the Investment Canada Act, approvals under the Water Utility Act and numerous others — to move this forward.

There are lots of pension plans around…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

[1445]

Hon. R. Neufeld: …British Columbia that own shares. I might bring to the attention of the room that the Leader of the Official Opposition owns some shares in Terasen, and I would assume that she's going to be there saying no at that meeting that takes place shortly.

N. Macdonald: Terasen Gas serves 880,000 businesses and homes in 125 different communities. Local governments across B.C. are concerned about the sale to Kinder Morgan, and they're concerned that nobody is taking the time to respond to their concerns.

My question is to the Minister of Community Services. Has she met with local government representatives to address their concerns about the sale of Terasen, and what is she doing to help them get the information they need?

Hon. R. Neufeld: At UBCM, I met with numerous communities during my meetings. Actually, I don't recall it being brought up once, and I'm not sure…. I'd have to go back to my correspondence, but I don't believe I've had one letter from a community yet.

I think the communities across the province of British Columbia understand fully how this works. They understand fully that the B.C. Utilities Commission will make sure that everything that is done, regardless of what it is, is done in the best interests of British Columbia and the best interests of Canada so we can move this great province forward as we actually see investment, maybe, in this province from others to make sure that we continue on the path that we're on.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The question is for the Minister of Community Services. What she would know, which the Minister of Energy does not know, is that the UBCM passed a resolution. The resolution was unanimous, and the resolution stated that officially the UBCM will be asked to petition the B.C. Utilities Commission for public hearings across the province.

The Minister of Community Services knows that, so I'm directing the question to her. The government has the power to make those public hearings happen. This time to the Minister of Community Services: why will she not help local governments get the answers that they're looking for? Why is the government refusing to allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to hold public hearings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just a few minutes ago I responded to that question, which said that the B.C. Utilities Commission set out a time frame for written submissions. That will end on October 17. At that time the B.C. Utilities Commission still has the authority, and in the order that they laid down, to hold oral hearings across the province if they so deem it.

Until we see what the B.C. Utilities Commission's decision is on October 17, again, we will respect that quasi-judicial body in moving forward in protecting British Columbians in relation to this proposal by Kinder Morgan.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

M. Farnworth: Given the importance of the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia to the economy of British Columbia and to the economy of this country; given the fact that a respected Conservative Senator, who helped negotiate the original free trade agreements…. Given the commentary that has come out of the United States; given the opinion, for example, in the New York Times , a very well-respected journal in the United States, about the opportunities to

[ Page 462 ]

link — in the case of the sale and the principles behind the sale — energy and solution to softwood lumber, my question is to the Premier.

[1450]

Has the Premier considered the linkage between energy and softwood lumber as one option that could be used to help bring a resolution to the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are presently in discussions on a pan-Canadian position to go forward to the Americans. There are some very important meetings coming up shortly with regard to that position. That will drive an agenda that may or may not get us back to the table. We know in discussions with the people on this file, both north and south of the border, that tying something to that today would be counterproductive to the negotiations we wish to undertake, and it would not be successful in the long term for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: These negotiations in various forms have been taking place for more years now than many of us can remember. We need to be using every tool at our disposal to ensure that the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians are achieved at a negotiating table. So my question would be: has the government then rejected the linkage of energy to the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd remind the member about the success of the former NDP government with Nanoose Bay and the issues with the Americans that did not work for British Columbia.

I also want to remind the member that this is a national trade file. It is not a provincial trade file. Therefore we work with the federal government and our colleagues across the provinces as we bring something forward.

I agree that this has gone on way too long. We want another NAFTA decision today — another one, on top of another one, on top of another one. But if we continue to actually work at this thing in the manner I think we are today, my feeling is that we may have an opportunity in the next 60 days, a window of an opportunity, to do something and be successful. If that window closes at that point in time, then I'm happy to sit down with the federal government and discuss what other sanctions may be necessary.

We also have to do that because we demand that the Americans stay within the rules of the trade boundaries that we expect them to trade with us on. We're not going outside of those and doing sanctions until we have the proper legal remedies available to us within the WTO and other trade agreements so that we can operate properly as Canadians.

We're not going outside the rules because somebody thinks we should go outside the rules. We're going to be the ones that will negotiate in good faith. We're going to be the ones that will be honourable and accept the deals we make, and we'll stand up to and honour the deals we make with the Americans in the future.

COMPENSATION FOR SAWMILL WORKERS

B. Simpson: Forestry workers all over B.C. have lost their jobs during the last four years, and many are working part-time, specifically because of policy decisions made by this government. In recognition of this reality, when the government brought in the Forestry Revitalization Act it promised that workers who lost their jobs would be entitled to severance pay, and companies would be compensated as well. Today we know that companies have received that compensation, but the government seems to be picking and choosing which workers are entitled to severance pay.

To the Minister of Forests: why did the revitalization strategy not take into consideration that sawmill workers would also lose their jobs and include these workers in the compensation package?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was just at a meeting yesterday in Saskatoon with the Ministers of Forests from across this country. We sat in on a presentation from CIBC World Markets, an expert on world markets with regard to forestry, and they said this: there is one jurisdiction in North America, one jurisdiction in Canada, that's actually made the tough decisions moving forward to make their forest industry sustainable. He also told us that the forest industry in North America will go through at least one to three more years of difficult times as changes are made to make it a sustainable industry if governments, communities and industry can think forward on how this is going to look in the future.

It's easy to stand here and make some comment with regard to what may or may not have gone on in a period of time. I remember sitting in this House. I remember the announcement in Prince George: 21,000 jobs under the jobs and timber accord.

[1455]

Not one job was delivered under the jobs and timber accord. We lost thousands and thousands of jobs because the NDP government didn't deliver. We are going to deliver on a forest plan for British Columbians to make it sustainable for the citizens of B.C. long-term.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the briefing on the minister's meeting, and I appreciate his passion about job loss. That wasn't my question. My question wasn't about history. It was about the current moment. In this moment this Liberal government has policy that is creating job loss. That is a tough choice, and as the Minister of Finance said, it's all about choices.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 463 ]

B. Simpson: The tough choice has been made. What I asked was: why does this government discriminate between forest workers on the land base, who are harvesting, and forest workers who work in the sawmills, who are losing their jobs? Why the discrimination? Why are sawmill workers regarded as second-class citizens? And will the minister change the compensation package to address that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Different employment environments and different responsibilities under employment and investment with regard to EI in Canada….

Frankly, I've heard too many times, or read too many times, how this member always talks about how this is going to be a terrible thing in the Cariboo and the sunset industry in British Columbia. I'd like him to move away from Chicken Little and "the sky is falling" and even look in his own backyard at the 60-plus jobs and at the tens of millions of dollars that were invested in Dunkley Lumber in your riding to create new jobs because of the policies of this government with regards to good business practices and good forestry.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber is continued second reading debate on Bill 12 and in Committee A, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

Second Reading of Bills

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

A. Dix: I'm pleased to rise and speak to Bill 12.

[1500]

I was reminded a little bit, in listening to the member for Nelson-Creston last night, of the words of Thomas Paine many hundreds of years ago — some of the most profound and passionate words ever said about politics, I think, and some of the most insightful. When he said that perhaps the sentiments…. He was talking about his book Common Sense. He said: "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not sufficiently fashionable to procure them a general favour.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom, but the tumult soon subsides; time makes more converts than reason."

I was reflecting on the attitude of the current government towards education, an attitude that has privileged confrontation and lack of respect towards people in education — teachers, students and parents — over the last four years. It's an attitude that has led ministers in this House to rise six times with legislation taking away rights from teachers — six times. This is number six. I think we need to reflect on the impact of the changes made over that time by this government, not just on teachers but, in particular, on students. I think about it.

We know what the big numbers are. The big numbers from around British Columbia are 2,500 teaching positions cut; 113 schools closed; in particular, cuts to special education teachers, 17.5 percent — almost one in five special education teachers cut; teacher-librarians, 23.4 percent. I'm going to return to that in a moment, because it's a fundamental question about how we deal with questions of literacy and education for the future in British Columbia.

ESL teachers, so important in my constituency, cut by 20 percent as a direct result of these legislated measures, which notionally were about the government asserting its will in this Legislature over the interests of groups and society — in this case, teachers.

You know, in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway…. It's a constituency I'm very proud to represent, a constituency that represents people who have come here from around the world here and are living together and striving to make a better life for themselves. In my constituency there are today 1,562 students learning in classrooms that are so large they would not have been allowed prior to 2002. Think of that.

We have to remember that those students don't get that opportunity to be in elementary school twice. This is their opportunity, and it's an opportunity that this government has hurt by its policies, by its vendetta against public school teachers — which has had for victims the interests of students.

The British Columbia Society for Public Education, which is largely a group of parents in Vancouver, did a study over just one year of the impact of the government's cuts on education in Vancouver. I see my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena over there. I'm sure he'll be particularly interested in this.

[1505]

They reported that fundraising in Vancouver schools, usually on essential items, was over $600,000 in the 2003-2004 school year. Mostly what was being bought was computer and software equipment. The number of counsellors fell by 2.6 percent just in that school year, the number of teacher-librarians by 5 percent just in that school year. The largest classes, across the board, were in math and science — three classes, including one in my constituency, of 36 students in

[ Page 464 ]

math. They discovered that all secondary schools in Vancouver, all of them, charge course fees — the most frequent fees for hospitality foods, French, math and art.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

They discovered wide disparities between schools. One school reported having only three research-standard computers, while another school had 31. So the impact of the government's measures — dressed up as an attack and a war on teachers as a collective bargaining issue, but in fact, a cut to the quality of education — felt by students in Vancouver has been profound.

In my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway at Grenfell School, there are rooms that used to be used for storage that are classrooms, because the Minister of Education won't fund a capital project to add classrooms. At Norquay School in my riding, there is one half-time teacher-librarian, 2.5 days a week, in a school with a high ESL population, with 650 students in it. Why is this the case? This government took away the right of teachers to negotiate and to protect ratios for teacher-librarians in public schools in British Columbia.

I think it's important to reflect, because the government and the Premier frequently talk about the importance of literacy in our public schools. They frequently wax eloquent on the question, but the fact of the matter is, since the Premier became Premier, one in four teacher-librarian positions has been lost — one in four.

What is the work teacher-librarians do? The work they do is fundamental to literacy. In some households, it's true, parents are in a position to buy books and get lots of books for their children, but the only other place for most children — particularly children in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway — to get access to books is to borrow them. Usually, where they have to borrow them is from their school libraries. We see not only the effects of the loss in resources, the cuts to books. We have libraries in schools in my riding, at Collingwood schools, that are virtually empty of books.

The Premier talks about the value of literacy, and yet the libraries are lacking in books, and they're lacking in librarians. Teacher-librarians are essential to working with ESL teachers, who have also been cut, to assuring that ESL students have the same opportunities to succeed in life as all other students. In fact, they have cut those programs, in particular, and they've cut them because they have taken from collective agreements the rights of teachers, and they have inserted changes by legislative diktat that have hurt students.

When they try and portray this battle, this fight for public education, as a fight of them on the one hand and a union on the other hand, they are wrong. This is about students.

My father-in-law was a great man. He was school trustee in New Westminster. He passed away a few years ago, and when I speak of teacher-librarians, I think that in some ways I'm giving voice to a real passion of his life. He came to this country from India. He taught in Newfoundland. He taught in northern Quebec. He served as a school trustee. He fought to fill libraries with teachers. He fought to fill libraries with books. That was the drive of his career as a school trustee. He believed in it, and sadly, when he passed away…. The new library, in the riding of the hon. member for New Westminster, Queensborough Middle School, is named after him. It's the Vasant Saklikar Library.

I think the government in its effort to drive through legislation, in its effort to pick a fight with teachers, has made a serious mistake to the memory of so many people who have fought to ensure that teacher-librarians play a valued role in our education system. It's made a serious mistake in targeting its cuts to them and in using those cuts as part of a fight with the BCTF. It's wrong, what they're doing, and it's shameful.

Let me just say this. It's not just the cuts to education that have had a profound effect. We in this Legislature should be thanking teachers every day for the contribution they make. In the last four years this government slashed day care funding. They slashed income assistance rates.

[1510]

I was meeting with child development workers last week. There are more than 7,000 children and infants between the ages of zero and five on waiting lists for child development, for assistance. The challenges that are coming to our public schools are growing. The government, by its policies, has contributed to that challenge.

Rather than picking fights with teachers, they should be meeting with teachers. We've had Ministers of Education in the last four years…. There's one who is no longer in politics who was the Minister of Education for three years and never met with the BCTF. I think she met with them once for 15 minutes. Never met with them — can you imagine? Teachers, the most valuable workers in the public sector, contributing in our public schools, and the Minister of Education won't meet with them — yet six pieces of legislation by diktat in here. They talk to teachers through the television set; they talk to teachers through Hansard . It's a shame.

Before coming to this Legislature, I worked as a representative of parents. I worked as the executive director of Canadian Parents for French. I had the opportunity to meet teachers and visit schools in 40 school districts.

I remember going to Hazelton. Hazelton, British Columbia, has a French immersion program. It's the smallest community in Canada with a French immersion program. The school — Field elementary in Hazelton — is 40 percent aboriginal. They wanted French immersion as well. Teachers and parents and students and the community got together and fought for a program, which not only teaches French immersion but teaches Gitxsan language and culture. Can you imagine that?

[ Page 465 ]

That's what teachers do in the community. They do remarkable, unusual things to allow students to succeed, to allow students in Hazelton to have the same opportunities as students in the riding of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and myself. What an extraordinary thing.

I know a teacher in Quesnel, in the riding of my colleague from Cariboo North. There was a grade four student who was having great difficulty, who was defined as a student with special needs, and who wasn't succeeding in school. They met with the parents, and they decided that maybe French immersion was an option for them. Now, French immersion is a program that starts in kindergarten in Quesnel, at Baker School — a remarkable school in downtown Quesnel. It's very, very difficult to take up a program in grade four, but teachers in that program had decided that any student at any age should have that opportunity.

This student, two years ago, joined that program. I met that student recently, and that student, because the teacher took all of the extra time needed to allow that student to succeed, is now succeeding near the top of his class and feels a sense of confidence, of achievement, of self-worth. He's going to do great.

Imagine that. And this government views teachers as the enemy. It's a shameful thing. It's counter to all our experience, all of our individual experience in life. We all know the contribution teachers make. It is, I think, shocking.

This summer I attended events with students across my riding — students from Windermere and Gladstone, secondary schools in my riding — on Canada Day and other celebrations throughout the summer. At those events, those students, as they participated in events, were always supported by teachers giving of themselves, giving extra time, giving, giving, giving. And what do they get from this government? What attention do they get from this government?

The government won't talk to them. They won't meet with them. They won't speak in the debate. They won't say anything. They give messages to teachers. They strip their contract by diktat in this Legislature. That's the response of the government. It's not good enough, hon. Speaker. It's not good enough.

The position of the Minister of Labour, the position of the Minister of Education…. It's like — we all remember — the debate in the 1984 federal election. They say they have no option. The system's broken, they say. It's just broken. It just happened out there. It's like an accident they saw in the street. They saw it, and they saw that the car is broken. You wouldn't believe, hon. Speaker, that they broke it. Yet they did. They broke the system.

They say they had an option. Well, let's review what they've done. Let's review what they've done over the last few years. Let's review those six pieces of legislation during a period when they weren't meeting with teachers or their representatives.

[1515]

I should say, before I start down that road, something about that. There's a continuing effort by government ministers and their supporters, sometimes by editorialists, to demonize the B.C. Teachers Federation because government ministers and editorialists find it inconvenient that teachers get to vote for their own representatives.

You know, at times, I have found it inconvenient that Phil Hochstein is president of the ICBA. I find that inconvenient, but that doesn't stop me from meeting with Mr. Hochstein. That doesn't stop me from meeting with other representatives. It's not my choice who the president or the executive director of the ICBA is; it's the members of the ICBA. It's not the government's choice who represents teachers; it's teachers. This continued effort to disparage their democratic rights is wrong.

We've seen six pieces of legislation. Let's review the government's attitude — what they've done and their attitude toward teachers. First, as we know, in 2002 they stripped the collective agreement: the class-size provisions, the limits on the number of special needs students in particular classrooms, the ratios for teacher-librarians. Stripped from collective agreements. Not the business of teachers. In other words, working conditions don't apply. You can't negotiate working conditions, something that everybody does.

Members of the Legislative Assembly negotiate working conditions. We have a committee where we negotiate working conditions. Some of the members of this House are on it. We get to negotiate working conditions in the best interests of this place — hopefully, in the public interest as well. We get to do that, but teachers don't get to do that. That's where they started.

Where do they move on to? This was maybe the most profound insult to teachers, it seems to me. When I went around to schools as executive director of Canadian Parents for French during the 2003-2004 period, the decision by ministers and members on that side of the House to take away the professional status of teachers through their changes to the B.C. College of Teachers…. Those efforts denigrated teachers as a profession, and they did that without consultation, by legislative diktat. It was wrong.

They did it at the same time as they were giving self-regulating status to other professions — to car dealers and other people in society. They were taking it away from teachers, without consultation.

Again, the number three shot, and it continues on to this day: legislation after legislation after legislation because somebody has told them that it is in their political interests to attack the B.C. Teachers Federation. It seems to me that the government is on a profoundly wrong path in this regard.

I wanted to just briefly say about this that we're in now…. The government says that the system is broken, that it can't be fixed, that they have to legislate. As we noted, they've said, essentially, to teachers that you can't negotiate working conditions, you can't negotiate salary. And then they appear shocked. It's like Casablanca . They're shocked that there's gambling going on in here. They're shocked that people can't come to an agreement.

[ Page 466 ]

It seems to me that it would be impossibly naïve, and I don't think the government's impossibly naïve, so it must be deliberate. They've invented collective bargaining by Franz Kafka in this discussion. They have said to teachers: "You can't negotiate anything, but you're being unreasonable by not negotiating." That's their position.

Hon. Speaker, it's worse than that, of course. We all know that in the 1990s there were agreements negotiated between government and teachers. We also know that in those agreements, teachers made real sacrifices to improve the quality of education, real sacrifices to reduce class size. They were courageous decisions by the leadership of the Teachers Federation of the day — courageous decisions that they made. There were deals between government and between government and teachers and their representatives.

When this government came to this House by legislative diktat and stripped away those agreements and then went on to demean the professionalism of teachers, I think they demean the role of government in this province.

[1520]

It seems to me that the government forgets something. Sometimes we all forget it. I think all parties forget it sometimes. We value, I think, the force of law too much, our ability to pass legislation too much. All parties pass a lot of legislation. The NDP in office passed, I think, in the 1990s — the member for Nelson-Creston was here; I was here for some of that time — almost 500 bills. This government has passed hundreds of bills.

Passing bills is, in a technical sense, relatively easy. Somebody writes the bill. It doesn't take very long. This is a very short bill. Someone writes the bill, you bring it in the House, you have a majority, you ram it through and it's passed. Compared to other actions you can take, like mobilizing people for genuine action, building community support, initiating a successful program or negotiating a collective agreement — even spending money requires the collection of taxes and decisions about spending money — passing laws is easy.

This government has done it six times to teachers, six times taking away their rights. Passing laws is easy, but it's not the easy road to go, it seems to me. In fact, it's not the right road to go.

Negotiating collective agreements can be a long and arduous process. Anyone who has been involved in it knows it. The B.C. Teachers Federation knows it. The members of the government know it. It requires patience. It requires determination. It requires imagination. It sometimes requires courage.

However, if you're successful, if people come into a room and come to a compromise, to an agreement that they can both walk out of, then everybody…. It doesn't just have the impact, it seems to me, of having a good deal and a nice press conference and everything else. It forces everybody in the system to have responsibility because everybody in the system had a role in the decisions that were made.

Too often, in the case of health workers and in the case of teachers, this government has taken the easy road. It's imposed a solution that takes away people's dignity and their role. It doesn't allow teachers or hospital workers or nurses or whoever it might be the slightest ownership in the result. It's not surprising that this leaves people — teachers, nurses, hospital workers, ordinary people in this province — frustrated and angry about their government.

Whatever one might think about the different positions taken by parties in this dispute or any other dispute, this is a negative result. What it says to me is that these disputes, for this government, aren't about health care or education. They're about power games. This government has been taught that they needed to pick an enemy and fight against an enemy. In this case, it's going to be teachers and their representatives, and they're going to drive it through.

But it's a terrible mistake, because teachers do not approach this issue the way the Premier of this province approaches politics. It is not a win-or-lose proposition. They work in the classroom. This is their life. This is what they've trained for. This is their passion. This isn't a game.

For the Premier, it's a game. Six days before the election he invents some sort of issue involving teachers. He pretends they're going to go on strike in the month of June. He pretends it. He creates a contrived issue to create division to drive his point home. That's how he treats education. He treats it as a contrived game.

Well, teachers don't feel that way. Students don't feel that way. The parents that I represent don't feel that way. They feel passionately about education. They know it's a day-to-day task that everybody has to work hard at to succeed.

Politicians like the Premier forget that laws are blunt instruments. What laws are best at doing is to set minimum standards, the minimum standards for environmental or labour standards. The government has some lessons to learn in that regard, I might say. But that's what they do. But when laws are imposed solutions on individuals — and we've seen this on every kind of issue imaginable, from gun control to legislated solutions to collective agreements…. When they impose solutions on people, the minimum becomes the maximum. The goodwill necessary to really perform well on the job, to go the extra mile, is gone.

Everyone ends up sticking to the letter of the law — and in education, that is no good as a solution.

[1525]

When it comes to education, surely what we want — what teachers want, what parents want, what students want — is more than the minimum. We want our classrooms to be palaces of learning. We need it to compete in a modern society. We need them to be palaces of learning, and this government has taken away those palaces brick by brick — larger class sizes, getting rid of ESL teachers, getting rid of teacher-librarians, not filling libraries with books. This is what they've done — six pieces of legislation attacking

[ Page 467 ]

teachers. They've decided that the minimum should be the maximum.

People on this side of the House, parents and teachers in B.C. — we want more than that. We want smaller class sizes. We want libraries filled with books. We want libraries filled with teacher-librarians. We think it's a shame that, because of government action, there's a librarian in Norquay School only two days a week for 650 students. We say that's a shame. We say that's not good enough. The government responds with legislation attacking teachers.

Well, for my part, I think that there's a better way, that the government still has time to come back from the brink. The government still has the time — and the fact-finder's report shows that — to listen to teachers, to respect teachers and to sit down and negotiate with teachers. There is nothing inevitable about this legislation. The government created the conditions of it. They control one side of the bargaining table. They are not an honest broker. They've got to take their share of responsibility and go back to the table and negotiate an agreement in the best interests of parents, of students, of teachers — of all of us in British Columbia. That's what they need to do.

If they do that…. Sometimes good policy and good politics are the same thing, it seems to me. I think the Premier's wrong. I don't think he gets much benefit from attacking teachers and students. He'll find that if he treats teachers with respect, teachers live a life of respect. They teach respect every day. If they receive respect from a Minister of Education and a Premier, they will give it back in spades in return.

That's what we need in this discussion. That's what we need in this debate. We need a government that finally treats people working in education with respect, because the work they do together is the most important work we can do. If for no other reason…. They need to treat teachers with respect for the future.

When I worked at Canadian Parents for French, we did numerous reports on teacher shortages. The government of British Columbia, rather than engaging in needless confrontation with teachers, should be working with teachers to promote teaching as a profession.

There are numerous areas of teaching today, in language education and sciences, where there's a shortage. Ten years from now there'll be a shortage. What message is the government sending to young people when they show such disrespect to teachers? What message are they giving them? They're giving them a message that teaching isn't a valuable profession. That's their message.

Well, I have a different message for them and for all British Columbians. We need to rally around the teaching profession, around teaching — some of the most valuable work anyone can do in society. We need to rally around that so that we have teachers who are supported now and so that future teachers, young people today, see teaching as a profession that is worthy of their effort and interest, that is valued by their society, their government, their Legislature, parents — valued by all of us. That's what we need in this debate.

I want to say in conclusion that there is always an alternative. This is a government that has been on one track for so long that it has lost its way on this question. There's nothing but spin now. They talk about 35 meetings in this discussion — 35 meetings. Well, when there's nothing on the table from one side, it might as well be 750 meetings. The government has to come to the table. They are party to this discussion. They have to come, meet and talk to teachers. They have the power in their hands to have a real solution to this problem — one that benefits students, one that improves public education.

I know that, between teachers and the government, we can come to that solution. I urge them to withdraw this legislation, to go and meet with teachers, to spend as long as it takes to come to an agreement, because our children deserve it, because teachers deserve it and because British Columbia's society needs it.

[1530]

B. Ralston: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 12. Sometimes members on the opposite side and many of us here, as well, look to the private sector for assistance in solving issues of public policy. While I wouldn't recommend that on every occasion, in this particular case I do have an analogy. I don't pretend that the production of cars is anywhere near as important to us as what teachers do in schools, but the recent Ford Canada negotiations are perhaps a lesson for the government in how to conduct and run a proper collective bargaining process.

In the recent discussions, Ford Canada was targeted by Canadian Auto Workers as the first auto company up to bat in the negotiations. They were led by their chief spokesman Buzz Hargrove, who — as members will know and perhaps recognize, I'm sure — is no slouch when it comes to the process of collective bargaining and is recognized nationally as a very capable negotiator of all sorts of collective agreements. But what happened there was that the company negotiator, Ford's Stacey Allerton Firth, managed to pull off the negotiations, settle the agreement within five days and was praised by Mr. Hargrove as the best negotiator that the company had ever put out.

There was a lengthy interview with her in the business

section of Globe and Mail , and what she said is that she tried to set a tone which aimed for collaboration rather than confrontation. Issues were talked out, rather than fought out, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. She was interviewed further and was asked to give some maxims or tips on how to achieve these kinds of results in collective bargaining. What she said, and I'll quote some of them because I think they may be of assistance….

These are the kind of analogies from the private sector that perhaps the government or the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance or Minister of Education, who give these directions to their negotiators, might wish to consider. She said: "Be honest. It's tough to reach a deal if there is a hidden agenda or one side doesn't have all the facts."

[ Page 468 ]

That's a company negotiator for a multinational company in a very competitive industry, talking about how to conduct collective bargaining. I commend that to the members opposite in considering how to conduct negotiations in the future. She goes on to say: "Respect the other side. They represent 12,000 people, and that's the heart of our business."

Again, a chief negotiator for a multinational automobile firm in a very competitive global industry is talking about how to conduct collective bargaining — and very successfully. She also says: "Train your team. Teach active listening skills to make sure everyone understands what the other side is saying."

So rather than embarking on confrontation with a predetermined agenda, perhaps the government, I would submit, ought to consider the words of Stacey Allerton Firth at Ford Canada as a model of how to conduct negotiations, because those seem to me to be very helpful hints that the government thus far has not followed.

When we turn to the negotiation process it does appear, I would suggest, that the government has a predetermined agenda. Contrary to what Ms. Allerton Firth says and her caution that it's tough to reach a deal if there is a hidden agenda, I would submit that it's at least partially hidden and has been hidden for some time. But it's becoming very apparent with the introduction of this legislation in this session of the Legislature.

[1535]

The report of the fact-finder was received on Friday, September 30 — just past. The legislation that we're considering, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act — perhaps a misnomer — was introduced on Monday. On Tuesday — that's two days ago — a barrage of advertising commenced in the media. It would seem that the report from Mr. Connolly, the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, was given very little if any consideration, since the legislation was introduced within two days and the time horizon for placing the ads was on the same day — Friday.

So one would tend to question, and I would submit with good reason, the sincerity of the government in requesting a report from a fact-finder and then not proposing to act on it in any way.

It was significant, as well, that the advertisements that were placed — and most people in public life know something about advertisements from their own campaign…. The Minister of Finance, when confronted by very simple questions about the cost of those ads, did not answer those questions here in this House.

The Minister of Finance is new to her role but has some considerable experience in the past in business as a director, which involves a fiduciary duty, and as a chair of the board of a large public organization. Fiduciary duty requires that you shepherd and treat with respect the finances of the province. Given that she's the Minister of Finance, it's her solemn obligation and duty to oversee the spending of money on behalf of taxpayers of this province.

She was asked the question: "How much did these ads cost?" There are really two ways of answering that question. One could be, "I don't know," which would suggest that if she didn't know, she ought to have known. Perhaps in her role as a new Minister of Finance she didn't know enough to ask that question of her staff. Or secondly, she did know and chose not to reveal that to the Legislature, given that that might be politically embarrassing to the other side of the House and therefore was a strategy to be avoided.

To simply say, somewhat disingenuously, that the matter will come forward in public accounts nine months from now…. While it's factually true, it really evades the important question of her responsibilities as Minister of Finance to simply assure the public that she knows what's going on in her own ministry. I in particular was very disappointed by that answer, and I'm sure many people in British Columbia were very disappointed by that answer, given that this appears to be a pre-orchestrated campaign coincident with the receiving of the fact-finder's report and launching straight into legislation without any time to explore the opportunities that the fact-finder's report opened up.

As the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca pointed out, the fact-finder's report did offer some possibilities for consideration by the minister in giving his directions to his negotiators, and let's not be disingenuous about this. The negotiations, although nominally conducted by a public body on behalf of the government, are directed by the government and by the relevant ministers in question, I would submit. It's simply a legal fiction to suggest otherwise.

When we're talking about negotiations, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education certainly have the power and the obligation to direct the negotiations in a manner that they choose. Indeed, the Minister of Labour is handling the file and is aware of the steps taken in the negotiations along the way and has indeed held forth here in this House about steps that were taken in this process. So he's acutely aware of the process.

But it seems to me that within the fact-finder's report, there was a possibility and there remains a possibility that the government may choose to explore.

What the report says on page 2 is that the BCTF — that's the representatives of the teachers — also expressed an interest in exploring options for entering into dialogue with government directly to discuss the public policy issues relating to learning conditions and, in particular, class-size levels, composition of all classes, the number of special needs children in any one class, a system of guarantees that the levels and the conditions established by the legislation are adhered to and remedies in the event that there are breaches of the established policy.

[1540]

The BCTF articulated a process that is parallel to the collective bargaining process with different participants, government and BCTF, but linked to and concluded at the same time as a collective bargaining framework. Given that the legislation…. I'll get to the

[ Page 469 ]

rather sorry legislative history in the 2002-2003 era. Given that those items are no longer part of the collective bargaining processes, by virtue of the actions of the government in that period, it still remains, in my submission, a creative solution to the dilemma that's posed to the BCTF — which the member for Vancouver-Kingsway described as Kafkaesque bargaining, where you can't negotiate wages and you can't negotiate working conditions, but you're expected to meet and resolve a collective agreement.

This opportunity remains open and was, in my view, an opportunity that could be seized upon by the government to reopen negotiations, rather than initiate legislative action to extend the collective agreement without any further discussion.

Indeed, in a decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Lambert of the Court of Appeal confirmed that. I'm quoting from the decision:

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 or 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 the subject any less a term or condition that affects the employment relationship.

"So I" — states Mr. Justice Lambert of our Court of Appeal — "regard class size and aggregate class sizes as a significant part of the employment relationship."

I understand that the government applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that was denied. That's the law of this province. The Court of Appeal has recognized that, notwithstanding what happened in 2002 and 2003 of stripping those matters from the collective agreement, they remain, in the view of Mr. Justice Lambert, a significant part of the employment relationship.

If the government wants to follow the suggestion or the opening provided by Mr. Connolly, then there's a process recommended and an opportunity to begin that negotiation, which the government has — by the introduction of this bill — apparently rejected. But it's not too late. The government could have a change of heart, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has pointed out. The government perhaps should have a change of heart, in the view of the members on this side.

The other thing that Mr. Connolly pointed out is that it was drawn to his attention by representatives of teachers…. I quote from page 3 of his report. This is something, I would take it, that wasn't considered by the government, given the time from which the report arrived on the minister's desk and the legislation was introduced. The report also goes on to say: "The BCTF went on to add that teacher morale was very low and that the attitude towards and relationships with government and the employers could worsen if they are further subjected to legislation."

The government had that report. This is a respected senior public official who's preparing a briefing for the minister. This is not a partisan document. That information was before it when it made this decision. Notwithstanding what I would call a warning in that document and notwithstanding the opening that's provided by Mr. Connolly in that document, the government has chosen to introduce this particular legislation.

[1545]

In the introduction to the bill the minister said, "I don't expect to hear much about the last decade and a half, about the history of teacher bargaining," suggesting perhaps that there was something over on this side of the House to be apologized for or to be avoided. I would say that I don't think that's the case at all.

It is useful to look at the history of collective bargaining. The right to strike for teachers was introduced in 1987 by that well-known left-wing socialist Bill Vander Zalm, the former Premier of this province. The invention of the right to strike or the creation of the right to strike was introduced into law by the government of Mr. Vander Zalm, so it's not a question of it occurring in the 1990s under some nefarious plot by the New Democratic Party. That was introduced by Mr. Vander Zalm. I think that's important to bear in mind.

It was, quite properly, the culmination of a long campaign and was recognized by the government of the day as a legitimate public policy alternative. That's why, presumably, it was introduced at that time.

In 1996, contrary to what the minister has suggested, teachers and trustees voted in favour of that agreement. So in 1996 there was a negotiation, and there was a vote by the teachers and trustees in favour. There were, however, some political complications and resistance — from the Surrey school board in particular, I think — which resulted, as the election approached in 1996, in the requirement to avoid a strike during the election period, which I think all members would agree would not be entirely appropriate. Legislation was introduced at that time, but only for that reason. I think it's important to recognize that there was an agreement bargained in that time.

In 1998 there was an agreement negotiated directly between the government and the B.C. Teachers Federa-

[ Page 470 ]

tion, so a second agreement was bargained. There were, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has noted, considerable sacrifices made by the teachers union in agreeing to certain provisions — in particular, some class-size language and, in addition, some agreement to forgo wage increases for a commitment by the government to hire more teachers in certain parts of the province. However, what happened was that the school trustees would not support the agreement, and accordingly, the joint agreement by the government and the BCTF wasn't supported.

In my view, the minister blurs or telescopes this history of the previous agreements in order to avoid what is the really central change in the relationship between the government and teachers, which took place in 2002, after the present government came to power in 2001. At that point language concerning class size, including the language governing the inclusion of students with special needs, was simply stripped out of the contract.

The government imposed a salary increase of 2.5 but funded it only for the first year, so that school boards were left to fund an increase which was imposed and then downloaded to school districts, which resulted in a number of very tough decisions having to be made by school districts.

Those weren't decisions that the school districts undertook voluntarily. Those were decisions that the school districts were obliged to take and bitterly complained about. Indeed, in 2003 the then Surrey school trustee and now member for Langley, in dealing with the impact of this legislation upon the Surrey school district — the biggest school district in the province in terms of the number of students — said: "It seems like such an obvious discrimination against Surrey, and yet we don't seem to be able to make that clear at the provincial level. It feels like a betrayal. This will hit pretty much every area of our employee groups, including administration. "

[1550]

Of course, that was then, and this is now. The member for Langley has changed her views, no doubt.

The impact upon Surrey in that period was significant. In their discussion about school funding, members opposite sometimes like to point out that the total number of students enrolled in the province has declined. In Surrey, which is one of the fastest-growing cities in the province, the number of students has not declined. However, the number of teachers has declined in response to the cuts. Between September 30, 2001, and September 30, 2003, student enrolment increased 3 percent — approximately 1,144 students more — and the number of teachers decreased by 141.

There's an 18-percent decline in the number of teacher-librarians, a 19-percent decline in the number of special ed teachers and a 16.4-percent decline in the number of ESL teachers.

The impact of those cuts was absorbed by the school district in Surrey in a way that was not the best, in my view and the view of members on this side, for students in Surrey. Unfortunately, this government has chosen confrontation as its first option, rather than negotiation. The words of Ms. Allerton Firth are apposite here: "If you have a hidden agenda and you don't give the other side all the facts, you're not going to be able to successfully negotiate a collective agreement."

So the system may be broken, in the view of the Minister of Labour, but that's a judgment that he has come to without making the necessary effort to reach a collective agreement. The preparation for collective bargaining is intense, and what Ms. Allerton Firth also says is that it's sometimes necessary to meet people casually before collective bargaining begins.

A number of meetings were scheduled between the Premier and the representatives of the B.C. Teachers Federation over the summer, and I gather that those meetings did not take place. If that kind of message is sent from the highest level to the bargaining process, then it seems predestined or doomed to failure. It's perhaps no surprise that we have ended up in this particular place.

When one looks at the report that was tabled by Mr. Wright, it would seem that the plans of the government have been set by the Wright report. The Wright report was a report recommended by a commissioner, Don Wright, to look at the collective bargaining system for teacher contracts in British Columbia. Mr. Wright received representations from the employers bargaining association, the BCTF and the school trustees, and made a series of recommendations. All of the recommendations that he accepted were those advanced by the employer and the government, and none advanced by the union. This would, in my judgment, not augur terribly well for success if his recommendations were to be implemented.

Significantly, what Mr. Wright is recommending as a dispute settlement mechanism is what's called "final-offer selection." Final-offer selection is a technique…. I would expect and anticipate that the government will impose the recommendations of the Wright report after they return and after there's an appearance of the passage of time and a consultation. But in my judgment the result is predetermined, and it is a course of action which, if it's followed, will result in the imposition of final-offer selection.

[1555]

Final-offer selection is a very drastic labour relations remedy which obliges an arbitrator charged with that jurisdiction to choose between one side's final offer or the other's, exactly as the name suggests. It's regarded as a drastic remedy which obliges the parties to consider their position and not move forward with a final offer unless they've carefully considered all alternatives and can live with it.

However, although it's been around as an option for a number of years, it's very rarely been incorporated in any collective agreements. That's for a number of reasons, but particularly, it's the inflexible nature of that particular option.

A very knowledgable and wise labour lawyer, Paul Weiler, who was the chair of the first Labour Relations Board of this province and is now a professor at Harvard, wrote in a book about final-offer selection. What

[ Page 471 ]

he said about final-offer selection is the following, and I'm reading a passage from his book:

The fact of human life, let alone the world of industrial relations, is that we do not always do what we are programmed to do. There will be deadlocks, which will require selection of either one or the other's final offer. There will be cases in which either of these agreements would be unworkable, a situation which could prove especially disastrous for the essential public employer, because, unlike the small newspaper I mentioned, the government cannot go out of business.

He suggested that if there is to be a dispute settlement mechanism, a range of alternatives ought to be considered. He's talking about a range of collective bargaining options. He's not talking about legislation which simply strips the teachers of the right to bargain, extends their contract on the same terms for another nine months and obliges them to forgo any wage increase until such time as bargaining begins.

No doubt the minister is sincere in his view that the process here is broken, but the reason that it's broken is because the government has resolutely refused to change its behaviour and come to the table and negotiate a collective agreement. It is still possible. I note with some optimism that apparently the minister is going to meet with representatives of the Teachers Federation, if my information is correct. Let's hope that bargaining can resume and that this bill can be lifted.

At this point, though, it's clear that this legislation, as the only option, is the wrong option. Therefore, that's why we on this side of the House speak strongly against it.

D. Chudnovsky: I am honoured to stand in this House to speak against this legislation. Madam Speaker, I have made my professional life in teaching for more than 30 years, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit emotional about this issue. My feelings are strong, and they come out of my experience in teaching.

I have, over 30 years, taught at the nursery school level and worked in elementary schools and high schools and taught at the university level. I've been a teacher in British Columbia, in Ontario and in England. Over 30 years of teaching, as rough as things have gotten and as difficult as the situation has gotten and as challenging as the issues we faced have gotten, I have never for one minute regretted choosing teaching for my career.

[1600]

As a teacher over these many years, I have had the enormous privilege of working with thousands of young people. I'm going to talk about that in the next few minutes, but I also want to say that over those years, I have sat on committees in schools and worked on extracurricular activities, multiculturalism and anti-racism committees, literacy committees, adult education committees, task forces and ESL technology. I've also spent a tremendous amount of my time working for and with my local teachers union and my provincial teachers union.

Now, I don't mention those things to call attention to myself or to suggest that I'm special. I'm not special — just a teacher, and that's what teachers do. That's what teachers do. They work with the thousands of young people who will be the future of this province, and that's their job. They also give enormous amounts of time and energy and passion and love to the additional activities that have to take place if our school system is to have the strength and the vitality that it needs to have. So I speak to this House today as the representative of the people of Vancouver-Kensington but also as a proud teacher.

It's worthwhile asking, to begin with, why all the passion around this? Why is it that over the last week or two, and certainly before that, there's been so much interest, so much concern? Why have the people on this side of the House chosen to take such an assertive position on these issues? Why is it that so many teachers have chosen to join us over the last week or ten days in this House? Why is it that the pundits and the journalists and the headline writers have taken so much time with this issue?

I think it's because for all of us in our community, in our British Columbia, public education is the bedrock of democracy. Public education is the one institution in our community, in our society, in which every member of the community participates. Public education is that institution in our society which builds equity, which builds equality, which builds tolerance, which builds critical thinking, which teaches us to be citizens and helps to formulate our futures as active citizens.

Public education is that institution in our community which everybody, every child — whether they're rich or poor, whether they come from the city or the country, whether they or their parents were born in British Columbia or not — deserves and expects. And we need to provide for them the best that is possible — the best that is possible for every child in our public education system.

Because the goal and the mandate of our system is to provide that education that allows for every individual child to reach her potential, for every child in the province to reach his potential. It's a profoundly democratic notion. It's at the base of our understanding of what we're doing as a community.

Through the years when we've asked British Columbians what it is they want from their education system, they've been very clear. There have been many ways in which we've asked them: the Sullivan royal commission; the various consultations that have gone on; the select standing committee, which heard from British Columbians and then reported a bunch of other stuff, but heard from British Columbians what their goals and priorities for education were; and the Charter of Public Education process.

[1605]

[ Page 472 ]

cation project. They said that it's not enough — and there is

chapter and verse of this in all of the studies that have been done — to just create a level playing field in our schools. That's not enough.

That's not enough, because our kids come to us from a context. They come to us, too often, hungry. They come to us from situations of violence. They've dealt with racism in their lives. Some of them have special needs: social, intellectual, physical and behavioral. They're special, just as all the rest of the kids in the system are special.

The people of British Columbia have said to us: "It's not enough to provide in our schools a level playing field.

We need to provide for every child in British Columbia, in schools, the best that we can for their individual needs." The people of the province know and understand that if that's our goal, our mandate and our commitment — if individual attention to the individual needs of every child is what we're on about in our schools — then we need reasonable numbers of students in each class, we need to know that the composition of that class is appropriate to the needs of those individual students, we need to know that the specialist teachers and the classroom teachers are available to provide that individual attention, and we need to know that the resources are there.

You know, that's a tremendous, tremendous goal.

We live in one of the few places on earth where we can achieve that goal. We live in one of the richest societies, one of the wealthiest communities, in the history of humankind right here in British Columbia. So when we say to ourselves that we can provide for every individual child, that we must provide for every individual child, that which will allow that child to be successful in their own terms — in her terms or his terms — we can do that. We, in British Columbia, could do that if we choose to do that. We're so enormously privileged that we can do that. Virtually nowhere else in the world can they do that and say that. Here we are in 2005, and that commitment is put into question.

I came to British Columbia in 1978. I was an immigrant from Ontario, along with my family. I came to teach in Surrey, a wonderful community. I want to tell you that the first week I taught in Surrey in the fall of 1978, I attended a school board meeting where the teachers of Surrey had come to make a presentation to the school trustees to encourage them to reduce class sizes in the kindergarten classes of that school district. Almost 30 years ago I came to B.C., and the first week…. You know, it wasn't new.

The teachers of British Columbia had been, for years before that, engaged in a campaign which hasn't yet ended — and shouldn't end — to reduce class sizes so that we can do the best we can for every child in our province.

I need to say, very quickly, that there have been lots of allies in that campaign — not just the teachers. Teachers need to take credit for the work they've done to help reduce class sizes, but there were lots of allies in that campaign over many years. Many of them participated in that campaign — school principals, school trustees, government people, bureaucrats, parents and community folks — because they all know that it's an important campaign.

[1610]

The campaign has taken many forms over many years — surveys, demonstrations, meetings, lobbying and even strikes. Even strikes, because part of democracy is the right to belong to a union, the right to bargain collectively. Once in a while, it's even the right to strike. All of those tools and many more were used to attempt to improve the lives of kids in schools, to provide for us the conditions within which we can do the best for every student.

Progress was made. Tremendous progress was made. By 2001 not one kindergarten class in this province had more than 20 students in it. I've said it before, and I'll never stop taking pride in saying that. In the year 2001 there wasn't one kindergarten child in this province in a class with more than 20 students in it. We all, every one of us, should be proud of that fact — every one of us. We did that. That was done. I say "we" — not teachers. We as a community did that. Teachers, together with school trustees, together with parents, together with students, together with the broad community did that.

The tool that we used to do that was collective bargaining. It's an important tool. It's a good tool. It's a tool that's part of democracy. It's part of what we mean when we talk about democracy: the right to be in a union and the right to collective bargaining.

Class-size limits for kindergarteners were raised from 20 to 22 when the government imposed Bills 27 and 28 in the winter of 2002. Now, some would say: "What's the big deal?" What's the big deal? Class-size limits in kindergarten are 22. It's only two kids. It's only the difference of two kids. That's 10 percent of the class. That's 10 percent less attention to the individual needs of each student.

If you take kindergarten and all of elementary, and you look at secondary school, and you look at the 12 years during which our students come to us in public schools and you say that every year they're going to get 10 percent less individual attention, I think that everyone would agree that that's an issue to be concerned about. Everyone would agree with that.

[ Page 473 ]

students in this province — 10 percent less individual attention from their teachers.

There were guarantees in that contract that, with a stroke of a pen, disappeared in 2002. There were guarantees of provision of service from school librarians, and I note that there are some of them here with us today. There were guarantees that there would be the services of teacher-librarians, ESL teachers, learning assistance teachers, school counsellors and other specialist teachers, and those guarantees were gone. Those guarantees were gone, and the result is a real undermining of the services available to kids in schools. That's the result.

Those on the government side can talk all they want about the numbers. I've been in the schools. These people who are with us today have been in the schools. The teachers of this province have been in the schools and so have the parents and the kids. They know that the services we were able to provide for the kids in our schools have been reduced significantly.

Let's hear what some teachers have to say. Let's hear what they have to say about their experience. Let their voices be heard in this House. "I have a grade eight class which is unteachable because there are 33 students in the class and 15 are identified with special needs, including an autistic student who has no support, a severe-behaviour student who runs away and a student who cannot sit still because he has ADHD. I have no support." Real teacher. Real students. Real communities. Not some theory.

[1615]

"Please don't let class size get any bigger. There are just enough desks to seat students. Moving around the classroom is difficult, and it is just way too crowded." This from a secondary teacher in Surrey in her first five years of teaching. How long do you think she's going to last in our system? In good times we lose about a third of the new teachers in the first five years of their careers. How long do you think that the teachers who are beginning now will last if we don't provide the supports for students that need to be supported?

What about the impact on the broader program? The cuts, and those on the other side of the House insist on saying there have been no cuts…. They insist on saying it. Come to the schools. Don't tell us there haven't been cuts in the schools. Don't tell us there haven't been cuts in the schools of this province over the last four years. The students know. The parents know. The teachers know. The communities know that there have been those cuts.

How many music programs have been cut? How many drama programs have had reduced time? How many art programs and tech ed and home ec? How many of these classes have had huge increases in the number of students in those classes? I know. I've been in the schools.

The impact is on teachers and students. Teachers want to do the best they can for the kids in their classes. You just can't do it. How many times have I heard, and I know that each of us has heard because the teachers of British Columbia have been speaking out over the last months…. Each of us, on both sides of this House, has heard from the teachers, who say: "I want to do a better job, but I can't. I want to do a better job, but I'm not able to."

A veteran teacher from Vancouver: "I've never felt so tired and overworked as I do this year. I don't feel I'm able to do as good a job of teaching because of all the increased pressure: larger classes, more mixed-subject classes, more marking, more special needs students, more administrative-directed paperwork and meetings."

Another teacher: "Never have I seen or felt the profession or workplace so strained, disrespected, driven, for reasons I do not see as educationally sound."

Another teacher: "In the past few years I've found it sad and discouraging to work within the confines of cutbacks. My concern for this wonderful job is that we are not attracting, nor are we able to keep, the good teachers who have such energy and stamina to keep going under tough conditions."

I got an e-mail this morning from a teacher in North Vancouver: "I'm a teacher in North Vancouver. October 5 is World Teachers Day. What's the Liberal government of B.C. planning to do? Pass Bill 12. One of the goals of World Teachers Day is to celebrate, motivate and educate teachers. At this moment I do not feel motivated. I feel attacked and disrespected. Bill 12 does not address our needs or the needs of our students."

I worked for a few years for the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I was honoured to have been elected by the teachers of British Columbia to be their president. When I stopped working for the BCTF, I went back to work. I went back to school. I wrote a little

article about the differences I saw, the differences that I encountered when I went back to teaching after four years.

I'll quote from my own article:

In 1999 I had an average of 23 students a class. Class size maximums were guaranteed by a collective agreement negotiated between Surrey teachers and our school board. This year in the first semester my average is 31 students per class.

[1620]

Then I went on to say:

Do these larger classes really make a difference to our children? The answer's clear. I will give fewer written assignments this year because I must mark the work of 30 percent more students. I will be less aware of individual strengths and weaknesses. Your child, your grandchild, and your neighbour's kid will get significantly less personal attention and feedback. I will spend much more time on classroom management, getting students settled down to the tasks of learning. That means less time and energy spent on the things that really matter.

As I pass among the desks looking at students' work there will be less time to pause, make a comment, correct a flaw in grammar or spelling, or praise a student who needs my support.

All of that is true. It all came true. I wrote it in September, and it all came true.

Now, the government blames the school boards. They talk about choice and flexibility. They say that it's

[ Page 474 ]

the school boards that are the problem. Madam Speaker, you will know — and those on both sides of the House will know — that I myself have been in some conflicts with school boards over the years. As a representative of teachers, I've sat across bargaining tables, on arbitration panels and grievances with school boards. But it's not the school boards' problem. Even the school boards that I don't like or that we don't agree with — it's not their fault. It's not their fault — even the Surrey school board, which makes mistakes from time to time.

I want to quote from a piece by Russ Searle, a school trustee in school district 64. Mr. Searle, in case anybody doesn't know, is not well known for being a big fan of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. He, in fact, sat on the other side of the table in negotiations with us, on the side of the B.C. Public School Employers Association. This is what he says about the government's proposition that it's the school boards who are to blame:

The amounts can be pumped, primped and massaged in any manner of ways, but it should be noted that the real bottom line for each district is how much money is allocated to a school district by the government and is in the bank to be used for defraying operating costs and how many students are in a district. Thus, my district will have an additional $8 per student this year. That's the reality we have to work with, not some mythical $400 the government says we received.

He goes on to say, and this is 2005-2006:

In my district we had a choice this year of reducing our calendar by 30 days, resulting in a four-day week, or laying off an additional five teachers, approximately 6 percent of the teaching force.

That's the choice they had.

Had we laid off those five additional teachers, a host of programs, ranging from grade 12 calculus to cafeteria training, and services such as counselling and library, would have either been cut or severely curtailed. Like most small districts, we trimmed to the bone long ago.

So there is choice. The government, to some extent, is right. There are choices. The choices of school boards are: should they close libraries, reduce special needs and ESL and counsellors? Should they close schools? Should they reduce programs? Should they cut maintenance? Should they cut textbooks? I'll have a word to say about textbooks in a minute. Or should they go to the four-day week?

Four-day week. There are thousands of students in this province today going to school four days a week instead of five days a week as a result of the decisions made by this government — a government that tells us that not a day should be lost, and is bringing in Bill 12.

Just parenthetically, the Minister of Finance, yesterday or the day before, I think, commented that an amount of money had been injected into the system for textbooks and that now there were enough textbooks. "Now there are enough textbooks." I don't know what city she lives in, and I don't know what schools she's visiting, but the minister's wrong. It's tragic that she's wrong. There are schools in every community in this province where kids are sharing outdated, old, tired, broken textbooks.

When the government isn't blaming the school boards for the problem, they blame the bargaining structure. It's true that the bargaining structure has some flaws and that it needs to be improved. That improvement should come not from the imposition of a system, the imposition of new laws, but through consultation with the parties who are involved. I want to talk — and my colleague from Surrey-Whalley spoke to this a few minutes ago — about the fact that the system isn't as broken as you think, if people use it correctly.

[1625]

I want to give an example that I was involved in three or four years ago. The 1998 agreement included a letter of understanding that reduced class sizes in the primary grades — K-to-three, kindergarten to grade three. That was about to expire. In the winter of 2000-2001 the British Columbia Teachers Federation sat down with the British Columbia Public School Employers Association and freely negotiated those provisions into the collective agreement. I was there. I know. It happened.

The variable that was important, the element that allowed that to happen — perhaps members opposite would be interested in this; I don't know — was a government that provided the resources and the mandate for that to happen. That's what's lacking here. That's what's lacking in the current situation: a government that's prepared to use its power and resources to make sure that the mandate is there for the Public School Employers Association — not to give them no mandate.

There's the notion that there's…. The fiction is propagated on the other side of the House that there's bargaining going on here. There is no bargaining going on here. When the mandate is zero-zero-and-zero and the rules say that working conditions aren't allowed to be bargained, where's the bargaining? It's a fiction. Both of those things have to be changed so that we can move forward. The goal isn't politics. It's moving forward in our schools. There need to be bargaining rights.

Secondly, there needs to be some respect. The teachers of this province — and others, but we're speaking about teachers today — have been treated over the last four or five years as if they were somehow the enemy. But the people of British Columbia understand that the teachers of our province are not our enemies. They're our neighbours, and they deserve our support and respect for the important job that they do

[ Page 475 ]

every day in the schools of British Columbia — and bargaining rights, respect and a commitment to the improvement of the conditions under which children learn in this province.

I need to close in a minute. I was a little worried when I got up to speak that I wouldn't have enough to say. Man, I've cut out a lot of it. I have the honour to be here for four years. I predict that this will be the most serious thing I will say in those four years.

If anyone in the government on the government side believes that the imposition of Bill 12 is going to provide for stability, for predictability and for calm in our schools, they're fooling themselves. You can't legislate loyalty, you can't legislate morale, and you can't legislate enthusiasm. We need all three of those from our teachers. I urge the government to take the opportunity to sit down with the people who work in our schools and find a solution.

H. Lali: I appreciate this opportunity to talk to the people of my constituency and also to the people of British Columbia on this very important occasion here. As you know, hon. Speaker, I am opposed to Bill 12, which the government has brought in and has brought in under very, very questionable circumstances as well. I'll have a little bit more to say about that towards the end.

[1630]

I want to say that this particular dispute that has been going on, this issue, is not about New Democrats and Liberals. It's not about wage increases or anything like that. It's not about teachers, in the end. This is all about parents. You know, most of us here in this Legislature are parents. Some have older kids who have gone through the secondary and primary school education system and have gone on to university. But there are many of us here, as indeed there are thousands and thousands of British Columbians out there, who have young kids who are in school or are going through the school system as we speak.

Parents raise their families; they raise their kids. They have high hopes for their children. Parents have high expectations for their children. They want to leave this world a better place for their children than the world that all of us, as parents, have inherited.

Our parents took time out and devoted a lot of time, energy, resources and money to make sure that we got the proper education. I'm very thankful for that. I'm thankful for the job my parents did in supporting my education and, of course, my brothers and sisters as well — all throughout my education. So this is very, very important. It's about parents — parents who care about their kids, who want their kids to have a decent future.

No longer are the days there when you could have a grade 12 education and get a really decent job — whether it's in the resource sector or in the non-resource sectors of the economy. Those days are gone, and children have to have a decent, affordable education for the future in order just to compete.

The bachelor's degrees and master's degrees are standards of the day, and having diplomas and certificates in a specialty of their choice is the order of the day. No longer can you have a high school education and just leave it at that and expect to have a decent family-supporting job.

This is very much about parents — all those tens of thousands of parents out there who have children in the school system. It's about the students — students who are going through the educational system. Students deserve a place where they can go to school, where they can feel happy and have a good learning environment.

They need to have the proper tools at their disposal in order to have that decent education, so they can go on to post-secondary education and get the career of their choice because they have had an education system that has been provided to them from K-to-12 where they can sit in a classroom, where they can get the attention from their teachers that they need and they can have proper tools, books and supplies at their disposal on a day-to-day basis.

Lastly, it's about teachers as well, because they can't be left out of this mix. We as parents entrust our children to their care during those hours from 8:30 to 3:30, Monday to Friday. In most instances it's Monday to Friday, and the last couple of years it's been Monday to Thursday in a lot of schools because of the cuts that this government has perpetrated on our educational system.

Those teachers are there not because there's a lot of money to be made. You start out, and you're just making an average wage. Yes, if you've been there for 25 or 30 years you can make a decent wage in the school system as a teacher. But that's not what teachers are there about. Teachers are in the helping profession. Teachers are there because they care about teaching. Teachers are there in the educational system because they care about the students that they're teaching.

[1635]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In a lot of instances, teachers spend more time with the kids in school than parents do at home. So many parents, for whatever reasons — they may be working double shifts in some instances in order to make ends meet, so they may have just a babysitter looking after them, or they may be low income, so they're having to look for work while the kids are often at home alone…. In many instances, teachers end up spending more time with those very kids than their own parents do.

They're not there because of the money or the prestige or that it's supposed to be some sort of a really high status position that they're making tons of money on. No, they're there because they care. They care about students. They care about the education that those students are going to get. They care about them. They're there because they want to be there, and it's not about the money or the wages.

Of course, it's about respect at the end of the day. Teachers want the level of respect that they deserve.

[ Page 476 ]

They want a work environment where they can work, where they're not going to be handicapped by the government of the day because they're not given the proper resources — or in terms of the environment in the school itself, in the classroom, where they can work with the students.

But I'm really disheartened to say that since day one this government, from 2001 when they took office, has had nothing but a relentless attack on teachers and the educational system of this province. Really, in the end, it's an attack on parents. It's an attack on children, who are there to get a decent education within the school system.

They've been doing it in a number of different ways — this attack that just won't relent. It's almost like the government seems to get some sort of pleasure out of attacking teachers so they can create enemies when there are none, so they can go out there and bash the teachers and then turn a