2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th 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)

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Ministerial Statements

Government response to report on deaths of Schoenborn children

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Saanich Organics and book on organic farming

L. Popham

Tzu Chi Foundation community service in Surrey

D. Hayer

Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council

D. Routley

Okanagan Valley wines

N. Letnick

Wedding planning and support for local food

M. Mungall

Burnaby North Secondary School table tennis champions

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Government response to reports on protection system for victims of domestic violence

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

H. Lali

Infection control at Burnaby Hospital

S. Hammell

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

Fraser Health Authority infection control program

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act

Hon. G. Abbott

R. Austin

M. Stilwell

N. Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

Hon. I. Chong

H. Lali

S. Chandra Herbert

G. Gentner

[ Page 9629 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: It's my great pleasure to introduce my friend Rob Jandric. Rob is a veteran. He served his country in Bosnia. For the last several years he has been a very able servicing rep with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I hope the House will make him feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to rise and welcome Howard Lloyd to the House this afternoon. Mr. Lloyd proudly represented the former riding of Fort George from 1975 to 1979 as a member of the Social Credit Party.

He is here in Victoria today, and I know he is visiting his family. I'm hoping I've got the numbers right, because as a grandmother of only two — not only two, which I think is a fantastic number…. I think that between him and his wife they now have 15 grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren.

I know that he served our part of the province incredibly well, and it's a real pleasure to see him here in Victoria and welcome him back to this place where he served so very capably on behalf of northern British Columbians. Please join me in welcoming Howard Lloyd to the chamber today.

[1335]

R. Fleming: I have one more introduction I'd like to make before the House. I'd like to introduce the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 333, who is with us in the gallery today, as well as Jim Pullen, who is the chair of the political action committee of CAW Local 333.

These gentlemen keep passengers safe on the road each day. They work under very difficult conditions, and they are also excellent transit advocates in the community of greater Victoria. I hope that all members of the House will join me, especially the Transportation Minister, in making these two gentlemen welcome here today.

Hon. C. Clark: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statements

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORT ON

DEATHS OF SCHOENBORN CHILDREN

Hon. C. Clark: I rise in this House today to offer my deepest sympathies and condolences and apology to the mother of Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon Shoenborn, who were tragically murdered by their father sometime on the weekend of April 5 and 6, 2008.

As a parent, I cannot begin to imagine the impact that this loss has had on the mother of those three children and her extended family. To this end, I want to assure this House and all British Columbians that on behalf of our province, we will provide the services and the support that this family required and deserves, including those available through our criminal injury compensation program, as they continue their journey along the long road back from this inconceivable tragedy.

I want to thank the Representative for Children and Youth for taking the time to undertake both a thorough and a thoughtful investigation into the events that preceded the murders of these children. She cares deeply, and she serves our province extremely well. No one who has read the report could fail to be moved by its content, by the struggle of the family to deal with the challenges of income security, domestic violence and mental health.

The report rightly points out that the system was fragmented and that it didn't provide the mother with the support that she needed to keep her children safe from harm, nor did it provide Mr. Schoenborn with the assistance he needed to overcome his mental health and addictions challenges. The consequence of that is a grieving mother, a father in a forensic psychiatric institution and the loss of three innocent children.

We as a province can and must do better to ensure that we provide improved support for families who find themselves in similar situations. I want to assure the representative and the families of B.C. that we will implement her recommendations and that we are committed to following the timeline she has set out for us.

I remember when I was in radio that I grieved with the rest of the province when we learned of this tragedy. I got back into politics because I wanted to make sure that our government was doing a better job of supporting families, particularly those who struggle, but all of them in all their shapes and sizes.

Within days of becoming Premier, we changed the senior staffing at the ministry, and I think the representative would agree that since then we have made some progress in addressing some of the issues that have arisen over the years. It is clear today that government must do more to improve the way that domestic violence is fought in this province.

As a result, we have made the Ministry of Children and Family Development the lead ministry for domestic violence programs and services. The new domestic violence unit will be created, and it will assemble provincial resources under a single ministry and improve the coordination with health care providers, educators and the police, as demanded by the representative. All the resources across government will be spent more efficiently once we've broken down the silos, and then if the unit

[ Page 9630 ]

needs additional resources, we will find them.

Very sadly, none of us can reverse the past, but we can learn from this tragedy and make sure that families in these circumstances receive better support than did the wife and children of Allan Schoenborn, a sick man who did so much harm.

[1340]

A. Dix: I thank the Premier for her ministerial statement. I think all members of the House would associate themselves with the apology that the Premier has made to the family, to the mother, on behalf of the government of British Columbia. I think all of us would recognize the sense of loss beyond, really, all understanding that this case brings up.

There are serious issues, ones that we will, of course, be raising in this House about this question. I think it tells us why this House unanimously did the right thing together in 2006 in creating the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and why this House has recognized, in its reappointment of Ms. Turpel-Lafond, the important work done by Representative for Children and Youth.

Ultimately, it's up to the members of this House to act on those reports. In 2009, as everyone knows, there was another report raising many of the same questions. We had a budget year in 2010, we had a budget year in 2011, and we had a budget year in 2012. I think a reasonable person would say — indeed, Ms. Turpel-Lafond has suggested — that the response hasn't been adequate.

Now, I don't believe anybody in this House doesn't take the issues of domestic violence seriously. We all do. So what this significant report presents before all of us is the need to ensure that we not delay further and that action is taken. If that's the intention of the government, then it will have our support in doing so.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SAANICH ORGANICS AND

BOOK ON ORGANIC FARMING

L. Popham: Saanich Organics is a community of farmers from small certified organic farms who work together on the Saanich Peninsula. Robin Tunnicliffe of Feisty Field Organic Farm, Rachel Fisher of Three Oaks Farm and Heather Stretch of Northbrook Farm are the owners of this successful business. They cooperate and support each other in many ways, and through Saanich Organics, they get as much fresh, delicious, healthy, local certified organic produce as they can onto tables in and around Victoria.

They are passionate about the importance of good farming, and they are creating a viable alternative to the industrial agriculture model. Their farms support biodiversity and practise soil conservation, humane living conditions of farm animals and high labour standards.

Robin, Rachel and Heather are my pals. They taught me how to farm over a decade ago. These wonderful friends of mine have just published a book revealing all of their secrets to a successful organic farming business, called All the Dirt .

New farmers, experienced growers, budding environmentalists are sure to love All the Dirt , filled with beautiful photographs and covering a wide variety of topics, from agrifuels and food sovereignty to practical tips about specific tools. All the Dirt is a must-read how-to book on small-scale organic farming, but beyond the practical applications, it's also the inspiring story of three friends who followed their dreams and became successful business partners.

All the Dirt proves that there is no one right way to start a farm and no single solution to any problem but that working together, farmers can create a resilient agriculture that is vibrant and fun as well as economically viable.

TZU CHI FOUNDATION

COMMUNITY SERVICE IN SURREY

D. Hayer: Today I want to talk about the great things the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada does in Surrey, where more than a thousand members live.

For the past ten years members of the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada volunteer every Wednesday at the Surrey Food Bank. Each year they donate over $10,000 to the Surrey Food Bank to buy baby food for single mothers.

Every Saturday for the last 15 years Tzu Chi volunteers help Surrey seniors at Kinsmen Place, and four days a week they run the hydration program for seniors at CareLife Fleetwood. Once a month every summer more than 50 Tzu Chi volunteers clean up the Guildford area through Surrey's Adopt-A-Street program.

But the foundation's help doesn't just stop there. Since 2004 they have donated more than $30,000 per year to the bursary program for students from low-income families and have donated over $150,000 to the new emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

[1345]

They provide emergency relief to fire and other disaster victims, with $100-per-person gift cards and other items. They just held a winter relief event for the Surrey Food Bank, where 210 families received packages, which included new blankets, food, and health and other home care products. They help the homeless at the Front Room and Gateway Shelter, and 105 people received new jackets, gloves, scarfs and socks.

This organization does great work in Surrey and throughout the world, wherever help is needed. Last month when I was in Taiwan, I met at the Tzu Chi Foundation headquarters with many volunteers to bring

[ Page 9631 ]

greetings from British Columbia members.

I ask every member in the House to join me in thanking and congratulating the great work of Tzu Chi that all of the volunteers of Tzu Chi Foundation and their members do, and especially the Surrey volunteers and donors, including Susan Lee and Tom Torng.

LADYSMITH SENIORS ADVISORY COUNCIL

D. Routley: The Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is a seniors advisory service group led by Linda Brown, chair, and seven other counsellors from a variety of backgrounds ranging from nursing, notaries, community leaders to retired professionals. They are active, strong, caring and generous.

The lives of our seniors are varied, but all involve challenges. Whether it's housing, home care, health care, transportation or simply isolation, the Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council are there to help. The fact is that so many of our seniors face increased costs and fees. From soaring hydro rates to increased food bills, our seniors, mostly living on fixed incomes, are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

The Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is a resource centre first. When seniors are searching for a ride to medical appointments, when they are without adequate care for basic household needs, the Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is often the answer.

Recently MP Jean Crowder and I hosted a meeting for seniors in Ladysmith. The meeting was primarily focused on hearing from seniors about what their challenges are and what solutions they seek. We heard much from those in attendance that will help us, as representatives, to recommend solutions through public policy.

We also were reminded of just how much a human resource resides in our communities in the form of our seniors. From all walks of life and with deep history and experience, our seniors offer our communities the wisdom of their ages, the breadth of their knowledge. This great resource often gets forgotten. The Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is an avenue of expression for those voices.

Another thing happened, though. As the issues came forward, many were answered right there on the spot by Linda Brown, chair of the Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council. It became quite obvious, through example after example, that the resources available to seniors, as stretched as they are, are not well known to many. From housing, transportation and health care to companionship, security and community, Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council has an answer for just about everything.

OKANAGAN VALLEY WINES

N. Letnick: Living in Kelowna has given me the opportunity to experience great wines without going very far. Tasting wine is where all the fun begins — smelling, swirling, sipping and, of course, drinking. The art of wine tasting involves a lot of finesse and etiquette, and like any sport or hobby, practice makes perfect.

The Okanagan Valley has been referred to as the Napa of the north, so it was most befitting to be rated as the No. 1 wine destination in the world, according to a recent

article from travel website viator.com. This website reports on over 400 cities and 80 countries. Other wine regions on the top list include Bordeaux, Tuscany and California's Napa and Sonoma.

The Okanagan Valley is home to over 120 wineries, including Kelowna's world-class Gray Monk, Quails Gate, Mission Hill and Cedar Creek. These wines, along with many other Okanagan wines, are featured at our first-rate golf courses, restaurants and ski resorts across the region.

While wineries, from world-class to cottage, have become economic stimulants for the region, more importantly, they have become a visitor experience, and the Okanagan Valley, without a doubt, deserves the distinction of top wine destination in the world. Its success is emblematic of the outstanding people and regions throughout all of British Columbia.

[1350]

WEDDING PLANNING AND

SUPPORT FOR LOCAL FOOD

M. Mungall: Valentine's Day has come and gone, and now many couples are full swing into the wedding planning season — bridal gowns, tuxes, guest lists, seating plans, gift registration, rings, flowers, wineglasses, beer kegs, twinkle lights and tulle, bridesmaids, groomsmen, flower girls, ring bearer, DJ, MC, drivers, photographer, harpist, officiant, and don't forget the mother of the bride.

It's enough to make your head spin, and I ought to know, because I did it all last year. I survived. To all the stressed-out couples: yes, it is worth it.

One of the things that added stress, but was also worth every bit, was insisting that everything that we served at the reception came from B.C. Now, a Buy B.C. program would have made the job easier, but without it, we were fortunate to have the Creston Valley Food Action Coalition Farm Fresh Guide. With the amazing caterer Annie Bailey, support from local farmers and participation from the Slocan Valley's Legendary Meats, we served up a fabulous feast, 95 percent of which came from within 100 miles of Kokanee Creek Park on Kootenay Lake.

Not only did we reduce our wedding's carbon footprint with this 100-mile feast; we also supported our local farmers and producers. Plus, the food was amazing, and Uncle Allan is still raving about it.

So for all the couples stressing about what to serve at their wedding, go local. You can read up on how we did it and get my top five tips for your 100-mile wedding banquet in this year's B.C. Bridal Guide , available free on line. With that, Mr. Speaker, bon appétit.

[ Page 9632 ]

BURNABY NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL

TABLE TENNIS CHAMPIONS

R. Lee: Today I would like to congratulate Burnaby North Secondary School for winning the 2012 B.C. Secondary School Table Tennis Championships. Table tennis is a sport loved by many young adult and senior players. Student players usually practise at the school in table tennis clubs in Burnaby, Vancouver and Richmond under the guidance of many dedicated coaches.

Last month Burnaby North Secondary won gold medals in five out of six categories of the competition — girls teams, boys teams, girls doubles, boys doubles and girls singles. Congratulations to Shirley Fu and Leanne Lee for winning the girls doubles; Teddy Wu and Michael Luo, the boys doubles; Shirley Fu, the girls singles; and Michael Luo for capturing the bronze in the boys singles.

Other players like Devina Ngai, Cynthia Leung, Joy Lim, Jackson Lu and Richard Lei are also members of these teams, but I would like to particularly commend Shirley Fu for her achievement. To this Vancouver Winter Olympics torchbearer, winning the girls singles three times in a row in B.C. has come quite easily.

Over the last five years she has won first place in the Canadian national table tennis championships in all age categories: under-11, under-13, under-15, under-18, under-21 and women's singles. She's also a national member of the Pan American Games, a member of the team that won a bronze in the world junior circuit and a gold medallist in the Canadian Winter Games.

I would like the House to join me in congratulating these outstanding young athletes from Burnaby North Secondary School.

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: In the galleries today we have the explorative grade 11 class from G.P. Vanier. They are ably led by my former colleagues and amazing teachers. I see Mr. Dave Neill, Mr. Grayson Pettigrew and Ms. Ilene Yeomans. They are a fantastic group of individuals. It's a great program.

Would this chamber please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORTS ON

PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR VICTIMS OF

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier, and it's with respect to the report by the Representative for Children and Youth today. The report says very clearly — and it's really important to emphasize this when we talk about these issues — that it's obvious that the cause of deaths of Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon was their father, as established by a criminal trial. It also says the words that haunt, I think, everybody in the system when it says the deaths of these three children were preventable. In a previous report in 2009 honouring Christian Lee, the representative made a number of recommendations that in this report she notes were not followed.

[1355]

I wanted to ask the Premier…. The Premier referred to the replacement — I think that she was referring to the replacement of Ms. du Toit — last year as an important event in terms of dealing with these issues. Is the Premier suggesting that there was institutional opposition to change? And how can she explain why three years after that report, in three budget rounds, nothing seems to have happened with many of the key recommendations of the Lee report?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me again thank the representative for her report. It was thorough, it was very thoughtful, and as I said, she cares very deeply about this province and families in it.

Second, to say again to the family of those children who lost their lives: on behalf of the government, our deepest condolences and apologies.

The representative made some important recommendations in her report. We will be guided by those recommendations and acting on them. We will also be meeting the timeline that she has set out.

Not enough has been done across government to fight domestic violence. Work is spread across ministries. It's diffused, and it's far less effective than it should be. We are going to centralize it in the Ministry of Children and Families. I believe that doing that can make a very, very big difference. As I said, once those resources are centralized and we see how that works, if more resources are required, we'll find them.

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

A. Dix: First of all, I think that we need to understand, and it's very important to be clear about the facts, that the report in the Lee case came after the deaths of these children. I don't think anyone would want to link the two, but I think it's disconcerting. So I'd be interested to hear from the Premier.

We had a report. We had a terrible incident in this community. We had a report with recommendations. We went through three budget cycles. Those recommendations were not taken up by government. I guess what I'm asking from the Premier is an explanation for that, because now we have another report with many of the same

[ Page 9633 ]

recommendations. We're back in this process.

The Premier referred to problems in the Ministry of Children and Family Development when she referred to the replacement of certain senior officials there as a key act of her government. I want to know if the Premier suggesting that that was the problem. Is the Premier suggesting that that was the reason why, through three budget cycles, they didn't take up this issue? What was the reason? What is the explanation of why there was no action in the Lee case?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I think if he was to put that question to the representative, she would say that the tension that existed between her office and the previous deputy's office was very, very unproductive and that the progress that she's observed in the ministry since the new deputy has taken on the role has been heartening. We certainly have seen significant changes in the ministry in the last year.

There is a lot more to be done, in particular in the area of domestic violence. This report that we've seen today tells us how urgently we need to address that, so we are addressing it.

I'd say this to the member. We are not back at the same place. The ministry is doing much better than it was a year ago. It has different leadership which is guiding it on a different path. We are going to respond to the representative's recommendations, and we're going to do it on the timeline that she set out. We have to deal with domestic violence better in this province than we have in the past.

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

A. Dix: While I think it's reasonable to talk about the senior executive of the ministry, what really matters is what happens on the ground. That's what really matters — the change that we're trying to effect in the lives of children and families. I think that's the problem here, because the government, as you know, tabled a budget recently that didn't address these questions. The representative's comments with respect to that budget, I think, were as unequivocal as they could have been.

[1400]

I guess what we're trying to understand is why action hasn't been taken on that report, why the Premier feels that it wasn't required to take action in advance of the 2012 budget, why it wasn't appropriate to take action prior to the 2011 budget, why it wasn't appropriate to take action before the 2010 budget — in fact, to reject significantly the recommendations of the report Honouring Christian Lee .

Again, I understand that the issues in this case are so serious that people are not acting out of a sense of disrespect. But action didn't happen, and the consequences are just a little bit disrespectful. I guess what I want to ask the Premier to tell us is why that action wasn't taken in last week's budget.

Hon. C. Clark: The report of the representative is absolutely clear. Not enough action was taken. That's what I said in my ministerial statement before we got to question period here today — that not enough action has been taken.

I don't expect the Leader of the Opposition to accept my apology for that, but I very, very much hope that the mother of those children who died will accept my apology on behalf of government for that fact.

I remember sitting on my radio show at the time, learning about this tragedy and grieving with British Columbians. It was an awful thing that happened. It should never have happened. If it's true that government could have prevented it, we should have.

My commitment, having received this report yesterday, is to respond to her recommendations. It's to act on them. It's to bring these resources from across government, which are broken up into different silos, into one place. It's to make sure that we devote the resources necessary to dealing with domestic violence.

What happened in the past was not good enough. The ministry began to make some very big changes about a year ago, but we are not all the way down that road. That's what we learned in this report today, and that's why we will be addressing the recommendations she's given us.

C. Trevena: We've heard promises for children and families over and over again from this government, but they've turned out to be hollow year after year — years of denying problems and years of neglect for the most vulnerable children. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it's 2½ years since we had the Honouring Christian Lee report, and nothing happened.

The children's representative in this latest report says: "Countless opportunities to ensure that the children and their mother were safe were missed because of a profound lack of coordination among the child-serving, mental health and criminal justice systems over many years, compounded by glaring failures in child protection practice."

I'd like to ask the Premier. There is apparently a commitment now to doing something, but how does she expect her minister to implement the recommendations in this report, including the establishment of a new unit on domestic violence, when the budget introduced last week had not a penny more for the next three years for the ministry?

Hon. M. McNeil: First, I want to start with a statement about this unimaginable tragedy. My heart goes out to the family. As a mother and a grandmother, I can't imagine what the mother must have been going through, has gone through and is continuing to go through. I also

[ Page 9634 ]

have to say that as a minister, this is the toughest case I've seen.

I was given the report last Thursday. I have read it cover to cover more than once. I have taken very much to heart what the representative has said. It's clear that more has to be done. She has said that we have made strides — significant improvements, as she said — over the last year. But clearly, that's not enough. That's why she asked for leadership and why I, this mornin,g have committed to the establishment of a domestic violence unit within the Ministry of Children and Families.

[1405]

It will report to my deputy minister, and there will be a deputy ministers committee which is going to start, first off, with taking a look at all of the resources we're currently doing across ministries to ensure what we are doing, to find out what the gaps are and then to put together an action plan which will go back to the Representative for Children and Youth by July 31. I will make sure that happens.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I hear the minister talking about a commitment. It's very sad that this commitment wasn't shown earlier on. We've known about domestic violence for an awfully long while in this province, and there's been no commitment from this government in the last 11 years.

I was asking the minister how she expects this new unit to be funded when the budget has not given a penny more for her ministry. We have a number of significant recommendations in this report, including implementing all the recommendations of the Christian Lee report as well as the recommendations of this report.

If the minister is serious about addressing domestic violence and dealing with the systemic problems that have plagued her ministry for many years, I'd like a very straight answer of how she expects to pay for it when there is no extra money in her budget.

Hon. M. McNeil: The Premier, during her ministerial statement, made the comment that after we've done the work and we have our action plan put together by July 31, if we need more resources, that will be addressed at that time.

I also want to comment a bit about what has happened over the last bit. We are working on a strategic plan for the next three years. The representative has been working alongside us. She is very pleased with some of the initiatives that we're doing in it, feels that it's a very comprehensive plan.

Clearly, as the minister I recognize that we need to do a better job working across ministries. These are very complex cases that involved mental health issues, that involved substance abuse, that involved domestic violence. We need to do a better job of coordinating cross-ministry, and that's exactly what the domestic violence unit will do.

H. Lali: I've lived in Merritt for 46 years, and no one in Merritt can recall an instance as horrific as the brutal murder of these three kids. Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon were children who should not have died. The Schoenborn family had moved to Merritt from the Lower Mainland. They were known to the ministry, but their file did not follow them. Crucial help disappeared despite the history of mental health problems and also of contact with the police. There was also ministry involvement, and the family fell through the cracks.

The representative states: "The resulting lack of timelines and of continuity contributed to a failure to protect these vulnerable children and their mother." The children and youth investigators were told that in the Interior office there were no measures in place to mitigate serious threats to good case management, with one worker juggling 60 files, many of which were considered high risk.

My question is to the minister. The representative has made it clear that she does not want another piecemeal approach from this government, so will the minister commit today to implementing all of the recommendations meant to work in conjunction and ensure sufficient protections for children at risk?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I said this morning when I gave my statement in response to the representative's report, the government agrees with the intent of all the recommendations, and we will be looking into all of them. In addition, we will be establishing the domestic violence unit, which will make a big difference when it comes to dealing with these complex cases that require many different ministries' involvement.

We need to do a better job of breaking down the silos and talking to each other, and that's exactly what I have committed, not only to the family but also to the representative and to the province of British Columbia.

[1410]

INFECTION CONTROL AT

BURNABY HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Yesterday we brought up the situation of the serious C. difficile outbreak at Burnaby Hospital. Let me quote again from the doctor's letter. "Over the period of the last 2½ years at Burnaby Hospital…there have been 473 serious cases of CDAD colitis" — of which seven resulted in total colectomies — "and 84 patient deaths." This data does not include the latest patient numbers relating to the two subsequent C. difficile outbreaks at Burnaby Hospital, which prompted unprecedented unit closure in late 2011. I assure you, these numbers will be high.

The minister said he toured the hospital recently, but

[ Page 9635 ]

it was clear from his answers yesterday that he was unaware of the problems outlined by department heads at the hospital.

Can the minister explain how this is possible? There are 84 associated deaths, 473 infections, seven colectomies and more to come. Will the minister explain how he was unaware of the severity of this problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the issue of C. difficile infection is a serious one. I don't begrudge any official or any member of this House bringing the matter forward for discussion, but I would like to think that we can have that discussion based on fact.

Having consulted again with officials and clinicians at Fraser Health, I want to say this to the member, members of the House and the public: to suggest that 84 individuals have passed away because of C. difficile is incorrect. It is incorrect, and it unnecessarily causes concern, as one might expect, in the public.

It also is important for members of this House to know — and the member — that in fact a third party has been brought in. That third party, an internationally recognized expert in infection control, has completed a report. That report, the member should know, was completed just over a couple of weeks ago. It has been released. It contains specific recommendations pertaining to Burnaby Hospital, and those recommendations will be implemented.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: I am not saying these deaths are associated with C. difficile ; the doctors are. It's pretty obvious that we have a minister not knowing what's going on in his file, and we have senior administrators obviously not taking the problem seriously.

It's the site director's responsibility to be aware of the problems and to address them as they arise, but the doctors wrote: "I make note of the fact that our local site director has been absent for all of the Burnaby infection control committee meetings of 2011." We have 84 associated deaths and 473 infections as a disease is raging through a hospital, and the person who is supposed to be in charge doesn't show up for meetings.

Can the minister explain now, a day later, the complete failure of leadership in the midst of an infection crisis at Burnaby Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: I regret very much that the member, in pursuing an issue that is legitimate to pursue, would choose to politicize it and use that kind of language. If she wanted to have a discussion, a debate, based on fact, she would have acknowledged — in fact, the opposition would have acknowledged it yesterday, at the very time they were calling for the intervention of a third party, waving a letter around — that they knew that an internationally recognized expert in infection control had already been called in.

[1415]

Dr. Michael Gardam has completed the report. The report is now available. The report contains specific recommendations that the member should know will be followed. And I can tell the member one other thing. Dr. Doug Cochrane, chair of the B.C. Patient Safety Quality Council…. I have asked him, as someone also independent of Fraser Health, to step in and work closely to ensure that the recommendations contained in the review completed by Dr. Gardam are fully implemented.

If we're going to have a conversation — which is fine; it's an important issue — it should not be on the basis of the kind of fearmongering that we heard yesterday and, I regret, that the member is continuing today.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think it's appalling that this minister, who has been trying to…. Obviously, for years this problem has been covered up by this ministry. There's a complete lack of coordination. There's a complete lack of communication. And this minister is trying to point the finger at us?

We released this letter yesterday from the doctors, and it said exactly what has been read out. In addition, there were comments in the letter that talked exactly about how many of the deaths could be related to C. difficile . Nothing has been hidden by us. There were 84 deaths. Was every single one of them caused by C. difficile ? Maybe not. Maybe only 80. Maybe 80 to 90. The letter says it's 80 percent or more.

But you know what? There have been two more unit closures since then, and there have been more deaths, so I'll tell you that 84 sounds like a pretty good number to me. But I think it's despicable that this minister would sit here and try to point the finger at anybody else but his own incompetence.

It's clear there was a lack of leadership on the C. difficile crisis at Burnaby Hospital. According to the doctors at the hospital, who I will believe, there was a complete lack of transparency and hiding of the problem. But maybe we can get a bit of a picture from one patient who went to the hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member pose the question, please?

K. Corrigan: When Diana from Burnaby was admitted to hospital in January of 2010, she was placed in a room with two patients that had C. difficile . This was a room that was meant for two people. They were told that if they didn't like it, they could leave.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please, Member.

K. Corrigan: Diana was lucky. She didn't get infected.

[ Page 9636 ]

We're dealing with a potentially deadly disease. How is it best practices to put a patient in a room with two patients who have C. difficile ?

Hon. M. de Jong: Unfortunately, in her zeal to try and score political points, the member chooses to ignore some fundamental facts.

First of all, everyone at the Burnaby Hospital is doing their level best, in an admittedly older facility, to restrict and reduce the presence of C. difficile . That's why the rate of C. difficile infection, whilst by no means great, has been reduced by 40 percent over the last number of years. It's not where it should be. It's not where we want it to be. It's not where the health authority wants it to be. But that is progress and a mark of the commitment on the part of those professionals and a sign that they take this issue seriously.

The health authority brought in an internationally recognized expert to examine this and provide recommendations. Dr. Cochrane will be there to assist.

Rather than standing here and trying to score cheap political points, the member should recognize that the officials, the clinicians, the doctors, the nurses, the cleaners — everyone at Burnaby Hospital — are doing their best.

We are in a planning process, and yes, we would like to replace an aged facility with a new one — that's what the budget is designed to help us achieve — and add to the $7 billion in capital construction that has already taken place in health care facilities across B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I'm not trying to score cheap political points. I'm trying to stop people from dying in my community hospital.

Yesterday we referred to a letter from department heads at Burnaby General in which they laid out the problem and the cause of the C. difficile outbreak. They said part of the problem is "hospital overcrowding consistently above census." That overcrowding meant that Diana was placed in a room built for two with two C. difficile patients.

[1420]

We know about Tim Hortons care. We know about code purples and hallway care. Will the minister admit that hospital overcrowding is putting patients at risk in Burnaby and at other hospitals around the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's an intriguing question and one that, I can assure you, I appreciate receiving from the member. The answer lies not in my words in this House but is visible across British Columbia, if members will look, many times in their own communities, and see the construction that has taken place over the last 11 years — $7 billion worth of new hospital facilities.

Here's the difference, just to particularize this in a way that, hopefully, the member will understand. When we launch and the Fraser Health Authority launches a site redevelopment plan, as they are at Burnaby, the difference between today and when another group was in power is that there's actually some chance that that redevelopment will occur. We've got $7 billion of evidence, new hospitals in communities right across British Columbia, that is proof of that fact.

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAM

M. Farnworth: The physician's letter of yesterday outlining 473 cases of C. difficile infection, seven people losing their colons and 84 deaths linked to C. difficile is proof that things are not well at Burnaby General Hospital.

The minister has stated that today there is a report, and the recommendations are going to be adopted. The government clearly didn't know that yesterday, even though this infection crisis has been happening for some two years now and physicians were warning about it.

Let's go to that report with its recommendations that the minister is talking about. Let's go to recommendation No. 3. "The Fraser Health regional infection prevention and control program is considerably under-resourced compared to other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States." It goes on to list: "Based on the above, it is evident that the Fraser Health regional infection prevention and control program does not meet any modern staffing recommendations."

How is it that in the province of British Columbia an infection control program in a major hospital cannot even meet recognized modern staffing standards?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has referred to one of 13 recommendations which are now before the public. They arise in a report that was initiated by Fraser Health as a demonstration of how seriously they take the issue and how committed they are and we are to addressing what are unacceptably high rates of C. difficile . I don't think anyone is disputing that whatsoever.

There are 12 other recommendations that Fraser Health is committed to implementing. That's why they brought in the international expert. That's why we've asked Dr. Doug Cochrane, who has an impeccable record in this province when it comes to protecting patients' interests. And that's why we are going to continue to build on a record of improvement that has seen C. difficile rates reduced by 40 percent at Burnaby Hospital.

[End of question period.]

K. Corrigan: Permission to make an introduction, please.

[ Page 9637 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: I just see that we have up in the gallery my good friend, another colleague from CUPE years, a fellow researcher, John Malcolmson and his wife, Miriam. Thank you very much. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will start second reading of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act. In

Section A, for the members' information, we will be starting the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take a few minutes, Minister.

Proceed, Minister.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be read for a second time.

Bill 22 is a very important and very complex bill. There are many, many aspects to the bill which I intend to canvass. It is a bill, in the first instance, which is intended to bring an end to a phase 1 job action in respect to the dispute between the B.C. Teachers Federation, BCPSEA, the employer and the government of British Columbia.

[D. Black in the chair.]

That phase 1 dispute has been ongoing since September 6, 2011, and, of course, the negotiations between the parties have been ongoing since March 1, 2011. Exactly one year ago the negotiations between the parties began. Of course, this bill is intended, for reasons which I will outline in detail, to be a response to that, to bring an end to that phase 1 job action, which, without any doubt, has had an impact on students. It has had an impact particularly on vulnerable students, on students who are on the bubble in terms of success or failure in their academic or scholastic programs.

I have heard, since the dispute began, a variety of concerns, particularly in recent weeks. I have been hearing concerns from parents and others about hearing that their child had failed a course or was in jeopardy of failing a grade and that they had not had the kind of early warning that they would have liked in order to undertake a remedial strategy to ensure that their child was successful in school.

Very recently I heard from a gentleman who said: "My son will no longer be graduating with his friends in grade 12 because he's failed a course, and we didn't have any idea that he was in jeopardy of failing." Again, the parents had had no opportunity to work with the teacher, to work with the principal or the vice-principal to develop a remedial strategy to have the student be successful in the program.

To be fair, and I indeed will be fair in all of my comments here, there are many teachers in British Columbia who have reached out, either by phone or through the Internet, with the parents of the students that they teach, and I salute them for those efforts. Many, many teachers have done that. Indeed, as well, many, many parents have made strong efforts to reach out to teachers, to understand, as their child progressed, whether it was kindergarten or grade 12, how their child was progressing through school. Again, many parents did that; not all parents did that. Many teachers reached out; not all teachers reached out.

I am Education Minister for 520,000 public school students in the province of B.C. — not for just some of those students but for all of those students. It is clear that there are more than a few cases. There are many cases where we have vulnerable or on-the-bubble kids who are at risk of failure or who have failed as a consequence of no timely collaborative meetings and, as a consequence, no timely remedial strategies to help them through the issues.

[1430]

The second part of the bill, and I'll be canvassing this in detail today, is the Ministry of Education and the government's response to a decision by Madam Justice Griffin of the Supreme Court of B.C. of April 13, 2011. That is a very complex piece, and again, I will be walking through, in some detail, government's response to the thoughtful judgment of Justice Griffin in the B.C. Supreme Court.

That response embodies vital educational reforms which we are proposing in the context of this bill — all consistent, we believe, with both the direction of the judgment and what is the most effective way of managing the important issues that are discussed in the judgment. They go to the often-controversial and invariably complex issue of class size and composition; that has been a very important issue in schools in British Columbia for probably 30 to 40 years.

Many decades ago, when I was going to elementary school and high school, there was not a societal inclusion of children with special needs often in schools. It was the order of the day that often the education of those with special needs was outside of mainstream schools. But now — I think about three or four decades ago — we have seen a change in that. Inclusion is the order of the day today and has been.

[ Page 9638 ]

I think that we have been very much challenged in the education system as well as, I think, in society to understand how we can best manage those often very complex needs of those with special needs in school. And while it's controversial, I think it is necessary to take a fresh look at this and think about how we can better manage and better allocate the resources that are devoted to special needs in the province.

I'll speak of the learning improvement fund of $165 million shortly here. But currently within the block of funds that goes out annually to school districts across the province is $866 million which is earmarked for children with level 1, level 2, level 3 diagnoses as special needs.

It's important, I think, to have a look at that, and again, we'll be talking at some length about that, because it is hugely important to this bill and it is hugely important, I think, to the renewal of the education system.

This bill is important, and it was reflected in many ways. I had the opportunity to sit down, I guess for about an hour, with the opposition Education critic. I did that in advance of tabling Bill 22 in the House, because I felt it was very important. I find the opposition Education critic is almost invariably thoughtful in his understanding and comments, and I always appreciate the opportunity to let him know what it is we're doing.

I also had the opportunity to spend an hour with the two independent members of the House to provide them, as well, with a very thorough briefing on the contents of this bill. I sometimes like to think that there are issues which, while they may lend themselves to partisan endeavour, sometimes our efforts in these areas, I hope, can surmount partisan differences. This may or may not be one of those cases.

I want to reflect on this too. The Leader of the Opposition asked this question yesterday: why did we not start the debate on Bill 22 on Wednesday as opposed to today, Thursday, in starting the bill? Again, I think it's important that every member of this House have the opportunity to read and, if necessary, re-read this bill. It is hugely important to our future in this province.

[1435]

Furthermore, I didn't want to spend the day, as we did in reviewing the legislation for the B.C. Teachers Council in this House, having an entire day devoted to why the bill was tabled in the House so quickly. The opposition leader may have missed that debate that day. I'm not sure. Certainly, it's not a day that I would choose to relive and I hope we don't have to.

Members have had a good opportunity to look at this bill, and I'm certain we will hear many constructive comments. I do look forward to that. I do hope that all members, whether they are on the government side of the House or the opposition side of the House, will enter this debate appreciating that our deliberations here will be very important to the education of our kids and our grandkids in this great province of British Columbia.

I do look forward to hearing the thoughtful responses of members. Again, I hope, at times at least, we will see the opportunity to rise above partisan imperatives and look at how we can better provide education in the province of B.C.

There are a couple of issues that I think need to be mentioned in terms of the context of this debate. One is around the potential withdrawal of services. Even since early this morning we have had clarification with respect to this. It appears that the Teachers Federation leadership will be leading a withdrawal of services on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, although that rests entirely in the hands of the BCTF leadership, whether they wish to do that or not.

I do respect, first of all, that the federation went to the Labour Relations Board to seek the guidance of the board, in respect of what is acceptable and not acceptable within the bounds of the essential service legislation that guides us in this area. They received that advice, and indeed, it includes potentially three days' withdrawal of services next week — which the BCTF have now advised us will be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, all things being equal. Then they have an opportunity in the next week to have withdrawal of one day.

I think there is going to be some tension in terms of competing principles here. We know that parents are always troubled when their kids lose educational opportunities, even for a short period of time. Certainly, we were troubled, or many were troubled, by the phase 1 partial withdrawal of services as well. So there's that tension, but there is absolutely also a need for vital and fulsome debate with respect to the government's response to the decision of April 13, 2011, by Madam Justice Griffin, and that's what we will do as well.

To begin, I think it's important to note a few things about Justice Griffin's decision and the process which followed that. Her decision struck down several provisions of the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, otherwise known as Bill 28, and the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, also known as Bill 27.

Certain provisions in both of those bills were declared unconstitutional on April 13, 2011. However, she suspended that judgment for a period of one year to allow the parties — I think she hoped — to reach a collaborative and consensual agreement around how those issues might be remedied. Indeed, that is what we attempted to do.

[1440]

It's important to note also that the decision of Justice Griffin, with respect to Bills 27 and 28, followed very closely, in terms of its logic, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in respect of Bill 29 of 2007. I'm well aware of Bill 29 of 2007. I had the honour of being the Health Minister for the province at the time we prepared a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29.

[ Page 9639 ]

In the case of Bill 29, the government constructed a table with the HEU, Hospital Employees Union, and with the B.C. Nurses Union. Again, just as in the case of Bills 27 and 28, the government had a one-year window in which to sit down with the aggrieved unions and attempt to work out a consensual and collaborative agreement.

In the case of Bill 29, the parties did precisely that. Over the period of several months both the HEU and the BCNU were able to reach agreement with the government on an appropriate package of remediation. That bill was presented to this Legislature in the spring of 2008 as both a collaborative and a consensual bill enjoying the support of all parties, at least all parties to the issue. I think it actually may have got the support of the opposition as well. But it had broad support.

The experience has been rather different with Bills 27 and 28. Again, government structured a table, just as we had with Bill 29, to deal with the issues of Bills 27 and 28. The table was created. The B.C. Teachers Federation was invited to come to the table, to bring their perspectives to the table, to bring proposals to the table and to see, hopefully, the parties — as we had with the HEU and the BCNU — reach that collaborative agreement which we hoped everyone would seek.

In the case of the B.C. Teachers Federation, it appeared that they did not share the government's

interpretation of Justice Griffin's decision on Bills 27 and 28. The view that was expressed by the union in that case was that the government's early ideas and proposals were wholly wanting, that there needed to be over $300 million investment put on the table before constructive discussions could begin.

Unfortunately, the government couldn't share that view, did not share that view. We continued to try to bring constructive suggestions to the table, but never with success. As a consequence of that, in October of 2011 government brought to the Bill 27-28 table a proposal, today embodied in this legislation as the learning improvement fund.

The learning improvement fund, which I'll discuss here in greater detail, not only involves proposals for better management and allocation of special needs resources and classrooms, schools and school districts; it also brings $30 million to the table in the fiscal year beginning on April 1, $60 million in the next year, $75 million in the third year and $75 million every year thereafter — again, to build upon the work that can be undertaken with the $866 million which is currently in the block for special needs funding.

Government had one year. We brought that proposal to the Bill 27-28 table. In that case again, the Teachers Federation rejected that proposal as wholly inadequate in their view, and now the suggestion was that some $600 million or more was required to get a serious discussion going on that. Again, that approach was very much at odds with what our reading of the decision was.

[1445]

As a consequence of that, the table broke off and, in fact, has continued to not function. As a consequence, today we're in a position where we are bringing this bill to the Legislature, not as a collaborative and consensual bill, as it had been with Bill 29, but rather a bill that we strongly suspect may well be judicially challenged in the future by the B.C. Teachers Federation.

In terms of consultations and legal considerations, Justice Griffin's decision said these things: government must engage in consultations and demonstrate good faith with targeted new funds sufficient to make a noticeable difference in teachers' working conditions — and we've done that through the learning improvement fund, which I've just discussed, as well as some ideas on implementing that fund; and return the right to collectively bargain matters related to class size and composition. Again, shortly here I'll talk about exactly how we're going to achieve that within the bounds of the legislation.

The other areas which flow from the learning improvement fund are important as well. I want to take some time on these. The learning improvement fund will be allocated to classrooms with the highest need in school districts, based on consultation involving the BCTF representatives, classroom teachers, and district and school staff. The LIF framework will replace consultative requirements in the School Act.

Those requirements are, at least in considerable measure, known as Bill 33. Districts will be able to use funds to…. These are among the ways in which the LIF funds may be utilized: assign additional teachers and education assistants; provide additional teaching time or, for that matter, educational assistant time; and support professional development activities useful in addressing complex needs in the classroom.

We're recognizing here that the business of managing those needs is a complex one, that it is a partnership not only between teachers, principals, vice-principals, superintendents and parents; it's also a partnership with educational assistants. Indeed, in the recent agreements with the Canadian Union of Public Employees…. I think there are now 18 collective agreements with CUPE and educational assistants and other support staff.

I can tell you that educational assistants are very excited not only about the possibility of having more funded contact time with students with special needs but also being able to enhance their skills in the classroom through training modules that might strengthen their understanding of complex challenges in the classroom, like autism spectrum disorder or physiological physical challenges that might be encountered in the classroom.

All of that, I think, is hugely important, as is hugely important a new approach to special needs. One of the things we are aiming to do is bring an end to what I would characterize as special needs quotas. There are no hard caps in respect of the number of special needs students in a class. Generally, however, there is what is

[ Page 9640 ]

termed a quota, of three, in a class.

It is important to note an example, like a home economics class. If there are 29 students in a class and that class should contain three students with special needs designation, there is an opportunity for a 30th member of that class. All things being equal, a fourth student with special needs designation would not be permitted in the class,

whereas someone without such a designation would be. We think that is an inappropriate way to handle the issue of special needs in the classroom.

[1450]

I know that I'm not the only one who has such a view, but in my view, we should begin the discussion about class size and composition with this premise: that every one of the 520,000 children, students in public schools in British Columbia, is an individual. They're an individual human being. They all come with strengths, they all come with challenges, and it is unfair to structure a class around a designation. One should structure a class around the human beings, the individuals, that may comprise that class, not make any assumptions about who should be in a class.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope the members take this seriously, because it's a serious matter.

I'm certain we will have a very thoughtful debate on this. But let's look at the characteristics of the students involved. Let's not look at the designations that they bring to the classroom. Let's look at them as individuals, as human beings, in forming our conclusions about what may or may not be acceptable in a class.

In respect of that, I received — I think, probably now about two or three weeks ago — what I believe to be quite a remarkable piece of work by the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. I think it's important that I quote from their very good work.

I should also note, based on the very good work that John Bird and the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils did, that this submission now enjoys the support of the board of education of Victoria school district. I know their resolution is moving through other boards of education and may well, in the end, I think, enjoy the support of many school districts across the province.

If I may quote from the Victoria Confederation of PACs here. This is a

section entitled "Meeting the Needs of All Students."

"Decisions based on the unique needs of each student are sound educational practices. Decisions based on group characteristics are inherently discriminatory. Belonging in a classroom is an individual right and should be supported unconditionally. The moment we fail to develop our classrooms based on the needs and rights of each student, we are failing to meet their needs and we are violating their rights.

"The key to full inclusion is not to focus solely on groups of students that one is trying to include but instead to see to the needs of all students in the classroom. Each student's needs must be individually analyzed. Staff skills must also be analyzed to ensure that they are sufficient to meet the needs of the students. This process must involve staff and parents, with the primary focus on every student's success."

That's Victoria CPAC.

I know this is a document which is on their website, and I urge all members of the House as well as all British Columbians to take a good study of that. It's just, I think, a remarkably thoughtful document.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, am I correct in assuming that you are the designated speaker?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. I hadn't realized that already a half an hour has passed.

[1455]

Other letters and submissions I've received. Many members of the House will know of Dawn Steele. She is a leader in terms of the disabled advocacy community in the province, and she has weighed in on this very important issue as well. I'll just quote briefly from her submission. She says:

"Kudos to the Education Minister. He's absolutely right that legislated limits on students with special needs in K-to-12 classrooms are discriminatory.

"Parent groups were united in opposing the class composition limits introduced in 2006. They have proved unworkable, failing to help students or teachers while creating nightmares for administrators.

"The solution to unmanageable classes is not discriminatory quotas but better support for teaching and learning that addresses the realities of today's diverse classrooms."

That's Dawn Steele.

Also, a submission from an advocate in this area, Katherine Abraham.

"It is a pleasure to provide this letter in support of BCCPAC's classroom support fund, a collaborative approach to effective classrooms. As a parent of a daughter with a bouquet of special needs, I have been involved with special education for many years, both at the district and the provincial levels.

"It is patently evident to me that we have locational inclusion but that real inclusion has eluded us. Children with learning differences are still guests in our classrooms. It has become commonplace for us to hear stories from teachers about their classrooms, about the fact that they have, for example, 24 students, and they have three students with special needs. The wedge is firmly planted, dividing classrooms into those typical learners who rightfully belong and those exceptional learners who take an inordinate amount of time and energy away from the typical learners.

"Do we really want to narrow the responsibility of the classroom

[ Page 9641 ]

teacher to the middle of the class? Do we want to dance the dance of locational inclusion? That is the direction we've been taking. Our feet keep dancing to that tired, outdated tune. We should be very concerned that many educators and parents believe we are experiencing a plethora of exceptional students burdening the educational system beyond its capacity to cope.

"In fact, our schools have simply become adept at labelling students. The knowledge base of educators in addressing the learning differences they have identified has lagged far behind labels. The BCCPAC proposal takes us in a different direction. It looks at the classroom as a community of learners and seeks to identify the resources needed to make learning possible for all students within that community. The proposal reflects inclusion as it was meant to be.

"Sincerely, Katherine Abraham."

From the B.C. Association for Community Living, and it's addressed to me:

"On behalf of the B.C. Association for Community Living, I would like to thank you for your comments made pertaining to the issue of class composition previously introduced in Bill 33 in your address at the B.C. Superintendents Association meeting of February 18, 2012."

It goes on to say:

"Children with special needs are entitled to the same level of access to inclusive classrooms as all other children. The passing of Bill 33 has made children with special needs vulnerable to exclusion from classrooms — the classrooms that would allow them to learn alongside their age-typical peers. We agree with you that this law is discriminatory."

From Community Living Victoria, Carlene Thompson, president. I'll quote again from a letter to me.

"We are writing you to request that you table immediate legislation to repeal 76.1(2.3) and related clauses of the School Act. We see this legislation as discriminatory. We believe that better resourcing is essential and would support teachers, principals, superintendents and parents to work collaboratively to organize classes and supports in a way that does not discriminate against any child and will provide the richest learning environment for all children. Resources and class composition must be established based on individual needs and adequate support, not on labelling numbers."

Those are some — and there are many more — of the very thoughtful comments that have come to us in respect of the special needs issue. And again, I hope all members of the House will look at this in this spirit. We should not be looking at this as a political or partisan issue.

[1500]

We have been working as a society now for 30 years or more to try to find the most effective way that we can balance the principle of inclusion with effective classroom management. That is what I think we should all be seeking as legislators here in this great province, and that is what I hope we will do in respect of these issues.

I also wanted to talk a little bit about related provisions to this, because the whole issue of class limits has been one that we've looked at over many years. First of all, in respect of that, just to note that we will be returning class size, composition and related matters to scope of bargaining, as recommended in the decision of Justice Griffin and similar to the resolution of these issues in Bill 29. We will be returning that at the end of the next collective agreement. The end of June 2013 is when that will be in place.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The issue of manner and consequence around class size and composition is something which can be discussed and negotiated in the context of the current agreement, but returning it fully to scope of bargaining will come with the next collective agreement, effective the end of June 2013.

It should also be noted now, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation, Bill 22, does not restore past collective agreement provisions related to class size and composition. Future bargaining on these matters would start from a clean slate.

I should say this. I was in cabinet in 2002 when we debated Bills 27 and 28 and 29. I do recall the frustration, the desperation, that was characteristic of the Deputy Minister of Education and his senior executive team of superintendents across the province who, by the combination of 60 local agreements, brought an absolute patchwork of often unworkable regulations into contract.

We are not returning to that age, nor do we believe it was ever the intention of Justice Griffin of the B.C. Supreme Court to drive us there, and we will not be doing that. But for clarity, we will be doing the following.

We will be maintaining a maximum class size of 22 students in kindergarten. That is currently the case, and we will be maintaining that and maintaining it as a hard cap — that is, a class maximum which cannot be exceeded for kindergarten.

Similarly, we are re-enacting the class maximum of 24 students for grades 1 to 3, and again, that will be a hard cap. It will be a maximum which can't be exceeded.

In grades 4 to 12 we are making a modest change, although it should be noted that this is a change that is already in place in the Kamloops school district, in Coquitlam school district and, I gather, in several other districts that have moved to a class maximum approach. That's what we will be doing across the system, and that is to have a class maximum of 30 students in grades 4 to 12.

It should be emphasized here that any classes above 30 would be very much the exception and only contemplated under certain circumstances, and I'll walk through those.

[1505]

For example, in Coquitlam, which is one of the largest school districts in the province, they have had now, for a few years, a class maximum of 30. Last year they had zero classes in grades 4 to 12 that exceeded the class maximum of 30. It is entirely possible to construct classes around this framework. They have demonstrated that very successfully.

Further — and I will discuss this in detail as well — where because of extraordinary circumstance one might be compelled to have a class of 31, 32, 33, we will be proposing to the Legislature compensation for teachers for classes that exceed those maximums, based on the advice

[ Page 9642 ]

or consistent with the advice and decisions of arbitrator James Dorsey. James Dorsey is the arbitrator who has now looked at over 10,000 arbitrations that have flowed from grievances lodged by BCTF members against the Bill 33 approach to class construction.

Obviously, despite I'm sure the best efforts of all who put the Bill 33 provisions in place in 2006, they have simply not worked out the way one would hope, and I think even the BCTF would acknowledge that, based on their over 10,000 grievances that have been launched against the class composition proposed there. It is time, I think, for us to look to a new construct, and that is precisely what we will be doing in this bill. We will be looking at an end to the Bill 33 approach to class construction.

It's important, again…. I mentioned Coquitlam and zero classes exceeding 30 last year. I'm not sure if there were any in Kamloops. I think there were very few, if any. But exceptions would only be contemplated under the following circumstances.

First, principals and superintendents must determine that conditions are appropriate for student learning. So they, again, will be looking at classes and looking at them on that basis, and if they believe that the conditions are not appropriate for student learning, any variation would not be permitted. They will only be possible where there are school-based consultations among principals, vice-principals, teachers and, where appropriate, education assistants on all matters of class organization.

It will only be possible after the construction of a defined

schedule of exceptions, such as music classes or choir classes where larger numbers may be desirable.

Or, as is currently advocated by the tech association of the B.C. Teachers Federation — which is for shop classes, for woodworking classes or for metalworking classes where students are working with what could be, if used improperly, dangerous equipment…. They're advocating for smaller numbers. Again, that's a discussion we're prepared to have and to try to do something which is fair and reasonable in that circumstance.

Compensation to teachers. Again, this defines the exceptions. Compensation to teachers for classes exceeding 30 students, informed by the values established in the Dorsey arbitrations. We are going to leave it to the individual teacher to decide what they wish to take on in terms of compensation.

They could take, if they wish, their compensation in the form of prep time — additional prep time off to deal with situations. They could take it in enhancement to their professional development fund. They could take it in enhancement to their salary, or they could take it in any combination thereof. Again, as professionals, we believe that teachers are best positioned to make the decisions about what works best for them.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Sorry, did you have a different view of that, Member? Good. Well, I'd love to hear what that is at some point. I'm sure it will invariably be thoughtful, given your views on these things, so we'll look forward to that.

[1510]

So that is the approach on that. I want to speak, as well, to the collective bargaining side of this bill. Again, we will, with this bill, be bringing an end to phase 1 of job action, which has been underway for about six months.

To note, bargaining has been ongoing since March 1, 2011. It's the one-year anniversary of those discussions today. During that period there were 78 face-to-face meetings. The parties, I am told, looked at 1,109 different issues at the table. They have reached a tentative agreement on nine of the 1,109 items which have been brought to the table. They haven't finalized on many of those nine, but that is an indication of the progress, glacial or otherwise, that we have seen over a period of one year at that table.

Teachers have engaged in phase 1 job action since September 6, and that means no fulsome report cards and no collaborative meetings outside of school hours with parents and at any point within school hours with school administrators. As I've said earlier, I believe that at least some students have paid a price for that.

It should also be noted — to the interest, I'm sure, of all members — that as of February 24, BCPSEA had ratified two-year agreements with support staff, including educational assistants, in 18 school districts under net zero mandate, bringing to a total for all of the public sector now of 130 net zero agreements that have been reached since government first laid down the net zero mandate in the throne speech of 2009 — so a lot of agreements. In fact, the BCTF is the last major group left to settle for two years of net zero.

We appointed, as again the House knows, Assistant Deputy Minister Trevor Hughes to be a fact-finder, to look at the possibilities of a negotiated settlement. He reported back on February 23 that that was highly unlikely and indeed, in a timely way, impossible. This Bill 22 responds to that.

What it does, first and foremost, is suspend phase 1 strike action and impose a cooling-off period until the end of August. Secondly, it does not impose a new contract. It extends the previous agreement to cover the mediation period — again, the period to the end of August. It will appoint a mediator to work with the parties on outstanding issues. I'll walk through those issues for the benefit of the House here in a moment.

It establishes the principle of a two-year net zero collective agreement expiring June 30, 2013. In a

section which will only be brought into force subject to any illegal strike activity, it does put in place penalties against those, whether it is on the union side or the management side, who might engage in either illegal strike or

[ Page 9643 ]

lockout activity.

Also, and this is important, the mediator's mandate. I know there has been a good deal of controversy in the last two or three days with respect to this point. I found it interesting that even before Assistant Deputy Minister Hughes had reported out on his fact-finding mission, the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation repeatedly and vigorously was calling upon me to appoint a mediator to deal with the federation's dispute with BCPSEA and government. I heard that over and over during the last ten days.

[1515]

I found it very interesting that the affection, the support, the commitment to the notion of a mediator disappeared, effective with the advice that that mediator would continue to be guided by the principle of net zero in any agreement. Again, does that make it impossible to secure agreement? Absolutely not. We have 130 collective agreements with unions across this province and in every sector of this province to demonstrate that net zero is a possibility.

Regrettably, in every case where BCPSEA or government suggested that there were areas where we might explore to try to reach a net zero agreement, those were persistently rebuffed by the union. Whether it was around benefits or around exploration of what could be done in terms of the dollars within the learning improvement fund, it was always rebuffed. That's unfortunate because, again, on 130 occasions groups of public sector workers have agreed to exactly such contracts based on that.

So what is the mandate that we are proposing? First of all, among the matters that the mediator might look at, is manner and consequence of class size and composition. Manner and consequence is really another way of saying the impact of class size and composition issues. Again, we are not returning to full-scope bargaining in that area until 2013, but manner and consequence can be a part of the mediated agreement in this area.

At the request of the union, a local-provincial split of bargaining issues is also within the scope of the mediator's mandate. The next three are ones that the province and the Ministry of Education feel are particularly important, the first of those being effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvements within the teaching profession.

To explain this one, what we have in terms of processes for feedback and evaluation are 60 different models based on 60 different agreements. We believe, as a ministry, that it is vital that we get evaluation on a common track and on a common framework. Again, there is nothing nefarious about this. Something that I think any system would look for is common evaluation processes.

Secondly, alignment of professional development with teaching needs. I know there's been some speculation that somehow this is an attempt to take away professional development opportunities from the BCTF and the teaching profession itself. Not so. We are looking for better alignment in terms of those issues.

Finally, I know there's been much controversy around this, around what's termed here as scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs. This is about a post-and-fill.

I know the president of the Teachers Federation at every turn calls this a strip of the contract, and even though the member in his typical fashion embraces that notion, it is not so. What this proposal means is that when districts are making hires of new teachers, they are in fact trained and experienced in those areas which they propose to teach.

As an example, I had the good fortune to teach political science for 15 years at Okanagan University College, as it was called back then. If I'd had the opportunity to teach math and had been foolish enough, based on seniority, to try to bid on a math position, I would have been an utter disaster in such a teaching position. That's all this is saying.

Again, many districts already have this in place, but we want all districts to have it in place to ensure…. You know, I'll bet you that if you asked 4½ million British Columbians whether they would like to have their child's math teacher or their science teacher or their history teacher, for that matter, actually have the knowledge, experience and training to teach that, they'd say: "Of course I do. Of course I wouldn't want my son's math course to be taught by someone who is a history teacher."

[1520]

It only makes sense, and all we are looking for here is that. It is not a rejection of seniority. It says that in those instances where there is an issue of seniority versus training, experience and knowledge, the training, experience and knowledge trump seniority. Seniority is still a factor, but in those cases where they are comparable, the training and experience trump seniority. I think every British Columbian would expect that, save possibly a few in the leadership of the Teachers Federation.

And I should note this. One day I said to Susan Lambert: "I know you have concerns about this. I will clear off my

schedule for a day next week. We can sit down and talk about this. It is important that…. The vacuum of your understanding of what we are proposing to do appears to be filled with a variety of nefarious assumptions about what's intended. Why don't we take the time on a without-prejudice basis to talk about that so you understand where we are going on these important issues?"

I'm afraid I was unsuccessful in that suggestion. The suggestion was: as soon as we put something else on the bargaining table, perhaps that would be possible. But it was never possible otherwise. Again, we need to have that discussion, and we believe it would be useful for the mediator to provide some leadership in a process

[ Page 9644 ]

like that.

Finally, improvements to wages or benefits by looking for trade-offs within the contract, and again, within a net zero mandate.

All of that is, I think, hugely important. I know the dysfunctional relationship between government and the Teachers Federation is not new. It goes back decades. For those, particularly on the other side of the House, who believe that some kind of utopian nirvana existed between the Teachers Federation and the New Democratic Party in the 1990s, they will be disabused of that notion by reading Prof. Thomas Fleming's book, Worlds Apart , which, in a very thoughtful and detailed way, I think, lays out what has been pretty much a 50-year dysfunctional relationship.

We need to turn a corner on that, and that's why I believe that in responding to this with an expansive mediator's mandate, we were trying to create a situation where we could move from the dysfunction of the past and perhaps get on a better footing to discuss these things.

It is certainly the objective that I started out with, and I'm frankly sad and disappointed that I've been unsuccessful in that, that I stand here as a Minister of Education in a long line of B.C. Liberal, NDP, Social Credit — and, God knows, maybe Liberal-Conservative coalition — Education ministers who have had to legislate a contract with the Teachers Federation. Only once in 30 years have we been successful in negotiating a contract with the federation. I'm saddened that, again, I stand here as one in a long line of Ministers of Education who have had to undertake this.

But it is time to move on this. This is not going to resolve itself. I think the class of 2011-2012 has paid a sufficient price with six months of phase 1, and I think it's time to get on with the resolution of these issues.

I'm not the only one, and I'm just going to quote very briefly, as I wind down here, about others who feel the same way. These are from some of the many letters that I have received:

"I'm writing to express my frustration at this ongoing teachers' job action. The communication between teachers and parents is very poor, and I feel so out of the loop with how my children are doing in school. Some teachers post marks on Parent Connect to view, but that doesn't give us the full picture. One teacher I talked to doesn't post any marks as he simply doesn't like the system, so I have no idea how my son is doing."

Another: "I have been trying to find out about my son's mark in one class this winter term and have not been able to get any information from that particular teacher."

[1525]

Another extract from yet another letter: "We have not yet received a report card this year, and I have just been advised by the school that only grade 12 students will receive report cards. This is unacceptable. We deserve to know how our child is doing in his classes. I shouldn't have to make an appointment and take time off work to visit each teacher to gather this information."

From a student to me recently: "Me and my friends would really like the year-end field trip but can't have one because of the strike. I've been looking forward to this for a long time, and now it's not happening. Please help."

From another parent: "Please legislate the teachers back to work. This is now having a direct impact on learning and future educational preparedness."

And another letter from parents: "Our children in high school are now finished their first semester and are beginning the second semester. To date we have not received any report cards or any indication from the teachers how our children are doing in this school. We do not know if they are passing or failing. This is a completely unacceptable situation."

And another, and this will be the final of the extracts that I want to provide for the attention of the House:

"We feel that reporting student grades is an essential service. It has personally affected our children, particularly our son. It is his first year in junior high school. All through elementary he had high grades. We assumed this would continue into junior high.

"We made inquiries in mid-December, three-quarters of the way through his first semester, and were happy that the teacher responded. Unfortunately, he was in position in two of his classes and marginal in the other two. Because of lack of reporting, we were not able to catch and remedy his grades."

Again, that goes to the issue which I mentioned at the outset. The challenge of a phase 1 work-to-rule campaign is that without collaborative meetings, without report cards, parents aren't able to avail themselves of the mechanisms by which for some decades we have been able to tell parents how their kids are doing. I think that has been sad and unfortunate in many cases, and I think it is time for us to give the class of 2011-2012 the opportunity for success.

Now a final note. I'm certain that I will hear many thoughtful submissions from members opposite, including the opposition Education critic. The opposition Education critic has been, I think, quite responsible in his comments on the labour dispute. I cannot say the same thing for the opposition leader.

For example, I am looking at an

article in the Vancouver Province yesterday. This is the "In the House" column by Michael Smyth. Near the end of that

article there is a reference to the NDP leader. The opposition leader "said the government should send the impasse to 'real mediation.' He said the government should drop its 'net zero mandate' and put more money on the table to get a negotiated settlement."

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: He didn't say that. So it's interesting. The member said he didn't say that.

Now, I know from my reading of today's press accounts that yesterday in a scrum right outside this chamber the Leader of the Opposition had at least seven opportunities to clarify the record.

I see the member is now looking away. Apparently, he

[ Page 9645 ]

doesn't want to engage so much anymore.

He had seven opportunities….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Oh, he's multi-tasking. I see. He was multi-tasking, but answering questions in the scrum didn't appear to be one of the tasks that he could multi-task at the time.

The Leader of the Opposition and, I know, the opposition Education critic or perhaps this member will have an opportunity next to clarify the record, because I want the record clarified here.

[1530]

If the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party, didn't say "abandon net zero," I'd like to know what he said. If he didn't say "put more money on the table," then let's hear what he did say. Another thing that the opposition leader has said, and as you may understand, I found this a little bit annoying….

He said we shouldn't be interfering with processes at the bargaining table. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the opposition leader's comments do — interfere at the bargaining table. When he says irresponsible things like "abandon net zero" or "put more money on the table," that is precisely what he does — interfere at the bargaining table. So I want these members across the way in this debate to tell us about net zero. If they're opposed to net zero, have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say you're opposed to net zero.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: If you are prepared to put more money on the table, have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and tell the people of British Columbia that you're prepared to put more money on the table. Don't tell the people, "Oh well, maybe the Liberals were wrong to put net zero on" but don't say what your alternative is.

I want this group to come forward and tell us about what they would do. They always pretend that they have more money for education. They had a three-year education plan in their 2009 budget document that said there's going to be this many dollars going to education, and they always said ours wasn't enough. You know what? Their plan had $50 million less dollars in it than our actual plan had in those three years.

If they've got more money to resolve this settlement, I want to hear where those dollars are coming from, and I want to hear from the members opposite. Are we going to get those dollars through taxation, or are we going to get those dollars by taking them away from some other area of government service? That's the challenge, in a very direct way.

I'm going to cede the floor now, because while it's fresh in their minds, I know that they'll be anxious to get up and tell us about what they would do, about whether they support net zero, about whether they're putting more dollars on the table and, if they are, where those dollars are coming from.

We have a great education system in British Columbia. We have great teachers in British Columbia. We've got great administrators in British Columbia. We need to make sure every day that that great education system is available to the students in British Columbia that we serve.

Thank you very much for your rapt attention, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I'll now recognize the member for Skeena, who I understand is the designated speaker.

R. Austin: Maybe we can start by just bringing the rhetoric back down to the modality of the majority of the minister's comments over the last hour and 15 minutes.

As he mentions, this is a complex bill that tries to do many things. We on this side of the House have stated already that we are going to oppose this bill, not because we think that everything in this bill is bad, but we think that the premise of the bill, the title of the bill — that this is going to improve our education system — is not wholly found out in the actual contents of it.

There are many elements of this bill which are going to, unfortunately, continue to denigrate large portions of our education system, and I'm going to speak to that in greater detail as I make my remarks.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the fact that the minister and his staff did take the time and gave me the courtesy of a briefing prior to this bill being brought before the House. I respect that. I think that is good cooperation, and in a bill that has a lot of complex legalities, it has been certainly useful in terms of the opposition being able to analyze the bill and come up with, hopefully, some thoughtful comments.

[1535]

I'm going to begin my comments by taking us, first of all, to speak about what it is that teachers do in this province each and every day. I think it's important to put on the public record what exactly is involved in teaching. I mean, just this morning I was listening to a radio show, and of course, in the last few days I've been scanning all of the letters that have been coming in to the major newspapers around the province of British Columbia. I find it very troubling that people take to the airwaves and to the opinion columns of this province and make statements that clearly show that, frankly, they know not of what they speak.

I think it's okay for people to make comments one way or the other. Everybody is going to be making comments

[ Page 9646 ]

about a potential teachers' strike action, but I think it's important that when people actually take their opinions to the airwaves, they understand what is involved in our education system and what it is that teachers do on a daily basis. I heard somebody this morning basically alluding to the fact that teachers are essentially overpaid, they don't work hard enough, and they get huge holidays.

Now, I spent about 2½ years working as an educational assistant in my school district, school district 82, and I had a great opportunity to see firsthand what it is that teachers do. Prior to that, my only experience was the typical experience of a parent. I'm going to speak to that later on, as well, because I was a foster parent who shepherded some kids with severe learning disabilities through the system in Terrace. But that, essentially, is what I knew of what it is that teachers do until I had the opportunity to work as an educational assistant.

Let me, first of all, say that the notion that teachers show up for work 20 minutes prior to their day starting, have a cup of coffee in the staff room, talk about the game the Canucks played the night before and then go into the classroom and start to teach is patently ridiculous. In order to teach, in order to spend six hours a day in front of children, an awful lot of work has to take place that doesn't take place during the workday.

Interjection.

R. Austin: I'm glad that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson recognizes that. Teachers spend an inordinate amount of time outside the work

schedule that the regular people think of as the teacher's workday.

Think of ourselves in this House. You know, when we have a member's statement to make here to bring up a topic of concern or to share something that's happened in our constituency, we speak for two minutes. Yet in order to prepare that two-minute member's statement, we have to think about what it is that we want to say, we have to collate our thoughts in a way that makes sense, we then have it take the time to write them, and then we come here and present that. That's just for two minutes of work — okay?

Now think about what a teacher does. Every day a teacher isn't preparing stuff for two minutes. A teacher is preparing work and standing up in front of a class and has to keep them engaged — through a variety of topics if they're in elementary school, a variety of classes but maybe specialized topics if they're in secondary school — each and every day for several hours for over 200 days a year.

So the notion that a teacher only works from 8:30 till 3:30 needs to be disavowed. I mean, it needs to be challenged, and I'm challenging it right here, because teachers work very, very hard.

I also want to speak to the notion that somehow…. It's okay for teachers to have a break in the summer while the rest of the world works. I learned something when I was working as an educational assistant. This is very important for people to understand.

When you're teaching, you are not simply exchanging information. You're not just taking information that you know because you're a specialized teacher and sort of forcing it down the throats of kids. You are engaging in an exercise,

an act that is essentially giving a little bit of yourself each and every day.

What that does is that… If you are a teacher who cares about the job that you're doing, it is an emotional, vocational act — not simply coming there and repeating some information that you happen to know and you want your children to understand. It's a bit like the social work profession. There are certain jobs where the nature of that job requires more than just the job itself. It actually requires you to give a little bit of yourself, a little bit of your soul.

[1540]

In those kinds of jobs, whether it be social work or whether it be teaching, it is important to have an opportunity to be able to reflect, to be able to recharge your batteries.

So the notion that maybe teachers should teach all year round, 52 weeks of the year, would not necessarily be a very good thing. In fact, it would be disastrous in terms of how they have the ability to be able to go and refresh their batteries.

I also would like to note that in the summertime…. Many teachers in this province spend their summers, after they take some time off for vacation, furthering their own education. Again, the teaching profession isn't one where you go to school when you're young, go to university, and then you know how to teach and carry on teaching for, potentially, 30 or 35 years and never have to go and get further education.

It is a profession that requires constant renewal, constant learning. Yes, we have professional development days for that, but if you looked at most teachers….

We have a very high percentage of teachers in the province of British Columbia who have gone beyond their bachelor of education or PDP. We have a huge percentage of teachers in this province who, in the summer, go back to school, in some cases full-time, to get their master's degrees, or they go on to get specialized as special ed teachers or do other courses that further their education and give them the skills to help our kids. I don't think it's fair for people to just make rash statements about how little teachers work, because that's simply not the case.

I want to now speak for a moment about the history of what has been going on here for a number of years. As the minister pointed out, he is very fond of history. In fact, those of us who have been in this House for a number of years will know that it's not uncommon, when we ask questions here in question period, for the good minister to take us on a historical journey.

I can recall many a time when he was the Minister of

[ Page 9647 ]

Health, and even currently as the Minister of Education, that if one of the members on this side of the House got up to ask a question which they thought was important and pertinent to the relevant ministry that he was in charge of, he would take us down the road of the 1990s — very common.

I want to be fair. Some of that history was revisionist, and some of it was partisan, but that's okay. That's the nature of who we are. We are, after all, politicians. And some of that history was accurate — right?

We need to acknowledge that when you're in government for ten years, or in this case almost 11 years, governments do make poor decisions. That's a fact, and this minister was always wonderful at reminding us of mistakes that we have made.

I want to take us back through a little trip down history, because I think at the root core of all of these problems that the minister has been very challenged with in terms of trying to negotiate with the B.C. Teachers Federation, there has been policy that's been brought in place that has clearly just defied logic, has hurt our educational system and has fundamentally upset teachers to the point where they feel disrespected, not treated as professionals. A lot of that has been dismissed over the years.

Now we have a piece of legislation…. I know the minister didn't choose to bring it in this way. I know that he would have preferred, certainly, for one aspect of this bill to have been more consensual than it has turned out.

I think we need, first of all, to go back and look at what has happened since Bills 27 and 28 came into the Legislature. I think we need to not only understand what happened in terms of stripping out class size and composition from the contracts of the teaching profession. I think we also need to take a very fundamental look at what has resulted in our school system as a result of decisions that were made by the current Premier when she was the Minister of Education early on in her term that fundamentally changed the way we finance our school system.

Without understanding those changes and the consequences that they've had on the school system, we can't understand why it is that we're so challenged here or the why government is so challenged here by this negotiation or lack thereof and the reason why we're now having Bill 22.

[1545]

I'm going to go back and, first of all, start by speaking about the changes to the funding model, because it is critical to everything we're talking about here in terms of having the resources to do the things that the minister hopes could be done as a result of this bill.

My understanding, in speaking to the minister and hearing him talk here, is that essentially what he'd like to happen in the school system is for the people who work in the school system at all levels — the principals, the vice-principals, the teachers, the special ed teachers, the educational assistants, any outside help who are involved with a child — to all sit around and work out in a collaborative manner how to best create classrooms, how to best create a plan for a child if that child is designated with a special need.

That's all well and good. Perhaps in nirvana that would be fantastic, if we could have that happen each and every day.

The unfortunate thing is that the reality of the resources that are in our school system don't allow for the collaborative process to take place. At the end of the day, very often — and I've been in many of these meetings — once you sit down and look at all of these challenges, the solutions require either some special ed help, and maybe there aren't enough special ed teachers, or it might require some EA time. It might require two or three children being taken out of the classroom temporarily by the librarian to teach them something else.

Very often those resources simply aren't in place, so at the end of the day a lot of what we're talking about here, unfortunately, goes down to dollars and cents and resources.

The education system, as the minister will acknowledge, is a complicated system. But here's one thing that we do know about it. It is a system largely driven by the adults and paying the salaries of the adults who work in that system. Unlike other large ministries….

I know that the minister was the Minister of Health. There are many, many large cost drivers in a ministry as huge as the Ministry of Health. You know, when we go to our doctors, we want the latest medication. Maybe we need a surgical thing; we need time in hospital. There are the drivers of technology in the medical system that have hugely increased our cost of delivering health care. There are the cost drivers of new medications that are constantly coming up.

In the education system it's different. Eighty-three cents of every dollar that is expended out of here into the operating budgets of our education system in the K-to-12 system goes to pay one thing, salaries — okay? Why is that? It's because the education system is based on the interaction between adults and children in a classroom setting. That's what it's about.

It's not simply the teachers. Of course, the teachers are the primary factor here. They're the ones who the kids spend the vast majority of their day with. But we also have to pay the principal and the vice-principal. We also have to pay the secretary. We also have to pay the educational assistants. We also have to pay those who make sure that our schools are clean and are safe.

At the end of the day it's all about what resources we're willing to put in to ensure that when our children go to school, they come to a place that is of comfort, a place where every adult they interact with from the time they enter that school property till the time they leave is somebody who gives them a positive sense of them-

[ Page 9648 ]

selves and adds to their learning and to who they are as human beings.

We need to go and take a look at some of the fundamental changes that have happened since the B.C. Liberals took office. I'm going to speak to a document, funnily enough, that was put out by a member of the press several years ago that spoke to the agenda that this government had when it came into office and to the changes that were made at the policy level that have not just helped but have largely created the difficulties and the challenges in our education system.

I want to begin by pointing out that while I'm criticizing these parts of the education system and the challenge that they have, in spite of all of that, we still to this day have an incredible education system here in British Columbia. All I want to do in going through this document is to point out how much better it could have been under the B.C. Liberals had some of these changes not been made.

[1550]

I'm going to quote from this document because it's important for all of us to understand what happened here, and I'm going to make reference to things in here.

After the government came into power in 2001, in their election platform they had assured British Columbians that they were going to protect education spending. Now, there are a couple of things in society which are sacrosanct amongst British Columbians and amongst Canadians. We hold very dearly the notion that public health care and public education are not just a right; it is something that is fundamental to our society, to the values of British Columbians.

Every government, whether it be of the right or the left, tries to always ensure that those two programs are treated with respect. At the end of the day, it's the foundation of who we are as a society, and it accounts for the bulk of spending at the provincial level. I think I'm right in saying that between health care and education, it probably amounts to 70 cents of every dollar that we spend here. So it is critical.

Let me read what was going on at the beginning of this Liberal term.

"Despite their election promise to protect education spending, the B.C. Liberals are actually cutting funding to many B.C. school districts. Some may have to close schools as a result. The Liberals want to shift the blame for underfunding schools away from themselves and onto locally elected school boards.

"Those are the recurring themes in a fascinating nine-page document that I obtained on Friday, the day that the Education Minister" — who is now, of course, the Premier of British Columbia — "announced the government's new funding formula for B.C. schools. It's entitled Cabinet Decision Document , and it's stamped 'confidential,'" and signed by the current Premier of British Columbia.

"The document reveals the reasons behind Friday's move to per-pupil student funding and away from the old system known as program and cost funding. The document" — signed by the current Premier on January 25 of that year — "explains the old formula obligated the government to 'meet or manage each increase in cost or each new service offered by school boards.'

"With a total education funding now frozen or protected, in the language of the B.C. Liberals, the document — this is an internal document — warns the cabinet that 'given government's direction that education funding will be flat over the next three years, the current program and cost-funding formula will not work.'"

It goes on to say:

"The ministry will be called upon to make decisions about which programs to cut or reduce in order to offset unavoidable cost increases. Responsibility for reductions will thus rest with the minister and the ministry, not with the local school boards.

"The document details the political peril of sticking with the old funding formula, and under the heading" — and again, I'm quoting — "'Disadvantages of the Status Quo,' it goes on to say: 'The province will be seen as responsible for funding all costs. With overall flat funding and rising costs, this option would require the minister to decide annually which programs and services should be cut throughout the province.'"

Oh dear. That's not good news for any government, is it? Seriously.

"That would force" — again, the current Premier of the province — "to take responsibility for cutting education programs."

Well, obviously, the last thing the government wants to be doing is taking the responsibility for that.

"So what do they do? Their solution is this. Their solution was to scrap the old system and bring in a new one based on student population. The key was this. Funding is tightly capped, and individual boards decide where to cut, making them the bad guys. Tying school board funding to the number of students in each district means that some boards, count on mainly rural ones, will lose the population lottery.

[1555]

"'Some school districts will be affected by redistribution, and their funding will decrease,' the document reveals. Then there's this little notation of this poison pill. 'If enrolment unexpectedly increases, it might even be necessary to reduce the per-pupil amount. The Liberals realize that this zero-sum game is a pretty flimsy disguise for offloading costs and political damage onto school boards.'"

Now here's the really interesting stuff.

"'Under the disadvantages in this internal document of that new system,' the document says: 'boards' — that's school boards all around the province — 'will criticize government for not adequately funding their costs. Some boards may make poor decisions about how to allocate funds.' One curious line in the document reveals that the government will 'remove caps on spending on administration.'"

Here's the thing, hon. Speaker. We have had this ongoing battle around school funding since 2001. Between 2001 and 2005 there were two hearty, defiant souls on this side of the House speaking out against this change to the funding formula. From 2005 onwards, I'm glad to say, we have had a larger opposition speaking about it. We have had constant debates in this House about things that have resulted from this change to the funding formula.

We have brought into this House, from every district in British Columbia, constant cutbacks that have happened in our school system. Yet the government will stand up, minister after minister — I've seen three or four of them here — and say: "Well, wait a second here. The per-pupil student funding went up from last year, and it was higher than the year before and the year before that."

Here's what happened. By breaking up the envelopes — the directly funded areas of our school system

[ Page 9649 ]

— and going to the per-pupil student funding model, the government was able to say on every occasion that the per-pupil student funding is going up. Yes, it was. The problem is that the amount of funding that was going up by the per-pupil funding level was not comparing to what would have been in the system had we retained the previous formula for funding the school system.

That is at the crux of so many of the disputes that we have had with this B.C. Liberal government. That is what has counted for the fact that while per-pupil student funding went up and the overall level of funding went up, it didn't pay for the increased costs. It didn't pay, particularly for those kids who were designated with special needs.

As the minister pointed out, we have three levels of diagnosis for allocation for special needs. Prior to this there were more levels of designation for kids with special needs. What happened when the funding formula model changed was that some of those envelopes for some of those designations were thrown into the per-pupil funding. As a result of that, what happened?

As a result of that, kids were getting diagnosed. They weren't getting the adequate resources put in because that was now part of the per-pupil student funding model. Of course, there were challenges, naturally, with every single school district trying to figure out how to provide services as the needs were going up while the compensatory amount of resources coming into the school system wasn't happening.

You know, hon. Speaker, what this document shows is that there was a deliberate agenda here. We've heard in this House so many rhetorical things about the teaching profession and about education. There isn't a member in this chamber who stand ups and thinks that having a great public education system isn't a worthy goal.

What our constituents out in the real world expect isn't simply for us to say good things about the public education system and how we value it. What they also expect is that each and every year when government makes decisions, the decisions actually follow the rhetoric of what they say is important to British Columbians.

[1600]

I can tell you that in my discussions when I travel around the province of British Columbia, people speak volumes about how important public education is. Unfortunately, the nature of education compared to health care makes it very difficult for people to get as emotionally tied to it as we do with health care. I think it's largely because health care is instantaneous. We have a challenge, a health challenge. We want to go and see a doctor. We want a fix today. If our child suddenly gets ill, we want a fix today. There's no way that government can say, "Well, I don't have enough money for that" — right?

Education is much more complicated than that, to the extent that education happens over a long period of time. We start in the kindergarten system and it goes all the way through to grade 12. It's a system that needs to be resourced all the way through that child's career.

The learning happens and the resources are given over a long period of time, so we don't notice immediately as we would if we walked into an emergency room with a broken leg and found that there wasn't a doctor available, there wasn't a nurse and there weren't any of the materials to fix that leg. It's been more challenging for those of us, and for everybody, to be able to advocate and to understand what has happened as a result of this change in the funding formula that severely restricted the resources that go into our public education system.

I think that that is a very important factor in many of the discussions we have here. It's the reason why, in part, the relationship between the B.C. Teachers Federation and government has been so challenged. Teachers don't just simply go to work and teach. Part of the responsibility of a teacher, from an ethical point of view, is to be an advocate. It's very similar to people who become social workers.

A teacher is one of the best advocates on behalf of the children they have in their class. The other serious advocate, of course, is the parent, but in many cases — this is not something that any of us should be happy with — and for a variety of reasons, many parents either don't understand the power and the role they play in advocacy, or quite frankly, they don't have the skill sets or the capacity, the wherewithal.

Where I come from in northern B.C., I have a very large population of aboriginal parents. When cuts are made that affect aboriginal children, the notion that many aboriginal parents would go into the school system, meet with their teacher, sit down with the principal and say, "Hey, my child is failing here and needs extra resources," or: "I think my child might have some learning challenges here. Could we get my child assessed…?"

Many First Nations families in particular…. I'm not singling them out. There are plenty of parents in British Columbia who don't appreciate and understand the important role of advocacy that they may have to do. But many people find it very challenging to go into the school system and deal with professionals and have to work in an atmosphere where people have gone to university and have lots of schooling and maybe speak a specialized language. That's very off-putting for them — really off-putting for them.

Many of us in this chamber might think: "Well, that seems a bit odd. I would have no problems going and picking up the phone or walking into my school and saying, 'Hey, I think my kid has got a problem.'" But we should appreciate that's not necessarily the case.

In all those instances of all those children for whom their parents either are unwilling or unable to be the advocate, who else is going to advocate for them, if not the teacher? Who else is going to do that? That is a critical role of every teacher. It's part of their professional learn-

[ Page 9650 ]

ing. It's part of their responsibility. And do you know what, hon. Speaker? In the last 11 years the role of advocacy for teachers has grown exponentially. Why? It's because teachers are at the forefront of everything that is challenging in our society.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned early today in his budget response that one of the challenges we have to deal with economically in British Columbia is the gap between those who have and those who have not.

[1605]

The reports that came out recently in this province clearly state…. These are statistics that don't come from the basement of the NDP research department. These are statistics that one can get just from B.C. Stats or from federal statistics. The gap between those who have and those have not in this province has grown exponentially over the last 11 years — exponentially — so we have huge levels of poverty not just amongst families but amongst children.

When children are in poverty, they come to school with added challenges, huge challenges. You might think that the main people who have to deal with families or children in poverty might be the Salvation Army. It might be the person's local church. It might be the social workers. It might be the non-profit societies in our society.