2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th 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)

SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 2002

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 29

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Tabling Documents

Introductions by Members

J. MacPhail

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27

(second reading)

Hon. G. Collins

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28

(second reading)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Clark

Hon. S. Bond

B. Lekstrom

J. Bray

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (second reading)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. G. Hogg

B. Lekstrom

J. Bray

[ Page 871 ]

SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 2002

The House

met at 11:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following documents

for tabling: Elections B.C., 2000 annual report; conflict-of-interest

commissioner annual report, 2000; office of the ombudsman: An Investigation

of Forest Renewal BC: The Forest Worker Transition Program Tax Information

Dispute — public report No. 41; auditor general annual reports,

1999-2000, 2000-01; Annual Report, 2000 — office of the ombudsman; Building

Better Reports: Public Performance Reporting Practices in British Columbia

— office of the auditor general, report No. 3, 2001-02; The 2001-2005 B.C.

Ombudsman Strategic Plan — special report No. 22; office of the ombudsman:

Developing an Internal Complaint Mechanism — public report No. 40.

[1105]

Introductions by Members

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my colleague sitting next to

me for informing the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me about the

serious illness facing one of our member's sons. We would just like to add our

hope and our prayers as well, and if we could, even during the course of this

weekend, be kept informed of his, hopefully, well-being, we would appreciate

that.

Orders of the Day

Hon.

G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 27.

EDUCATION SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(second reading)

Hon.

G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Education Services Collective

Agreement Act be read a second time.

This bill

settles the teachers dispute and provides a collective agreement between the

parties. It also provides for the appointment of a commission to review the

structures, practices and procedures for collective bargaining in the education

sector. We are taking this action because this government puts students first,

along with the teachers of this province. Because this dispute has dragged on

too long and has shown far too little potential for a settlement, we've had to

act.

I want to

begin my comments by acknowledging the tremendous contribution that's made by

teachers throughout this province every day. You know, just think back; it

wasn't all that many years ago that we, too, were in school. Some of us were a

little bit longer getting through, and some of us have been out a little bit

longer than others, but there were good days, I think, that you'll recollect,

and you'll remember specific and certain teachers. I bet you that if I went

through this room today, I could ask of you, "Who was your grade 1

teacher?" and almost to a person, you'd remember who your grade 1 teacher

was.

Teachers

make a strong commitment, have a huge dedication and contribute substantially to

the well-being and development of the young people ? our students ? and most

importantly, as we put it, our children in our province. They show this in the

classroom in the extra time that they put in to help students excel at their

academics, to coach sports and to enrich their students through field trips,

music and drama. Those good memories that you had, I had as well — the

experiences through my school years with the teachers that I knew and many know

very fondly.

I've had

four children that have all gone through the school system, have built

tremendous relationships and value the extra effort that many teachers put into

helping my children get through school — and the extracurricular, be it on the

basketball court or band or drama and still the inquiry and interest about where

my children are, where they've been and what they're doing. It's a lifelong,

lasting relationship that's built between many teachers and our children.

I want to

be clear: I value teachers. Everybody in this House values teachers, and this

government as a political entity values teachers.

[Interruption.]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. May I have the members' attention and those in the

gallery? I wish to bring it to the attention of everyone in the public gallery

that you are in no way to impede or interrupt the proceedings in this chamber.

Thank you.

[1110]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because of the important,

essential role of teachers that today we must act and not allow the damaging job

action to continue. It's in the students' interest to end this dispute. It's in

the parents' interest to end the dispute. It's in the teachers' interest to end

this dispute.

This bill

brings a difficult process between teachers and the employers to a conclusion.

After ten months of hard work and 45 issues on the table — only three that

were able to successfully reach a conclusion, and really minor ones compared to

what was before them — this legislation sets out the terms of a new collective

agreement.

The

collective agreement itself runs from July 1, 2001, when the previous agreement

expired, and it'll run until June 30, 2004. The terms will remain in effect

until a new collective agreement is reached following its expiry.

It has two

parts: provincial issues and local issues. It continues the existing collective

agreement, with the following exceptions: we are making provisions that every

teacher in British Columbia will receive, over the course of three years, a 7½

percent salary increase.

[ Page 872 ]

The

collective agreement includes the three items of the 45 that were on the table

that were agreed to by the parties during the bargaining. They include the

review of any legislative changes that affect the agreement by a committee, the

formation of a committee to deal with issues relating to housing of teachers by

those districts — 17 in number — that provide housing for teachers, and the

extension of provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment to the Queen

Charlotte District Teachers Association, the one school board that was initially

not covered by this policy.

The bill

also provides that if there is a disagreement between the parties over what was

agreed upon on those three issues, then either party may refer it to an

arbitrator appointed by myself as Minister of Labour. The decision of such an

arbitrator will be final.

The

collective agreement also consolidates the multiple certifications into a single

certification in each of the province's 60 school districts. What this means is

that there were nine districts that had several agreements because of the

amalgamation that took place years earlier, and we're now bringing them all into

one. So there are 60 school districts, and there will be 60 agreements. To give

you an example, in my area there's the Lake Cowichan agreement, and there's a

Cowichan agreement, and that will be rolled into the Cowichan agreement.

To be sure

and to be correct, no teacher will receive anything less than what they're

getting today, and all teachers will receive the 7½ percent increase over three

years. This corrects a problem that has been in place for more than six years,

when school boards were amalgamated and some of the collective agreements were

not.

This bill

cleans that up, applying that agreement in each district that currently applies

to the largest number of teachers, to all teachers in the district. In my

instance, the Cowichan district agreement is the larger, so that is the

agreement that will be taken. By doing this, the bill simplifies administration

in the affected districts and gets all teachers in each district under the same

collective agreement.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill also provides me, through this ministry, with the authority

to appoint a commission to review the collective bargaining structure. As we're

aware, we have not had a negotiated settlement since prior to 1994. The

structure in place is not working. It's incumbent upon us as government to take

action to review the process as it's currently constituted and see if there's

not a way that we can develop a new process that will better allow for

negotiated settlement, so that in years ahead we're not back here having to do

this same sort of thing. Given the difficult history that we've seen, there

certainly seems to be good reason to consider undertaking such a review. This

bill makes that possible.

providing a collective agreement, this bill effectively ends the dispute, as the

Labour Relations Code prohibits any party from striking or lockout when there's

a collective agreement in place. It will help our province's schools to return

to 100 percent of their attention to the business of educating our young people.

[1115]

Everybody

would have preferred it if this legislation had not been necessary. It's always

preferable when the parties reach a negotiated settlement, but in this

situation, after ten months, with the disruption that was occurring within the

educational system and the commitment by this government to put students first,

this government has had to act. Students must come first.

I know —

and I hope the vast majority of teachers believe this — that the teachers,

like this government, put students first. That is what this bill is all about. I

look forward, with the passage and enactment of this bill, to moving ahead to

fulfil the commitment to our young people. Teachers, parents, school trustees,

administrators and this government can go back to working together in the

interests of students.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to begin my debate today with a quote that at least one of you in the

Legislature, I would imagine, and perhaps more will remember. The quote is as

follows: "You compete by recognizing that teachers should be valued members

of our community, and they're going to have to be paid." I wonder if any

member in this House recalls this statement — particularly the Premier. It was

actually a statement made by the Premier on The Bill Good Show on Monday,

December 18, 2000 — before the election — when he said he valued the

teachers and their contributions, and he recognized the importance of that value

and recognized that they need to be paid in respect.

What have

we got today? The Minister of Labour says this legislation is about education.

It's about students. If it is actually about education and students, I wonder

why the Minister of Education wouldn't actually introduce the bill instead of

the Minister of Labour.

I know this

government looks to Ontario and to Alberta as its big brothers, as the

experienced approach to dealing with members of the public and dealing with

teachers. You know, perhaps this government will also learn from the experiences

of Ontario in terms of what happened in Ontario and the purpose of their own

bill in Ontario — Bill 160. Bill 160 was introduced. People there recognized

it for what it was. It was reported in their own paper there, the Toronto

Star . This is how they summarized that bill: "Taking control away from

teachers is the essence of the government's new education bill. In this sense,

Bill 160 is not about educating children. It is about power in the workplace:

who has it? Who uses it?"

I think

this is what this bill from this government is about. It's not about looking for

ways of how we can ensure that the education system is better and that the

students' opportunities to learn are maximized but rather for this government to

gain control. That's what this bill, I think, is about.

I've heard

a lot, I guess, about some people discussing what their thoughts are about

teachers. Some of it I've heard even from members of this House. As much as

people sometimes say they value teachers, I also hear some very degrading

comments about the contributions, the commitment, the dedication of teachers.

[ Page 873 ]

[1120]

It was

interesting, because I don't normally listen too often to this show, but every

now and again I do. I relapse into just catching it to see what members of the

public might be saying through this radio station. It's actually on The Bill

Good Show. Bill Good actually read into the microphone an e-mail he had

received from a student. The subject was Teacher Survivor .

I'd like to

read this e-mail into the record, just so that from a student's perspective, we

have a different understanding perhaps of what teachers do in our school system

— not from my perspective but from a student's perspective. The e-mail reads

as follows:

"Have

you heard about the next planned Survivor show? Three businessmen and

three businesswomen will be dropped in an elementary school classroom for

six weeks. Each business person will be provided with a copy of his or her

school district's curriculum and a class of 28 students.

"Each

class will have five learning-disabled children, three with ADD, one gifted

behaviour problems. Each business person must complete lesson plans at least

three days in advance with annotations of curriculum objectivities and

modify, organize or create materials accordingly.

"They'll

be required to teach students, handle misconduct, implement technology,

document attendance, write referrals, correct homework, make bulletin

boards, compute grades, complete report cards, document benchmarks,

communicate with parents and arrange parent conferences.

"They

must also supervise recess and monitor the hallways. In addition, they'll

complete drills for fire, tornadoes and shooting attacks. They must attend

workshops for 100 hours, faculty meetings, union meetings and curriculum

development meetings. They must also tutor those students who are behind and

strive to get their two non-speaking children proficient enough to take the

Terra Nova and MEAP tests.

"If

they're sick or having a bad day, they must not let it show. Each day they

must incorporate reading, writing, math, science and social studies into the

program. They must maintain discipline and provide an educationally

stimulating environment at all times.

"The

business people will only have access to the golf course on the weekends,

but on their new salary, they will not be able to afford it anyway. There

will be no access to vendors who want to take them out for lunch, and the

lunch will be limited to 30 minutes on days when they do not have recess

duties.

"The

business person will be permitted to use the staff restrooms as long as

another Survivor candidate is supervising their class. They will be

provided with two 40-minute planning periods per week while the students are

at their specials — music, art, gym, etc. If the copier is operating, they

may make copies of necessary materials at this time.

"The

business person must continually advance their education on their own time

and pay for this advanced training themselves. This can be accomplished by

moonlighting at a second job or marrying someone with money. The winner will

be allowed to return to his or her job. Pass this on to your friends who

think teaching is easy and to the ones who know it is hard. They will both

benefit."

I thought

this e-mail, which came from a student, perhaps gives us a different insight of

what a teacher does and of the value of a teacher. All too often I hear people,

quite frankly, degrading the value, the commitment and the dedication of

teachers. When you ask the students' points of view, at least this one student

had a different point of view. Perhaps that will help us think about the

classroom situation and the environment in which teachers now work.

This debate

started out with issues around wages for teachers. Again, I know we like to

compare ourselves with other provinces, but I'll just put some facts on the

table. Contrary to what you might have heard on the news, B.C. teachers are

actually not the highest-paid in Canada. Teachers in Ontario, in Alberta, in

Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, even in Nunavut, all make more than their

colleagues in British Columbia.

[1125]

Experienced

teachers in York — that's Ontario — earn approximately $11,000 more than

their Vancouver counterparts, while experienced teachers in Edmonton and Calgary

make about $2,000 more.

In fact, I

know of a teacher who has the same level of experience and the same level of

education in his career as a teacher, and he also has a family member who works

in Ontario with the same level of university and the same years of experience in

the classroom. His relative in Ontario makes $8,000 more than he does here in

Vancouver.

On the

issue around wages, comparison with other provinces, I think, is one measure to

determine where we are at, because there is an issue around retention, and there

is an issue around attraction. I'll go more into that in a little while.

It's true

that under the former NDP government, on average in the last ten years the

teachers' salary increase was less than 1 percent. That's a fact. It's true that

they didn't get the big wage increases, because teachers agreed they would

sacrifice wage increases to ensure that class sizes are smaller for the students

in British Columbia. That is a fact, hon. Speaker.

Not only

that, I've been put on the Education Committee, and one of the privileges is

that I get to listen to citizens across British Columbia. British Columbians

have come forward and spoken to the Education Committee. I've learned through

this Education Committee that teachers in British Columbia put a lot of their

own time, commitment, dedication and heart into the job, but more than that,

even with a lower salary than their counterparts in other provinces, they put

their own financial resources into the school system to supplement the public

system in education.

On average,

a teacher puts about $1,100 a year of their own money into buying resources for

the classroom and into buying anything that would enhance the classroom's

educational experience — not for themselves, necessarily, although I know they

enjoy teaching the students and the excitement of seeing students learn. I know

they enjoy that, and that is their reward, if you will. They do that because of

the students. They

[ Page 874 ]

put in their own money to buy learning resources for the classrooms to

benefit the students.

You know,

that amount of about $1,100 a year amounts to about $45 million of their

aftertax dollars to purchase learning resources for the students in British

Columbia. I don't know how many people know that. They don't have to do that,

you see. Teachers have chosen to do that because they want to enhance the

learning experience of their students. That's why they do that. Overall some 95

percent of Canadian teachers contribute their own money for books, supplies,

food, beverages, transportation, computers, software, etc. B.C. teachers were

found to be the most generous on this count.

[1130]

One could

ask: well, if the financial rewards are so low, why would you go into the

profession of teaching? Through the Education Committee I know that other

members in the House — the member for Delta North and the member for Burnaby

North — will have remembered some of the testimonies that came forward. The

teachers said it was because they loved their jobs. They love it because they

have an opportunity to teach. They have an opportunity to see the next

generation flourish. They have an opportunity to give something of themselves

back into the classroom, back into the communities, back into our society. They

do it because they're passionate about it; they're committed to it, and they're

dedicated to the students in the classroom. That's why they do it.

Teachers'

beginning salaries. Are they competitive, as the Premier has said, and to create

a competitive environment you have to pay them? Well, let's compare that with

some other occupations in terms of what their starting salaries might be: a

dental hygienist, a therapist's starting salary — $49,800; a newspaper

reporter — $41,700; a systems analyst — $40,800; a probation officer —

even though, I guess, some of them are going to be losing their jobs —

$39,000; public school teachers in British Columbia — $37,700.

MacPhail: How about an MLA?

J. Kwan:

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings asks: "What about a beginner

MLA?" Close to $80,000.

If you look

at the teachers' starting salary, not just relative to other provinces with the

same years of experience and education, we actually rank lower than Alberta,

lower than Ontario — the two provinces that I know the Premier and this

Liberal government aspire to be. But relative to many other professions that

have either the same or even lower requirements in terms of education, their

starting salary is higher than a teacher's.

I wanted to

put this on the record, because I think it is important to set the record

straight in terms of what the salary, the wage, question is and what the facts

are surrounding it.

I'm not a

teacher, but I do recall that when I was in school, some teachers made a

difference in my life, particularly in my earlier years, because I came to this

what was going on around me when I first arrived here. You know what? It was the

teachers — the ESL teacher — and the assistance they provided to me that

helped me advance in my own classroom.

In my

senior years, when I entered into secondary school, I went through a lot of

different changes as a new immigrant in British Columbia. I recall very well one

teacher that impacted my life — and some would argue, perhaps, for better or

for worse — and made me the person I am, in some ways. I was enjoying my math

classes, actually. I really did enjoy my calculus classes. Every time there was

a problem that was presented to me, I would work through it, and sometimes I

would even challenge the teacher on his solution. I remember saying to him:

"I'm sorry, but that is wrong. Your answer is wrong." He would ask me:

"Why do you say that?" I would go through the procedures of how I

arrived at my solution. I remember my teacher scratching his head, and he went:

"Oh, gee, I think you are right."

[1135]

You know,

at the end of my high school years, I asked this particular teacher to sign my

annual, the book that documents all the activities throughout the school year.

He wrote in it: "Jenny, your persistence will get you somewhere

someday." You know what? That advice, I have to tell you, was inspirational

to me. I think that persistence is helping me and my colleague today. Look at

where we are now. What he really said to me, though, helped me challenge the

status quo. Even when sometimes people say these are the answers, they may not

necessarily be the answers. You need to look and find the facts and work through

the problem and find the answers for yourself. That's what he actually taught

me. That's what he challenged me to do in the calculus classes that I took with

him.

I know the

value of teachers, because in some ways I know they have shaped me in terms of

who I am as a person. I know the value of teachers, the special assistants, the

librarians, the ESL teachers and how much they contribute to each and every

student in the classroom — not just those who need extra help but also the

broader classroom students who are just average. I think that at some point I

did achieve the average level, if you will, within the classroom. Once I learned

and who needed that extra help. I just became a regular student like everybody

else. I know that teachers make a difference in our classrooms.

Salary

proposals. What do they mean? Will the salary proposal that has been tabled

today attract teachers to the province in a time when we know there is going to

be a looming shortage of educators in British Columbia? I learned through the

Education Committee that there is going to be a shortage of some 13,000

educators in the province in the next ten years. Will the package, the

legislation and the approach this government has taken attract teachers to

British Columbia? Will they help retain existing teachers in British Columbia?

Will people feel they're not really being valued and appreciated by government

and recognized

[ Page 875 ]

for the hard work — even though they say they do? I also learned in school

that actions speak louder than words. You can speak and fill the room with empty

words, but then you match that up with actions. Do the actions of today, the

legislation that's been tabled by the minister, actually match what he says —

that he values teachers?

I am

particularly worried for some districts that are already experiencing difficulty

in attracting and retaining teachers. There are some 39 school districts that

report they have shortages in key areas and that they anticipate further

difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers. Both the employer and the

union — because it's not just the union that says this — were cognizant of

these issues during the bargaining process. They were exploring ways of

addressing the difficulties through isolation incentives, higher starting

salaries and the like to attract and retain teachers.

You have to

ask the question: will the legislation that's been tabled today help these 39

districts attract and retain teachers in their communities? Certainly these

increases pale in comparison to the 18 percent to 32 percent increases received

by deputy ministers once the Liberal government took office. They say they

needed to increase deputy ministers' salaries by 18 percent to 32 percent

because they needed to attract and retain skilled people for the government. I

have to ask the question: why wouldn't the government use their own logic to

give deputy ministers 18 percent to 32 percent for the teachers? Why wouldn't

they do that?

[1140]

At the

Labour minister's press conference of January 25 it was vowed that no teacher

would lose salary as a result of the imposition of this bill. How can that be

rationalized with the fact that in the amalgamation scheme posed later in

section 4 — on which I'll engage in more discussion and questions in committee

stage — the elimination of nine existing contracts will see many teachers lose

salary as their collective agreement gets torn up unilaterally by this

government? That's a fact.

When that

happens, what will happen to these districts? The MLAs who are from the northern

part of British Columbia are awfully silent about this issue. I wonder if

they're going to speak up for their constituents, the students and parents in

their own communities, to ensure that there are qualified, committed, dedicated

teachers in their own communities. I wonder if they'll speak up in this House

and rise up and say that we need to make sure there are approaches to retain

teachers and attract teachers to our own communities.

The Premier

has said this is going to be a free vote — a free vote. I wonder if any MLA

from the government side will rise up and vote freely on this question.

MacPhail: We hope so.

J. Kwan:

I hope so. I'll wait and see.

Yesterday

we had our first reading vote on this issue. All of the members just got up like

trained seals and voted with the government. I wonder, on second reading and

third reading, whether or not the MLAs will get up and actually reflect the

concerns that I know have been expressed to their constituents, because their

constituents have cc'd — copied — letters to both myself and to my

colleague, the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings. I wonder if they'll get up and

represent their constituents.

The 39

districts that are faced now with difficulty in retention and attraction….

There are a number of them. I won't go through the list now. I will save that

for committee stage later on. I have to say that for the amalgamated

communities, the salary proposal will further exacerbate the differential

between salaries paid to teachers in Ontario and our own teachers in British

Columbia. Already Ontario is $11,000 ahead of British Columbia in salary paid to

their teachers, so I think there are going to be impacts on these communities.

The

minister has assured us that there would not be any wage loss for the

amalgamated teachers, but I know information to the contrary. As an example,

Burns Lake teachers will actually suffer a salary loss of some $5,000 in the

second year of the collective agreement. Now, I won't go into the details of the

bill at this point, but I just want to highlight these as some examples. I will

go into details on these issues with the minister in committee stage.

Another

issue I'm going to raise in more detail in committee stage is the issue around

the commission. If the government truly intended a meaningful examination of the

bargaining procedures and structures, then they would have appointed an

independent commissioner with equal representation from the involved parties. It

this bill and to continue to go through the terms for the next agreement. This

would have allowed the various parties to examine the issues in a calm state

that I think would pay dividends to the educational system for the future for

British Columbia. The government, of course, has refused to do that, poisoning

even further, I think, the environment for the future for students in the

classrooms. That is a shame.

[1145]

Some people

may think these arguments and views that I've presented perhaps only represent

one segment of the community — namely, the B.C. Teachers Federation — but

you know, I know that those views are not just shared by the BCTF. I know the

BCTF has been very vocal, because they're spokespersons for their teachers. I

know that other people share these views as well. I'd just like to reference a

letter to the editor that was printed on January 20 in the Times Colonist .

It was written by a grade 9 student at Dunsmuir Middle School. The title reads:

"Teachers want what's best for students."

would like to give you a little bit of insight, if I might, from the student

perspective of this ongoing job action by teachers. I'm a 15-year-old grade

9 student at Dunsmuir Middle School, where the effects of the job action are

being felt by all. I participate (did participate) in many extracurricular

activities, the majority being musical. Being without these activities has

made me

[ Page 876 ]

realize the amount of time and effort put in by teachers to

make these activities possible.

"The

teachers at Dunsmuir are kind, compassionate and caring people who are only

concerned with what is best for their students. However frustrated or even

angry we may get with the job action, we must remember that in the long run

it is for the students. Sure, there's a pay increase in the contract, but

has anyone bothered to look at what else is there? What about class size,

for example? I can't speak for other students, but I know that personally, I

would not be able to learn in a class of 40-plus students. Thirty is hard

enough.

"Will

legislating the teachers back to work make everything all better? I doubt

it. A resolution needs to be made that is fair — not just for the teachers

but for the students as well."

It's signed

by the grade 9 student. You know, in all of this dispute, even the students have

spoken up — not just by way of e-mails to talk-show hosts, to editorials.

They've actually taken action to make sure their voice is heard. On January 23

they planned, as you know, a political action on this issue, and it was widely

covered. I cite from the Vancouver Sun comments from the students:

"'We

just decided we had enough,' said Kitsilano Secondary grade 12 student Chris

Porteous, a member of the school basketball team who helped organize the

rally. 'I'm on the senior boys basketball team, and we can't play. We're

supporting our teachers, because they deserve more than what they're

getting. I understand that. But we're caught in the middle of everything,

and we want to show [the Premier] that we as students need a voice. We are

blaming the government for this.'"

[1150]

Another

student, Ben Lightburn, a 16-year-old grade 11 Kitsilano student, feels teachers

have no other choice, because the government removed their right to strike. This

removal has caused an ineffectual form of job action that affects principally

the students who participate in extracurricular activities. In short, the

students are enjoying only a very limited education. Many now have no reason to

come to school. We would rather that the students were able to fully strike, as

this would force the government to produce faster results.

Another

student from Kitsilano grade 11, Trevor Smith, transferred to the public school

system from a private school: "I am involved in drama, and we can't put on

our festival, played in February. These extracurricular activities are what

makes the school. That's why I transferred from a private school to Kitsilano.

At private school there are very few extracurricular activities."

Who

provides for the extracurricular activities in a public school system? The

teachers. They provide for these activities not because they are paid to do

that, but because they want to volunteer their time to work with students, to

enhance their other skills, to create opportunities for them to socialize, to

engage with other students, to compete in a healthy environment and, perhaps,

even to keep some of the kids off the streets, so they have an activity to go to

after school that is productive for the students and for our broader community

as a whole.

Teachers

don't have to do that. They're not paid to do that. Teachers volunteer their

time for extracurricular activities because they are committed to their students

and to our community. That's why they do it. The students have recognized that

fact. Why can't the government?

Some of the

teachers have expressed their views on the amount of time they have put into

extracurricular activities, and they question whether or not they would be able

to sustain that. I have received a letter from a teacher in North Van. I wonder

if the member for North Van will rise up in this chamber and speak up for his

constituents. Maybe the member hasn't read these letters; I don't know. Maybe

they will just disregard them. I'm going to read parts of it into the record.

It's just from a teacher's point of view.

This

teacher has taught in North Van since the early 1980s. The teacher remembered

the notion of flexibility the then government wanted to introduce to our

education system, and he remembered what such flexibility meant. He fears for

the education system and how that notion of flexibility could be abused in the

future. The teacher recognizes now that there is the introduction of a

differentiated learning that obligates teachers to follow individualized

educational plans for large numbers of students. These require the students to

be treated differently in terms of how they are taught and evaluated, and of

course, the teacher recognizes that this is time-consuming and a difficult task.

Even in a class of 30, it is a difficult task for them to have individualized

plans for every single student.

[1155]

The teacher

says: "I don't mind the hard work. I'm committed. I'm a committed teacher

and a hard-working teacher. I chose this profession because I love to

teach." The teacher then goes on to say: "I spend many volunteer hours

developing curricular resources and sponsoring student activities."

The teacher

worries that as his workload increases due to the changes relating to class size

issues and extra, non-enrolling supports that are being introduced in the next

bill, his workload is going to increase significantly. Not only is that bad for

the students but, moreover, he worries that he will have to give up his

extracurricular activity involvement for fear that he'd be stretched too thin to

fulfil his legal responsibility and mandate in the classroom. This is a teacher

from North Van — not a young teacher but an experienced teacher who has been

in the system, who has experienced several different administrations, if you

will, and understands the impacts of that.

There is

another set of facts I mentioned earlier in terms of the issue around retention

in the 39 districts. I wonder what the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine thinks

about these facts as they impact the region.

"At

a school in Telegraph Creek, by the time a grade 4 student completed his or

her five years of K-to-12 this past June, he would have had a number of

different teachers. For the past ten years this district has been unable to

hire a qualified special education teacher, even though this district

desperately needs one. Only eight out of the 34 members have taught in the

Stikine for five

[ Page 877 ]

years or more. Dease Lake School has had four principals in

the last three years and seven in the last ten. Up to 60 of the students in

any one school in our district are on an individualized educational program.

"Extracurricular

activities in our district are minimal. A recent technology and industrial

education continuing teacher position was advertised for the third time, and

only one qualified candidate was found. The average stay of teachers in the

district is just over two years. Eight out of the 12 teachers at Dease Lake

School this year were not part of the school last year. This is in the

Stikine area ? the problems that they are already facing with attraction and

retention."

With the

legislation that's being imposed by the government, you have to ask what the

impacts will be for Stikine. Will they have a better opportunity to attract more

teachers and to retain the teachers in the district so that students can benefit

from their expertise, dedication and commitment? I hope so, but I fear very much

that what the government's done today is not going to help the Stikine region

and the students there in the attraction and retention of teachers and

educators.

[1200]

Impacting

that even more, of course, is the education budget freeze that has been

announced by this government. This is from an individual from Terrace, and I

wonder what the MLA from Terrace has to say about these plans. This person says:

"Protecting education funding equals budget freeze." This means as

costs go up, which they do, services will have to be cut to maintain the funding

level. Good education requires adequate funding for the resources and services

to students. Good education requires professionals who are treated and thought

of with respect. Good education needs the goodwill of the government and the

society.

I wonder if

the people in Terrace find that the legislation being imposed by this government

is demonstrating respect to the teachers and demonstrating the goodwill of the

government towards our education system. I wonder how the government, the

Minister of Education, can show that protecting education funding would mean a

budget freeze, which effectively means about an 8 percent reduction in the

education budget when you account for things like inflation, etc. I wonder how

the minister will add up those numbers to show British Columbians that she has

met her commitment during the election on the education budget freeze.

Mr.

Speaker, I know that one MLA has actually responded to some of the constituents.

This is the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. I'm going to read into the record

three paragraphs of what he said in response to people who wrote to him and

expressed their concern. Actually, let me first read the letter he responded to

— parts of it, anyway — from his constituent. The constituent says:

expressed my concern to you on this issue" — this is regarding the

teacher bargaining issue — "when we spoke on the phone, and I stated

that essential services would inhibit teachers from attaining the contract

we were bargaining for. You replied that essential services in no way

inhibits teachers from taking job action.

took solace in those words, but now it appears those words were not

completely accurate. Now it appears that you and your government are

preparing to legislate the teachers into a settlement that would be

disastrous for teachers, students and schools. Teachers have begun job

action, but they have not inhibited the student learning environment.

"Your

government campaigned on a promise to improve education, but what does the

employer want to do? They want to do away with limits on class sizes,

guaranteed levels of support for students in special needs and guarantees of

specialist teachers like librarians, counsellors, ESL, learning assistants

and special educators. In my district, these positions are not extra. They

are desperately needed."

In his

response to the letter from his constituent, the MLA for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine says: "Government does not negotiate with teachers. The

BCPSEA does, on behalf of school districts. Government funds education. As

negotiations are underway, the collective bargaining process appears to be

working. I do not feel it is proper for me as an elected official to interfere

with that process, and I look forward to a successful resolution."

I wonder if

the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine will rise up and vote against this bill.

He said in his letter to his constituent that he believes the government's job

is to fund education. He believes the bargaining process is working, and he

doesn't want to interfere. It would not be proper for him as an elected official

to interfere with that process. Well, I ask that MLA — the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine — if he thinks imposing the legislation the Minister of

Labour brought in yesterday interferes with the bargaining process. I'd like him

to get up and respond to his constituent.

From other

people in the community in terms of what their thoughts are, these are letters

to the editor from different regions, different communities. Here's another one

from a student:

[1205]

"I'm

a grade 10 student at Woodlands Secondary. On Friday afternoon the majority

of the student body walked out in protest over the conflict between the B.C.

Teachers Federation and the B.C. government. I walked out in support of the

teachers. Everything they have taken away from us students in the job action

was a voluntary service in the first place.

"Do

you know of any other profession that volunteers up to two hours a day?

Students are frantic because they can't join their favourite sports team,

they can't continue with the extracurricular activities and clubs they love,

and they can't get extra help outside of school hours with a concept they

don't understand. This goes to show you what teachers do for us, day in and

day out, on their own time.

"If

you think you have seen chaos, just wait until the government gets their

way. The government wants to take away class-size limitations, noon-hour

supervisors — the teachers don't even get a lunch break — support for

special needs students, limitations on how many special needs students are

in each class and much more. If the public thinks this is not going to

affect their kids' education, they're 100 percent wrong. I believe it is

time the students voiced their support for the teachers and for their own

education. The teachers are doing this for us,

[ Page 878 ]

with our well-being in mind. Can you say the same for the

government?"

This is a

student from Nanaimo. I wonder if the backbench MLA from Nanaimo will get up and

respond to his constituent's letter to the editor.

Another

letter from a constituent in Nanaimo:

"As

someone who has taught in the public school system for nearly 30 years, I'm

starting this year with a great sense of loss. Over those years I've worked

with students as a teacher, a coach and a theatre director. A typical

workday has been ten hours, with many 16-hour days at the school working for

and with teenagers. In any given year, I've been known to work a number of

seven-day weeks. Yet I support the current action that calls for withdrawal

of extracurricular activities by teachers. I do not like it, but I support

it.

"Our

government is in a fiscal mess. Knowing full well that they faced contract

negotiations with those who provide services, they slashed taxes and

therefore revenue. To divert attention, they chose to portray teachers as

members of a greedy union bent on hurting the students they serve. I'm tired

of being told that I'm a grasping villain out to hurt children. I support

the withdrawal of extracurricular activities, because the public needs to

understand that the hours teachers spend with students outside of the

classroom are important and yet completely voluntary and to understand that

if the people who provide services to their children are not treated well,

they will ultimately burn out, become resentful and spend years more

offering minimal services.

would like to make it perfectly clear that right now I'm continuing to teach

my classes and teach them well. But I'm not spending any additional hours

working with the students. Furthermore, if the government imposes a contract

— as I suspect it will — that causes a deterioration in my working

conditions, as it is demanding in negotiations, I will never again offer my

services on an extracurricular basis."

This is

from a drama teacher in Nanaimo who's had 30 years of experience teaching in his

community.

[1210]

You know,

Mr. Speaker, it really saddens me when I see these letters to the editor. I've

received letters sent to me from various constituents throughout British

Columbia expressing their viewpoints and their concerns. You know what? The

theme of all of these letters speaks to the concern of teachers for their

students, students who appreciate and value their teachers and who support the

teachers on their call for change — positive change — in the educational

system, change that recognizes the importance of education by calling on the

government to fund it appropriately and not to come in with an education budget

spending freeze over the next three years.

The

minister herself had campaigned that she would protect education. The first

thing she does is introduce a funding freeze, even now, in a system where

teachers are saying they're paying some $1,100 a year out of their own pockets

to support the public education system by purchasing materials for the

classroom.

How will

the budget freeze help the students in the classrooms? How will it provide more

resources in the classrooms? I come from an inner-city school. I have visited

many of my schools. I've talked to my PACs and my students. You know what? They

scramble around just to get paper so they can copy materials for their students.

The teachers themselves buy the paper; they run off to Staples to buy a stack of

paper so they can do their job. They fear like there is no tomorrow, and I share

their fear and their concern for the students in my area and all across British

Columbia.

How will

the spending freeze on education for three years assist the students in ensuring

that they maximize their potential? I know some answers that some people may

well come up with, and they say: "Well, let's not pay the teachers the

salary and value them for their work, because if we do that, then there will be

more money for the students." But one only has to look to see the values of

the teachers and their contributions in the classroom and what that means for

the students in the long run.

I'm

interested in what the member for Kamloops thinks. Here's a constituent who's

written to their daily newspaper:

"As

a longtime teacher in this city, I would like to present another point of

view for parents, students and others to consider, about teachers

withholding extracurricular events. Extracurricular events are put on by

volunteer teachers, parents and students. Many of us put a lot of other

parts of our lives on hold to volunteer for extracurricular events. I know

that I paid a babysitter so I could put on early morning practices for

sports and go to the games in the afternoon and be able to help sponsor

dances and help with all the events the school put on. That was when I was

only working two days a week.

"Yes,

it is frustrating when something you've always had gets taken away, but

sometimes it is a chance for all parties to see it in a different way. This

might be a time to phone or talk to teachers and tell them you didn't

realize how important their volunteer contributions were and to thank them

and express the hope that they'll be able to volunteer again when this is

all settled."

This is

from a teacher from Kamloops.

[1215]

The

teachers are expressing their heartfelt views, pleading with the government to

please see them for who they are, their investments from their hearts and their

souls — longtime, experienced teachers who have dedicated their lifetime to

the students in their communities and young teachers who've just entered the

system who have a dream.

In fact, I

just met with a would-be teacher in my constituency office recently. She

expressed the excitement she felt when she found her calling — her calling

being to be a teacher in a classroom — and how excited she felt because she

was going through her student teacher period right now and how exciting it was

for her. She expressed to me how concerned she was with all of the dispute

that's going on right now — the approach the government has taken and the

attitude the government has taken towards teachers. She wondered whether or not,

after all of this, the school environment will be the same for her to teach in.

Will the colleagues she was going to be working with still be there? Will they

have left the system? They worry very much about the outcomes for the students

and the impact of

[ Page 879 ]

this legislation. What will happen to our school system?

The

teachers and the students have expressed many, many different views. I worry

about the shortages — not just from the perspective of districts, particularly

those in the northern districts, in the remote areas — in terms of attraction

and retention. We know there is a difficulty now in terms of trying to attract

more teachers in the areas of math and science. We know there is a looming

shortage that's going to be coming to our province with a potential of some

13,000 shortages in the school system for educators for British Columbia. If the

government continues on the path that I think sends the signal to teachers that

they're not being valued, that sends a confrontational approach to teachers, to

students and to parents, then what will happen tomorrow?

We know

that in Ontario the approach that's been taken has hurt the education system.

There's no doubt about that. We know that the Ontario government has taken an

approach that tries to seize power instead of focusing on the question around

students and the needs of students in the classroom and that they have created

instability in the educational system in Ontario. They've created a hostile

environment for the students and the teachers in Ontario. Is this what we want

to duplicate in British Columbia?

We know

that in Alberta there is a looming strike for teachers coming in February. The

Alberta government took the same confrontational approach in the educational

system. Ontario has done the same, and now I fear that British Columbia is

following in exactly those footsteps. We have learned nothing from Ontario or

Alberta in terms of what that confrontation means and the aftermath of that.

The Ontario

government is now talking about legislating extracurricular activities — the

volunteer time that teachers put in. We are in a new era, I know, with the new

Liberal government. Does the new era include legislating people's volunteer

time? Is the direction that Ontario has taken where we're heading with the

introduction of this bill, which I think sets the path for the future in a very

negative way?

[1220]

What I fear

more than anything else, after these bills are passed with all the trained seals

in this House on the government side, is the aftermath of the impact in the

classrooms for the students — the students who said: "That teacher

provided the extra time in uncountable hours in helping me in my school work and

in helping me participate in after-school activities, whether they be sports,

drama, music — whatever the case may be." Will they be able to count on

the teachers to be there to volunteer their time, when the government has

expressly indicated to them through their actions that they don't value the

teachers and their contributions, commitments and dedication to the students?

That's what I worry about: the aftermath, what will happen, the poisonous

environment this government is igniting in British Columbia, the poisonous

environment that we now know exists in Ontario and Alberta, where they have

taken a confrontational approach to our educators.

I would

urge the members of this House, especially the backbench MLAs — who I hope

will take some time and go through some of the letters they have received from

their constituents, whether they be from a student, a parent or a teacher — to

stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. In particular, I'd be very

interested in hearing from the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, who says he

believes the bargaining process is working and that it is not his place to

interfere with the bargaining process. Yet his own government is interfering in

the most extreme way, right now, in the Legislature. Will he get up and speak

against it? Will he vote against it? He has a free vote.

The Premier

has said it is a free vote. Exercise that free vote. Break away from being a

trained seal in this Legislature, for once. Early on in your career, establish

your independence to this government, and say no to this legislation. Say yes to

education, to students. Say yes to the dedication and commitment that teachers

bring to the classrooms and outside of the classrooms through their volunteer

time. Say yes to the teachers, who not only put their hearts and souls into

their careers but also put their own money, of their own volition, into

supplementing the educational system. Recognize them for the work they do.

Tell your

government that what is needed now, more than ever, is not confrontation but a

measured approach, a balanced approach, an approach that will say not just to

British Columbians but across the borders to the younger generation who might be

looking at being educators as their careers that the government does have the

good will to create an environment that is positive and not poisonous and

negative. Create an environment where there can be dialogue from both sides.

Create an environment where negotiation can take place on both sides, where

there is give and take on both sides, an environment where the government does

not just simply threaten because they know they have the power and control to

bring down the big hammer on people. Foster an environment that is positive for

the future generations of students in British Columbia.

[1225]

MacPhail: I was moved by the comments of my colleague from Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant. It was an unbelievably thoughtful articulation of what exactly is

happening in British Columbia today in our education system. I sat next to my

colleague nodding only because she was touching on exactly what is really

happening in our education system, both the wonderfully positive aspects and the

looming threat that our education system is facing now. Her discourse was

thoughtful — nothing but thoughtful.

I am

perhaps going to take a tiny bit of a different approach, because, of course,

this bill is really the only one of three that was properly introduced by the

Minister of Labour. It's a sham and a cover-up that the Minister of Labour is

introducing the other two, but this one is the sole property of the Minister of

Labour. There's no question about that, because it is a bill that

[ Page 880 ]

directly impacts our free collective bargaining system, and it's a bill that

directly and solely impacts bargaining for a group of tens of thousands of

dedicated professionals in this province.

I want to

take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to review what the Minister of Labour

promised us as British Columbians when he took on this issue five months ago. In

what is a very busy time, I thought it would be important that we look back

historically to make sure that we don't repeat the errors of history. When one

doesn't understand history, or doesn't examine or learn from history, one is

destined to repeat the errors of history. So says someone far more articulate

and dead than I am but, nevertheless, incredibly important.

The

legislation introduced on August 15, 2001, nearly five months ago, by the

Minister of Labour was the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act,

Bill 18. It was the piece of legislation that imposed essential services on the

bargaining regime of teachers. August 15, 2001, was near the end of the first 90

days of the new era, the glorious, halcyon days of the new era. My gosh, those

halcyon days. On August 15, 2001, the Minister of Labour, then and now and

forevermore, it would appear, got up and tabled and debated essential services

legislation.

I'm going

to have to spend a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, so that we can learn from history

to review that debate. The Minister of Labour: "The bill delivers on four

specific commitments we made to the citizens of British Columbia for labour law

reform. All of them are aimed at fostering better working relationships,

stimulating investment and job creation and treating all workers fairly."

He went on to say: "These are measured and reasonable changes that restore

balance and democracy in the workplace and ensure that we are able to provide a

strong, reliable education for our children, putting the rights of students

first."

Please

don't mistake this as debate that occurred yesterday or today. This is the

debate that occurred five months ago — the first intervention of this

government.

Well,

here's the response, so far, of the students to the Minister of Labour's wish to

put strong, reliable education and the rights of students first. This was

written yesterday. It is, I want to say, adorable, but that would be to

undermine these young students, who are clearly learning to write. Their

printing is excellent, and they're learning to write.

Here's what

they had to say yesterday: "All the people who have signed the following

petition are in full support of the teachers' strike and are against the

'Liberls'" — there's room to improve there — "of B.C. to demand

larger class sizes, fewer specialist teachers and less support for students with

special needs. Remember, we are future voters."

That was

yesterday. These students are young enough to be at the stage where they're just

learning to print. I wonder what the Minister of Labour feels about his success

of prediction five months ago.

[1230]

To carry

on, five months ago, the Minister of Labour: "We're saying that their

school year can't be impacted, that the students should be in the classroom,

that the learning should continue even in the face of a potential lockout or

strike. I think that's fairly clear and fairly strongly stated."

To the

Minister of Labour: what's changed? The children are in their classroom. There

hasn't been a strike; there hasn't been a lockout.

Again, the

Minister of Labour: "By this legislation, what we are doing is letting the

Labour Relations Board determine, on a case-by-case basis, what is essential.

It's very clear; it's not confusing. That's what we're doing." What's

changed? The Labour Relations Board is doing that. They're doing it this weekend

in determining what was to be the successful legislation of the Minister of

Labour.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

I'm

carrying on, again from the Minister of Labour. "We're not pinpointing and

telling the Labour Relations Board: 'Thou shalt do bing, bing, bing….'"

I'm sure the Minister of Labour knew exactly what he was talking about when he

said that.

"We're

very clear. We're going to allow the Labour Relations Board, through this

legislation, to make the determination over time, as they had done in

health." What's changed? The Labour Relations Board is doing that.

The

Minister of Labour to either my colleague or me: "The hon. member

presupposes that we're going to have an escalation of labour unrest in this

province. I don't actually believe that's going to be the case. It is not a

question of us coming along and taking away their right to strike, putting in

binding arbitration." Well, you got that right. "We're saying: 'No. We

still believe in a negotiated settlement between the parties.'" That wasn't

my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. That wasn't me saying that; that

was the Minister of Labour saying that five months ago.

In the last

five months, what have the teachers done? What have the hard-working, dedicated

teachers done, that my colleague so ably profiled? They followed the letter of

the law. They didn't want the essential services legislation. Teachers predicted

it wouldn't work and it would prolong confrontation in this province, but what

did they do? They followed the letter of the law — not once, not twice, not

three times but four times. Four times they went to the LRB, and they have

followed the letter of that law from August 15, 2001, that the Minister of

Labour said would bring about a freely negotiated settlement. He predicted it.

Unless the

government would like to stand up…. Perhaps the minister has information on

where the teachers broke the law. Perhaps he could stand up and say why he was

right and the teachers were wrong to abide by the piece of legislation this

government brought in.

You know,

it's very interesting that there are members of this government — not

everybody, by any stretch of the imagination — that want to cast their eyes

back and say: "Big, bad bogeyman from the past.

[ Page 881 ]

We had to do it. The big, bad bogeyman from the past made us do this."

You know

what? In this particular situation, it is only the Liberal members who have to

look to themselves. This collective agreement expired on June 30, 2001. We were

well into the first 90 days of the new era. The collective agreement expired on

June 30, 2001, so the past bogeyman is gone. I'm sorry. That dispels; that

disappears. The past bogeyman is gone. The Liberals have full responsibility for

this situation. We'll deal with the other historical moments, perhaps, later on,

but this one is the making of this Liberal government and particularly that

Minister of Labour.

The

collective agreement expired on June 30, and six weeks later the Minister of

Labour stood up and said: "I have a solution, and we campaigned on this

solution. The voters gave us an overwhelming mandate to bring in essential

services legislation, because we explained to them how it was going to work. I

am here, Mr. Speaker" — hallelujah! — "to tell you that I have the

solution." So said the Minister of Labour.

[1235]

Well, here we

are, five months later, looking at another failure of the Liberal government in

its new era. Let me continue to quote from five months ago. I think I'll quote

myself now ? that will be a treat ? because I was the one who engaged in the

dialogue with the Minister of Labour, and frankly, it was not a confrontational

dialogue. I remember being very concerned at the time — very concerned. It was

August 15. The school year had not started. People were still on vacation around

the province — parents and kids. Teachers were preparing for the return to

school, so I was concerned, but I was determined not to overreact.

I did ask

and suggest to the Minister of Labour at the time: "The legal right to

strike under essential services provisions was immediately outlawed by this

government when it was legally complied with by nurses and health

professionals" — because, of course, when the Minister of Labour stood up

on August 15 and brought in this piece of legislation, he had already ordered an

imposed settlement on nurses and health care professionals. He had already done

that, and they had been subject to essential services legislation and were

complying with it. It hadn't worked. So said he. He had to bring in the heavy

arm of his legislation.

Then I went

on to ask the Minister of Labour: "So why should teachers and education

support workers believe that they will actually get the right to undertake job

action under new essential services legislation, when, in fact, we know that the

Liberal government couldn't even live within the law of the land of decade-old

legislation that applied to health care workers that had worked

effectively?" I carried on, and I asked, "Why doesn't this government

just admit its true, extreme agenda, that they're banning the right to strike in

the public sector and that they want to end free collective bargaining?"

I went on

to predict that this is going to be a huge burden on the Labour Relations Board.

Lawyers will benefit. There's no question that lawyers will benefit because

there will be lots and lots of time spent at the Labour Relations Board

determining essential services. That proved to be true. In fact, they're there.

The lawyers are preparing as we speak — lawyers for the teachers, for the

government, for school boards, for the Public Sector Employers Council. Lawyers

are thriving as a result of this government.

I said that

there's no guide to essential services. We don't have any guide on this, because

this government, once again, made a promise not based on anything to do with

reality but made a promise. What I said was: "They're delivering. They have

no idea how it's going to work, but they're delivering."

Yes, it's

true. There is a ton of work for lawyers, but do you know what? The Labour

Relations Board took the government at its word. The Labour Relations Board, an

independent tribunal, took their job seriously — thank God for independent

tribunals ? and they've worked their way through this several times. But that

wasn't enough for the government to live within its own legislation. No, no.

Here we are today. I guess the government's admitting failure, because nothing's

changed from the debate we had on August 15. Nothing has changed, except the

government admitting its own failure. That's what they're doing.

Again, this

is what I said at the time: "The member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the

Premier, said that essential services law would 'protect workers' right to

strike while ensuring students are safely able to access school and classroom

services throughout the collective bargaining process.'" What has changed?

[1240]

One thing

has changed about that, because the teachers have been in the classroom

teaching. There have been walkouts by students. You're right. It is the first

time in the history, I believe, of this province that 13-year-olds,

14-year-olds, 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds have had to march down to the

Premier's office and say: "Enough is enough, Mr. Premier. Give our teachers

what they are asking." That's true, but it wasn't the teachers telling the

children to leave their classrooms. It's true: 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds,

16-year-olds and 17-year-olds did march down to the Deputy Premier's office to

say: "Enough is enough. Support the teachers." But the teachers were

in the classroom teaching.

I said:

"Every time this minister has stood in the House and predicted that free

collective bargaining would prevail and that a freely negotiated settlement

would be reached, given the context of the heavy hand of their laws, he's been

wrong." Today he is wrong once again. His law failed. It's what they

campaigned on, so say they. It's the only thing they campaigned on, and they

failed.

Predictions

by the opposition in that period in mid-August, when many of us weren't fully

focused on what was going to happen, were predictions that were made in the dead

heat of the summer. "Why doesn't the government just admit to its extreme

agenda — that they're banning the right to strike in the public sector and

that they want an end to free collective bargaining? Why don't they just stand

up and admit to that?"

[ Page 882 ]

"That

is the next shoe to drop — Labour Relations Board user fees — because this

government is adding such chaos to the labour relations system that they don't

have any money to actually provide the services." Oh, well, that turned out

to be true. Yes. Black Thursday announced that the government had put such

pressure on the Labour Relations Board, created such chaos there, that they no

longer could sustain an independent tribunal and were imposing user fees. Well,

that turned out to be true.

Another

prediction: "The turmoil that will be created in the education system is

coming from this Liberal government, just the same way that the turmoil and

chaos in the health care system came from this Liberal government as well."

That turned out to be true. I don't think there's a bogeyman that the Minister

of Labour, on this legislation, can stand up and find, other than himself and

his government.

Another

prediction: "I think that now it's probably safe to say that the Liberal

government is setting the stage for more confrontation instead of cooperation

with teachers. That's the same as it did with nurses and health sciences

professionals." I'd say that that was a prediction that has come true.

There is more confrontation. Cooperation is at risk. Our kids' education is at

risk.

Again,

another prediction: "Every time this minister has stood in the House and

predicted that free collective bargaining would prevail and that a freely

negotiated settlement would be reached, given the context of the heavy hand of

their laws, he's been wrong." Remember this: it was August 15.

"While

I appreciate that he's predicting once again that everything will go fine, his

record of prediction is abysmal. I predict that the minister's record of

forecasting that collective bargaining will prevail and that there won't be

labour disruption is wrong. He's put everything in place to ensure that his

prediction is wrong" — August 15, 2001.

I am sad,

I'm distraught, to say that there will be labour disruption. I expect that on

Monday there will be labour disruption. It wasn't labour disruption that was a

given. It wasn't. Our children will be without their teachers because of the

actions of this government over the course of the last 24 hours — no other

reason.

[1245]

That has to

be at the feet of this Liberal cabinet. I'm not even going to say it has to be

at the feet of the Liberal caucus. I expect that over the course of the last 24

hours, good Liberal MLAs who have talked to their communities understand how

upset teachers are, understand how teachers are crying in their classrooms and

in their staff rooms and how principals are distraught. While they may have got

what they wished for, they, too, had no understanding of the impact it would

have in the support, in the staff room and in the classrooms and on their

students.

I'm going

to make a couple more predictions for the Minister of Labour. It has to do with

this commission that the Minister of Labour is setting up. I am predicting

another impending failure by the Minister of Labour. Look at the language in

this collective agreement. Actually, it is a collective agreement, but

theoretically it's a bill we're debating.

If you look

at the language under

section 5, "Review of collective bargaining

structures, practices and procedures," again, it's a poorly written, poorly

thought-out sop, hoping that it will cover over, mask what this government's

record really is on labour relations and collective bargaining. It sets up a

commission to review the bargaining structure. I think it applies just to

teachers. Yeah, it's specific to the BCTF. Well, my gosh, I think we've got

other people working in the education system, but there we have the government

going after putting in place a half-cocked, half-thought-out commission that

applies to a small sector of our education system.

I don't see

any time frame in this commission for resolution. I don't see any thoughtful,

independent approach to the commission. I don't see any avenue for public input.

Certainly the stakeholders, those special interest groups that this government

so abhors, are well represented. They're all covered, but there's no input for

the rest of us who are affected by bargaining in this province.

I think the

question I have for the Minister of Labour is: how many times do British

Columbians have to be guinea pigs for his failures? How many times do we have to

go through being a little experiment for his failures in bringing about labour

peace in this province?

I expect

there will be huge, continuing anxiety directly as a result of this commission

because of the way it's been set up. I expect that teachers, rather than feeling

like the matters have been put to rest for at least a few months and maybe a

couple of years, will feel nothing but anxiety around this commission — a

commission, yes. Absolutely. Have at it. Better you keep trying, with failure

after failure. Better you keep trying to get it right, but this isn't getting it

right.

I expect

there is huge anxiety in the Liberal caucus as well. How can there not be? How

can there not be anxiety? How can there not be anxiety in the communities where

there will be an imposition of terms but also a whole change in the entire

nature of their collective agreement, the amalgamation of collective agreements?

How can there not be anxiety there?

[1250]

Mr.

Speaker, this is the time when we get to debate the principles of this

legislation, and I would suggest that British Columbians are tired and

exhausted. Only eight months into the new era, British Columbians are tired of

having to redo Liberal principles of legislation. I hope that there is political

will, heartfelt will, community-based will from enough of us who sit in this

chamber and that there is enough compassion and understanding for the path we

are now being put on that people will rise in this chamber in great enough

numbers to say no to this legislation.

Hon. C.

Clark: I do just want to speak briefly to this. I don't want to drag out the

debate, certainly, because it's important that we end this dispute and get

education back to normal as soon as we can for children in British Columbia.

This government takes our commitment to students very, very seriously, and we

[ Page 883 ]

want to make sure their education is normalized as quickly as we possibly

can.

I don't

want to go on too long to drag out the debate, but I do want to respond to a

couple of comments that some of the members opposite have made and make a few

points about where I as Minister of Education think we should be heading in the

system over the next several — many — years.

First, the

member opposite has taken us on a bit of a tour of history. I hear her saying

she doesn't think we should be legislating workers back to school. As a matter

of principle, she doesn't think we should be forcing collective agreements on

people who are working in schools. You know what this member did when she said

that? You know what she did?

Interjection.

Hon. C.

Clark: She did that five times as a member of this House. Five times her

government legislated people back to work in schools, and the reason they did

that…. I mean, she can have that principle if she likes. Certainly each of us

in this House has the right to be able to stand on principle, but it's important

that we point out, too, when those principles for certain members have changed.

The second

thing I would point out is this: I do hear the other member opposite arguing

that she doesn't think a 7½ percent raise is enough. Certainly we are in very,

very tight fiscal times. There is no question about that. The decision to give

teachers a 7½ percent raise wasn't an easy one to come to. Certainly that's not

happening across the public and private sectors in our province today.

Interjection.

Hon. C.

Clark: I hear her standing up and saying she thinks teachers should get more

money. Again, that can certainly be her position. It can certainly be her right

to take that as a matter of principle, and I respect that. However, I do want to

point out for the House that those members — in fact, the Leader of the

Opposition today — sat on Treasury Board that set the fiscal mandate that we

are living within today…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C.

Clark: …in legislating this agreement. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I do want

to point out that the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition, who I

believe was on Treasury Board at the time, set the fiscal mandate that this

government is living within as we legislate this agreement. The member opposite

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant can certainly argue, if it's her position today,

that she thinks 7½ percent isn't enough. Then that could be her position as a

matter of principle.

I do think

it's important that everyone in the House recognize that's a principle that has

changed very recently, because when the members were in government, they set

this as the fiscal mandate. We are certainly living within that — something

that was set by them when they were on Treasury Board. I just wanted to point

that out to the House, so no one here is operating under any misapprehensions

about the history of where we've been with collective agreements in B.C.

Another

thing I'd like to touch on is this: when I hear the members opposite speak, I

hear an implication in their comments that somehow, members of the government

— be that me as Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour or other

members of this House — don't hold teachers in the same esteem that they do.

You know

what? Members on this side of the House know that teachers work hard. You're

darn right that teachers work hard. Teachers work hard because they care about

the kids in their classrooms. I know that, and every member of this House knows

that. Every member of this House who has a child in school knows that. Every

member of this House who is maybe married to or related to a teacher and every

member of this House, like myself, who was raised by a teacher, knows that

teachers work hard and are dedicated to kids. They care about children. That's

why people go into the profession. We all understand that in this House.

With this

legislation, we've tried to find a balanced approach. We've said, you know, that

we are facing a very tough fiscal environment, but we know how hard teachers

work. Despite the fiscal challenges we face, we are still going to put a 7½

percent raise for teachers in this collective agreement, and that's saying

something. I think about the commitment that every member of this House has to

teachers and the belief that each of us holds very dearly: teachers do work

hard. There is no question about that.

[1255]

I truly

believe that this is a very balanced piece of legislation. I know that when

individual teachers have an opportunity to sit down and look at the impact of

the legislation that's coming this weekend — on their classrooms, on their

students and on their jobs day to day — they, too, will recognize that this is

a balanced approach. We are not legislating here the employer's last offer. This

legislation provides for a raise every year for every single teacher in the

province. And that's important, because every teacher in this province is

important.

It's not,

today, what the union was asking for. As I said, it's not what the employer was

asking for, but it isn't the role of government to play favourites. It's the

role of government to decide on a policy direction, and it's the role of the

Ministry of Education to decide what would be good for children in our schools.

That's what we've attempted to do today with this legislation.

We are not

here to take sides, to be held captive by one interest group or another. If

there is an interest group whose interest will drive us, that interest group is

children. Children are the people who depend on our education system to work for

them every day. There isn't a single child in British Columbia who's going to

[ Page 884 ]

get another crack at grade 3 or grade 4 or grade 5, so every single one of

those years is important to them.

With this

legislation, what we are attempting to do is to end this labour dispute, to say

that we want our schools to go back to normal as quickly as they can, because

that's important for children. We've tried to take a balanced approach to the

legislation so that neither side can say: "We got everything we

wanted." We tried to take a balanced approach to the legislation so that on

Monday — should this legislation be passed in the House — when all the

parties have a chance to look at it, they can look at it and say: "Well,

you know what? I didn't get what I wanted, but I still think it's fair."

That's the only way we will get things back to normal for children in our

schools, and that has to be our focus, as members of this House: what is good

for children.

I know

teachers care about children. I know the Leader of the Opposition cares about

children. I know that every member of this House cares about children. What we

are attempting to do today with this legislation is to put children back at the

centre of our education agenda, because that is certainly where they belong.

Deputy

Speaker: Closing debate on Bill 27.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I would just like to make a couple of quick points and then conclude

the debate on this bill.

I think

it's important, when we take into consideration the fact that this House is

imposing a settlement, that we understand how people and parties that are in a

negotiating process feel about that. This is not something that I cherish, as a

Minister of Labour, to undertake. It's been very clear that the parties were

bound. There was no way that they were going to be able to find an avenue in

which they could reach a negotiated settlement. It's also been very clear…. I

think it's instructive to look at history, as the member opposite was doing, to

look at how many times there hasn't been a negotiated settlement with these two

parties. Look at the last ten years. I know we don't want to go back and hunt

out the bogeymen, and I don't want to make this political, as difficult as it is

in this chamber not to. But unfortunately, those bogeymen continue to haunt us

as a new government, and the damage done over the past ten years is extensive.

It won't simply be in a quick little fix of seven months that we'll be able to

wipe out that bogeyman, as much as both members across the way would like us to

do so.

The fact of

the matter is that we had a situation where both parties actually had ten months

of negotiation that encompassed two governments, and there was no movement. In

fact, a series of negotiations that impacted two governments, ten months and the

initial mandate that had been presented by the former NDP government weren't

going anywhere, and we had the situation, as we're faced with today, where

government had to act. That's what we're doing.

[1300]

The member

opposite mentioned concerns about how much a teacher or teachers would get and

mentioned a specific example at Burns Lake. I would hope that she would give me

that example prior to us getting into third reading, because I would like to

assure all of those teachers throughout the entire province that every teacher

— every teacher — will get a raise. Every teacher will receive the 7½

percent over three years. If the member opposite has that information, I'd be

pleased to receive that and make sure that I can allay her concerns.

These are

difficult times, and the worst thing you can do is to go out and create the

uncertainty that the members across here are, in espousing different articles

that have no basis in fact. This bill is meant to resolve this issue and to put

in place a collective agreement in which the teachers that are being represented

here in this bill will receive that 7½ percent increase over three years.

I move that

the bill now be read a second time.

[1305]

Second

reading of Bill 27 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 70

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Hon. G.

Collins: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you yourself were

recorded as voting in….

An Hon.

Member: They corrected it.

Hon. G.

Collins: Did you correct it? I'm sorry; I missed that.

Deputy

Speaker: He corrected it, thank you.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 885 ]

Bill 27,

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the House stand recessed until 1:45 p.m.

Motion

approved.

The House

recessed from 1:08 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 28.

PUBLIC EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY

AND CHOICE ACT

(second reading)

Hon.

G. Bruce: I move that the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act be

read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill helps government restore sound fiscal management by

increasing operating flexibility in our K-to-12 — kindergarten-to-grade-12 —

and college and institute systems.

This bill

is intended to put students first by giving the local school boards and the

college boards the flexibility they need to effectively manage British

Columbia's K-to-12 education system and our province's public colleges and

institutes. It's about getting collective bargaining in education away from

setting education policy and back to focusing on wages and benefits. But most of

all, this bill is about putting students first and about making the tough

changes that need to be made to continue putting students first in the face of a

difficult fiscal environment.

This bill,

most importantly, enshrines the kindergarten-to-grade-12 class size through

legislation in the School Act. We'll be one of the few jurisdictions in Canada

that does that.

It's also

about giving school boards and college boards more flexibility to manage class

sizes and the composition of those classes. It takes the question of how many

non-classroom educators — people such as counsellors and librarians — there

should be in each school and removes rigid ratios that were imposed by the

previous government on school boards. This now allows school boards and

individual schools to make their own decisions on how best to meet students'

needs. It takes decisions on how the school day and the school year will be

structured, removing those from the bargaining table and returning those

decisions to local school boards, as well as to college and institute boards so

that decisions can be made that are in the best interests of all of our

students.

These

changes provide local, elected school boards and college boards with the

flexibility they need to make better use of the facilities and the human

resources to place students' needs ahead of rigid imposed ratios and formulas.

The bill puts students first by providing significantly more flexibility to our

public education system.

[1350]

In the area

of class size, this bill says that class sizes — and we as a government say

this — are too important to students to be left as a bargaining chip between

the BCTF and employers. This government supports class size limits in our

K-to-12 system, and that's why we're placing these limits in legislation into

the School Act.

At the same

time, we're increasing the flexibility on how class size limits are implemented

so that we can protect students and their families from the ridiculous

situations that have been common across our province over the last few

Septembers — that adjusting period — when common sense hasn't always applied

with respect to the student. I'm talking about situations like the busing of

five-year-olds 45 minutes each way in the North Okanagan-Shuswap school district

because rigid class size limits left them without a place at their closest

school. I'm talking about situations like that faced by a Saanich first nations

student, who was in the catchment area of a school that has a first nations

program. That particular student was forced to attend a different school — one

that did not have a first nations resource program — because of inflexible

class limits.

Under this

bill, class sizes are off the bargaining table, and they are entrenched in

legislation in the School Act. The average class size across the district will

be limited to 19 for kindergarten, 21 for grades 1 through 3 and 30 for grades 4

through 12. In addition, and importantly, an absolute upper limit for any

individual class size will be established for kindergarten. The kindergarten

class size is 22 students, and at grades 1 through 3 it's 24 students. That's

the specific class size.

This bill

will ensure that our public colleges, university colleges and universities will

have the right to determine class sizes — how many students can be enrolled

and how many students an instructor may be assigned. By giving these

institutions and local, elected school boards more flexibility, we are making

clear that contracts are not where these decisions should be made. The

well-being of students is far too important to be left as a bargaining chip.

In the area

of non-classroom educators, such as our librarians, counsellors and others,

again says that education decisions should be driven by student needs, parent

concerns and local priorities, not by rigid, provincially imposed ratios that

have been negotiated and bargained. Nowhere else in Canada are these educators

assigned by a rigid, formula-driven process, and there's a reason for that. It

prevents local school boards and individual schools from matching teaching

resources with student needs. The previous government rammed these formulas into

place after the employers themselves voted 86 percent against them.

This bill

allows school districts to decide the appropriate number of non-classroom

educators in each school, so that if more counsellors and fewer librarians

[ Page 886 ]

are needed they can make that change. If it's the opposite, and we need more

librarians in that particular area and fewer counsellors, then that can happen

— reasonable, rational and putting students first. The needs of students

should be the deciding factor.

restoring management flexibility, we are restoring good sense to the system.

We're removing difficult issues that are really more properly public policy

issues from the bargaining table. The same is true about the decisions in

respect to the school year and the school day. By removing these issues from the

collective bargaining process, we are giving school districts, colleges and

institutes the ability to make the best possible use of their resources and

their institutions, in mind of what's best for students.

[1355]

Locally

elected school boards. Locally elected school boards will now be able to listen

to parents, students and educators and then decide for themselves on how to make

the best possible use of the facilities and their staff. If it makes sense

through discussion that a school should operate on extended hours so that

students have more flexibility and expensive facilities are in use for more

hours of the day, then school boards will be able to make that change. If a

school board decides after consultation with affected parents that facilities

should be used more efficiently and effectively by adopting a different school

calendar, then they will have the flexibility to do that as well.

The same

goes for colleges and institutes, which may see value in offering courses for 12

months of the year and should have the flexibility to do that if it's good for

their students. Under this bill they will have the flexibility, and they will

also have the flexibility to offer additional courses through distance education

if they decide that's the best way to meet the students' needs.

These

decisions should be made in the interests of all of our students. That is the

test of this bill — the aspect of putting students first. They should be open,

they should be up to our post-secondary institutions, and they should not be

bargaining chips at the table. This bill achieves those goals.

The bill is

called the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act because that's what it's

all about — flexibility and choice for local elected school boards, schools

and teachers, colleges and institutes and instructors and, most importantly,

students and their parents. School boards and colleges need more flexibility to

adjust to changing students' needs over time and varying needs from one district

to another, from one school to another. They need more flexibility to make

better use of our schools and colleges, those facilities which are expensive,

which have the potential to provide increased educational opportunities while

reducing the need to build additional facilities.

This bill

reverses some of the damage that was done by the previous government, and it

allows us to take a big step in fulfilling our new-era commitments to more

flexibility and choice in education and, most importantly, putting students

first. I am pleased that this bill delivers on our commitment to do just that,

in putting students first, and that it provides the increased flexibility and

choice as we promised before the election.

These are

significant changes, but they are good changes. They will provide colleges and

institutes and school boards, individual schools and teachers, and students and

their families with a better-managed system. They allow us to return the focus

of labour relations in the education sector to where it belongs: on salaries and

benefits. They show that this government values the contribution of educators as

educators and values their input in developing good public policy decisions —

good public policy decisions, Mr. Speaker, that put students first.

J. Kwan:

I rise to speak to this bill, as it is critical to the education and future of

our students. One of the main issues, of course, that has been discussed broadly

in the community amongst teachers, students and parents, is around the issue of

class size. I know that throughout the round of bargaining, the B.C. Public

School Employers Association has made numerous demands to take education

backwards 20 years. They want to remove the limits on class size. They want to

eliminate the guarantee of services to students with special needs and end the

guarantee of services from specialist teachers such as teacher-librarians, ESL

teachers, counsellors and learning assistance teachers.

[1400]

Let me

first address the issue of why class size must be maintained and improved.

Studies have repeatedly shown that smaller class size helps the students to

learn. It enhances their educational outcome. There's no dispute about that. In

fact, I know that the member for Delta was formerly a principal, an educator,

before he become involved as a politician. I asked him the question: what is the

optimal class size for children to learn? You're an educator; you know the

field. He replied: "Fifteen or 16 students." That is the optimal

number, from all of the research that he has seen to indicate the best class

size for learning outcomes for students. Studies have repeatedly shown that

smaller class size results in improved student learning. I don't believe there

is dispute about that.

The B.C.

public schools currently rank, I think, among the third-best in the world —

not the best but the third-best. That is something that I know the educators in

our system are very proud of, and parents are very proud of it. I also know that

we need to strive towards even better outcomes. I don't think anybody disputes

that. I know the teachers don't dispute that, students don't dispute that, and

parents don't dispute that. They all want the students, the young people, to

have a better future, better opportunities — the opportunity to maximize their

potential in whatever field they choose to engage in. How do we enhance that? We

all know that education impacts the outcomes for young people. We know that.

Representing

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I come from where we have the poorest communities in

all of Canada. We have a postal code that begins with V6A. I know advertisers

don't even bother sending their junk

[ Page 887 ]

mail to our community, because there's no sense. For these families, these

students, the opportunities for the future are limited in many ways. Many of the

students have many challenges in their lives. They experience tremendous,

tremendous traumas.

The one

place where they go, where they can get some support to help them move forward,

is the school system. They go there to get food. Children are hungry, especially

those who live in poverty. They're hungry. They go to their school to get food.

Many of

them do not enter the school system on the same level playing field as other

students and children who are not faced with the socioeconomic difficulties of

their families. They don't enter the school on the same level playing field.

Some of them enter the schools with many needs, great needs, special needs for

special attention, special assistance from the teachers — from the

teacher-librarians, from the ESL specialist teachers, from the teacher aides —

to help them advance in their little lives so that they, too, have opportunities

like those who are not faced with those barriers in life.

[1405]

You know

what? Limiting the class size will not help these students — by lifting the

ratio across British Columbia, saying that at least as a minimum you must have

some sort of ratio to ensure that these children, too, have an opportunity for

their future, to make sure that there is that level of protection, a level of

guarantee for those children.

This

legislation takes away that guarantee, takes away the commitment that says no

matter what your background or barriers are, we as a government will be there

for you, in the minimum, as a guarantee that there would be special needs

assistance support for your children and that for you, as a student, there would

I mentioned

earlier today that I was an ESL student. I know that members of the House will

notice from time to time that I may mispronounce a word or use the wrong

grammar. Yes, it's my ESL background. I remember well those early years when we

first came, my family and I ? a family of eight, a modest family, really. I come

from a traditional family. In Hong Kong my mother took care of six kids. She was

essentially a housewife. My father ran a small business. He was a tailor. He's

retired now and losing his bus pass. He's a tailor by trade. He ran a small

business in Hong Kong, making suits for his customers.

My parents

made a decision to immigrate to Canada for no other reason but their children.

They left the place they were familiar with and came to a new land. They

couldn't speak the language and didn't have a high level of education. My mother

has a grade 6 education from China. That's where she was born. My father has a

grade 11 education. He was a little bit more educated that my mom — not much

more, though.

It was

their dream to make sure their children had an opportunity for education, better

education than they received from China. For the first time, opportunities were

afforded to me, my brothers and my sisters to have post-secondary education in

the public system. In Hong Kong, you see, it was a private system — it's true,

with no limitations on class size, but very expensive because my parents had to

pay for the children to go to private school. I tell you, on the modest income

from my dad, only a few of the six children actually had the best education they

could afford. The other three were sacrificed.

It was at

that point that my parents decided they would move and take the family so that

all of their children would have an opportunity for a better future. I was one

of the lucky siblings. I was one of the younger ones in my family of six

children. My mother proudly watched me graduate from post-secondary education.

from my neighbours. Actually, three-year-old and four-year-old kids in my

speak Chinese ? mostly food words, though. That was the opportunity, you see,

with respect to the education system — a public education system that afforded

me and my family that opportunity.

[1410]

I now look

to the children today, with the future they face, the environment in their

classroom with the lifting of the class size ? the older grades, too, not just

K-to-3 — and particularly to children who are faced with barriers. What will

happen to them? Even the basic guarantees that were in place, that were

negotiated by the various districts on their own, even those basic guarantees

for the non-enrolling teachers are now gone.

I don't

know. I wonder what my colleagues, the government MLAs, would say to those

children and their families who are struggling and who cannot afford to hire a

private tutor, a special assistant to ensure that their children, too, have an

opportunity for the future to be independent, to be happy and to be contributing

in our system, in our society and in our communities. I wonder what you would

say to them.

I know that

the minister will perhaps say: "Well, we create a flexibility, you see. The

district can now just, you know, decide where they would allocate their money,

because there's flexibility now. So don't worry." It's okay, the Minister

of Education says. "I'll keep an eye on it. They'll report back. Don't

worry about that."

Well, I

wonder if the minister received a stack of letters. These are only some of them.

I didn't bother bringing them all up here, because there are too many. These are

some of the letters I have received about the need for special needs assistants

in classes, for teacher-librarians, for counsellors, for ESL students to help

students in the classroom so that they can have the opportunity to advance.

These are letters from teachers to the districts, who plead with their hearts

ripped wide open, saying to them that the limitations of the allocations even as

they exist now are not enough to help the teachers.

I remember

this, and I'm sure that the members for Victoria, for Vancouver and for Delta

who were on the Education Committee remember teachers who came up

[ Page 888 ]

and said: "I do not know how to choose which student deserves the

special needs assistant, given the limited allocation that's given to them

now." They do not know how to choose and say to this student: "Yes,

you deserve more assistance than that student." That's what they said to

us. They said: "Please, do not make us choose, to say which child is more

deserving and which one is not."

You know

what? This piece of legislation sets that right up because it takes away the

basic minimal guarantee of those protections. Districts will have to choose and

teachers will have to choose who is deserving and who's less deserving. I dare

any member in this House to rise up and say: "You deserve more." I'll

bet nobody will rise up to say that. Nobody will have the gumption to say that.

Yet this is the piece of legislation that sets that right up. It sets it right

up, Mr. Speaker.

I want to

take a moment to tell this story. In fact, I'm going to tell this story right

from the very words of the parent who came to the Education Committee and spoke,

I think, very eloquently to outline his story. I met with him personally in

Vancouver and heard what he's faced with on the issue around special needs.

[1415]

I want to

share this with the members of the House. I think if people hear this story,

they will get a better understanding of the need to ensure there is support in

the area of special needs for the children of British Columbia and to ensure

that the minimum protection, the minimum guarantees, are not done away with. I

hope that with this letter I can change some MLAs' minds. Maybe they, too, can

find a heart and understand the pain that parents go through when they're

struggling with this issue.

This is

from a Michael Parker:

"My

daughter, Callan, has Down syndrome. She is eight years old and in grade 3

at Tyee Elementary School, along with her five-year-old little brother,

Aidan. While Callan is taller, they both weigh in just under 40 pounds.

There's a bit of rivalry going on right now to see who's going to get over

the 40-pound mark, because regardless of their age, according to Transport

Canada they both need a car seat so long as each weighs less than 40 pounds.

That means full support by way of a car seat, not half of the time but all

of the time until they are big enough to ride independently.

"My

wife and I feel fortunate to live in a society that claims to promote and

support the inclusion of those with special needs. Prior to entering

kindergarten, my daughter was assessed by Vancouver school board

psychologists to determine her needs within the school system. Her very

detailed assessment concludes as follows: 'In order to experience success at

the school, in classroom and with peers, Callan will require continued

support from the district resource teacher, the classroom teacher and,

specifically, the classroom assistant.' From kindergarten through grade 2,

Callan has had and has benefited greatly from the support of the special

education assistant. On the last week of Callan's grade 2 year, we were

informed out of the blue that entering grade 3, time for Callan's special

education assistant would be slashed in half.

"Callan

is a confident, pleasant child who charms all those who know her. She is not

disruptive in the least. Her favourite play activities are play cooking and

teaching. She will sit for hours mimicking her most admired professional —

a teacher. When she grows up, she has told me, she would like to be a

teacher. Because inclusion is practised in our society, her dream may come

true.

"The

children that she is integrated with know her well. They are aware of her

abilities and her weaknesses. They are aware that their society includes and

values all. Her class is incredibly supportive and accepting of her. Few

classmates think of her as 'that kid with special needs.' Most accept her

for who she is: Callan.

"One

day her peers will be employers. For Callan, a big payoff for integration

will be made when these future employers look for opportunities within their

organizations to include the skills of those with special needs. I hope I

have all of your attention.

"Did

I mention that Callan's support has been slashed in half? With no

consultation with her parents, teachers, special education assistant,

resource teacher, psychologist — indeed, with any of those who know her,

live with her or educate her — it was determined that beginning in grade

3, her classroom would only have the benefit of a special education

assistant for 50 percent of the time. Needless to say, those who know her,

live with her and educate her were, and continue to be, outraged.

"I've

sent letters of complaint to the school board and to the ministry. The

Vancouver school board's response includes the following: 'The current

allocation we receive from the Ministry of Education to provide these

services does not at the present time cover our costs due to the high number

of special needs students enrolled in Vancouver schools.' So give them more

money.

"If

a child's nutritional needs are cut in half, how can that child be expected

to grow? If their educational needs are cut in half, how can that child be

expected to learn? It is impossible to claim that Callan's needs have

decreased by 50 percent. Clearly, they have not. On her last report card of

grade 2, every facet of her education made reference to the term 'with

support.'

have high expectations for Callan. I trust that one day she will be able to

live with a considerable degree of independence. Today, however, is not that

day."

[1420]

Then it

goes on to talk about how infuriating it is for the parent to experience this.

It goes on to say:

"Because

of inadequate funding, as the parent of a special needs child who is

undersupported, I am expected to tell the principal of my daughter's school

to take funding from the kid with special needs down the hall and give it to

my child. Who am I to say that any child is less important or has lesser

needs than my own daughter? How dare you put us in this situation. Don't

tell us that we have to fight over who gets a bite of the education pie.

Bake us another pie."

Then

it goes on to say: "These are difficult times, and I recognize that the

government's concern is to reduce the deficit. However, as the parent of a

child with special needs, I implore the Ministry of Education to measure the

effectiveness of limiting funds against a long-term agenda rather than

short-term goals."

He says:

"Limiting funds will only limit their potential, resulting in isolation

from society, depression and costly dependency." Then: "In conclusion,

my witness to you, as the father of a child with specials needs, is that current

funding for special education is inadequate, should be increased and dare not be

cut. The

[ Page 889 ]

Ministry of Education has the opportunity to be visionaries. Take the

challenge." This is from Michael Parker.

With most

of the letters I've read into the record, I've left some pieces of them out. I

read this letter into the record because I predict that with this piece of

legislation, by taking away the guarantees of special needs as one area of

non-enrolling support specialties for the teachers in the classroom for the

students, it would further aggravate the current situation.

Right now

in the city of Vancouver, in the Vancouver school board, the trustees already

have the authority to decide how to allocate the funding for special needs. As

you know — as I hope many of you know — in my own community as an example,

we have a very great need for special needs. Taking away the basic minimum, the

guarantee for children like Callan, has already happened, has already been

reduced in September of this year.

This

legislation is not going to help Callan or help Michael Parker to ensure that

his daughter reaches her childhood dream: to become a professional in her most

admired profession, to become a teacher, to become completely independent. I ask

the government members: why would you bring in a piece of legislation that has

the potential to pit one community member against another, to say that my needs

are more important than your needs, creating losers all the way through the

system and division? Worst of all, in my view, is the ripping away of the future

opportunity for young students of today.

Class sizes

need to be maintained. They need to be improved. As the member for Delta North

had advised me, the optimal class size is not 30. It's not 24 but 15 or 16, from

his professional opinion in the research he has done. Does this legislation

bring us in that direction? No, it does not. It actually regresses us.

It actually

can have the potential for some schools to have over 30 students. How does that

make sense? How does that make sense when the research has already shown that

smaller class size is an important tool to optimize educational outcomes? For a

minister who claims that her first mandate is to ensure that students have

opportunities, that is the number one priority for this government. Well, don't

just talk about that. Show it in action. Demonstrate it.

[1425]

A funding

freeze over three years will not bring more moneys into the district to provide

for the programs that are needed now to enhance it. It will only cause the

districts to sit down and say: "How are we going to meet these needs? Okay,

now that there are no guarantees and ratios that are required for special needs,

for teacher-librarians, for counsellors, let's take that money, because we

simply don't have enough money, and everything is, indeed, a priority in

education. Let's just rob Peter to pay Paul. Too bad for the people who have

lost out"— with the exception, Mr. Speaker, that the people who've lost

out will be the people that we as a society, on the whole, would actually have

to support, perhaps, further down the road.

Isn't it a

wiser investment now to put the money up front, when we know that early

childhood development…? I know the member for Richmond East will agree with me

that early childhood development is paramount. Shouldn't it start in the

schools? Shouldn't it begin with class size, when we know that a smaller class

size…? It's your very own colleague who says that the optimal class size is 15

or 16 students but not higher. Isn't that the place to start?

Isn't it

the place to ensure that ESL students, of which I know there are a lot in

Richmond, have full opportunity for developing their skills to learn the

language? If you don't have the language, you can't learn anything in the

classroom, let me tell you, because you don't understand anything that's going

on. You need to have that language. You need to be able to master it so that you

can go and do reading and writing, math skills, science, etc. It's a basic

minimum. Why would you take away the basic minimum to ensure that those

opportunities are there for the students?

We know

that when the classroom size limitations are taken away, it is going to be

harder for the students. There's no doubt about it. It is going to be harder for

the teachers. There's no doubt about that. When you couple that with the loss of

the specialists in the classrooms who help the teachers, who help the students,

you can just imagine the compounding effect of that for all of the students.

It's not

just the special needs student, you see, who needs the teacher's attention on a

one-on-one basis, perhaps, for just a few moments in the class or the ESL

student who requires that extra attention from the teacher to explain to him or

her to get through the lessons; it's the rest of the class as well. The students

who don't have special needs also need that attention from the teachers — the

special attention to help them, to give them an extra boost. When the special

assistant is gone, the teacher can't rely on that support to free her up to do

more support for the other students. It impacts every single student in every

classroom. It may be true that in some districts the numbers will be lower, but

it is also true that in some districts the classroom sizes are going to be

higher. The numbers for the specialty teachers are going to be reduced. Those

students in those classrooms will lose out.

If the

minister — the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour — can get up

and say to me, "I guarantee you that every single student throughout

British Columbia in every single classroom, through this legislation, will have

access to the need for special needs, for ESL, for counselling, for

teacher-librarian support, all of those important components that make the

classroom whole and that enhance the students' learning outcome," maybe

then I won't have so much trouble with this. You know what? I will challenge the

ministers to rise up and give me that guarantee. It's not to me, really. I'm

just speaking for my constituents. I'm speaking to the people who have written

me letter after letter after letter, petition after petition after petition,

which I wonder whether or not any of the government members have actually even

taken a look at. It's for them. That's what this is about. That's the work of

this Legislature. That's why we are here.

[1430]

The

situation we find ourselves in, I think, is most unfortunate. I find it even

more unfortunate because I was looking at a newsletter that was sent to me by

the

[ Page 890 ]

B.C. Public School Employers Association. I was reading through this

document, and one of the items they have put in the document talks about

non-enrolling teachers and ESL teachers and the BCTF's demand. It says:

"The

BCTF is demanding:

"More librarians, special education teachers, counsellors,

wants to add psychologists, speech-language pathologists, band-music

teachers, information technology teachers, network administrators, clerical

staff, custodians, teacher assistants, laboratory assistants and special

education teacher assistants to the collective agreement."

It talks as

though those demands are somehow outrageous for an educational system. "How

dare the BCTF come to this table and demand that there be more support for our

students by way of special needs assistants, by way of psychologists and

speech-language pathologists?" Maybe the BCTF shouldn't demand that.

Of course,

they are demanding that, and you know what? I thank them for demanding that. I

know that in every one of my schools in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant there are not

enough supports in the classrooms for the children. My greatest dream is for all

of us, no matter who we are, where we come from and what our backgrounds or

barriers are, to have equal opportunities and that there is equality and social

justice for all. That is my greatest dream, above all else.

I know

education can make a difference, because I can tell you that my parents made a

sacrific