2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Equality for women

M. Mungall

International Women's Day

M. Stilwell

Kidney health and kidney transplantation

K. Conroy

Women in Business Awards in Surrey

D. Hayer

Royal Columbian Hospital

D. Black

Penticton Vees junior hockey team

J. Slater

Oral Questions

B.C Place business plan and naming rights

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Karagianis

Seniors care case in Nanaimo Hospital and in-hospital billing policy

D. Routley

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Conroy

Funding for groups participating in Missing Women Inquiry

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Bond

S. Fraser

Ministerial Statements

Response to earthquake and tsunami in Japan

Hon. N. Yamamoto

K. Corrigan

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act (continued)

K. Conroy

D. Black

J. Kwan

J. Horgan

On the amendment

J. Horgan

M. Farnworth

L. Krog

M. Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development (continued)

N. Simons

Hon. S. Cadieux

M. Sather

[ Page 9943 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: Today I'd like to introduce two wonderful constituents of mine, Jack and Olga Froud, who are residents of Ladner. Jack is a retired electrical engineer and is a member of the Kirkland House Society, a group of men and women who have worked long and hard to completely rebuild a very fine heritage home on Delta's farmland. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

M. Coell: The B.C. Liberal caucus has a good friend in the House today. Elishia Butler has been our receptionist and has worked for us and with us for five years. She's going on maternity leave. I hope the House would wish her and her family all the best.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a real honour for me today to rise and introduce some very special individuals who are with us in the gallery. They are here helping us mark what was undoubtedly a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and you'll hear more about that later.

[1335]

The Canadian Red Cross is instrumental in transforming donations from the public and government to help those who need it most.

It's my pleasure to introduce Kimberley Nemrava, director for B.C. and Yukon; Phyllis Argue, regional manager of the B.C. coastal region; and Ivan Watson, volunteer council member. They are here today representing the more than 2,000 Red Cross B.C. volunteers and staff, and I know that everyone in the House would like to thank them and welcome them to the gallery today.

D. Barnett: I received a phone call this morning from my constituency assistant in Williams Lake, the daughter of the late Alex Fraser, who asked me if I would ask the House today to congratulate her son and Alex Fraser's grandson, Alex Gavin, on his 19th birthday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

M. Mungall: We are in every community from Cape Horn to Cape Dorset and back down to Cape Town, from Lisbon to Kathmandu. We are 3.5 billion strong. We are mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces and grandmothers. We are women and girls, and today is our day.

Women's movement for equality is felt wherever we are. When we say we want a promotion, we want to wear pants or we want to share the domestic labour and child care, we change the world. When we stand up for pay equity, for better representation in governments and boardrooms and classrooms, too, we make history.

Women have stood up to say we deserve to earn money in our own names and we have authority over our own bodies. We have demanded the vote and the recognition as a person. We have shown that we can handle a hammer as well as a nail file. We have made the world a safer place.

We have come so far, but we still have so much to do. Violence against women persists. We still make less money than men. We still struggle with access to reproductive rights. We are still under-represented in governments, boardrooms and shop floors, and we still do more dishes and change more diapers than men.

For the past 101 years International Women's Day has given us the opportunity to celebrate our movement for equality. We honour our successes and take stock of our challenges, and we recognize that we each have the ability to change the world every day.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

M. Stilwell: I, too, would like to speak in honour of International Women's Day, a time to celebrate our love, admiration and appreciation for all that women do. The day was first observed over a century ago. It has grown from a strange amalgam of Mother's Day and Valentine's Day to a global campaign recognizing the political and social struggles of women worldwide.

Throughout its history International Women's Day has been a rallying point for various movements from women's suffrage to the fight for employment equality. Women around the world have used this day to raise awareness and bring about change. In 1977 the United Nations honoured International Women's Day, proclaiming March 8 UN Day for Women's Rights and International Peace. Today it's recognized and celebrated in more than 100 countries.

I'm proud to say that my mom was a peacenik long before it was fashionable in 1977.

The theme for this year's day is "Empower women and end hunger and poverty." Oxfam America reports that approximately 70 percent of all those living below the poverty line are women, and 66 percent of the world's work falls on women's shoulders. I'm not sure if that counts washing the dishes. Yet they earn just 10 percent of the global income. In most countries, women's wages are 10 to 30 percent lower than their male counterparts.

[1340]

[ Page 9944 ]

After a hundred years and a hundred International Women's Days we still have much more to do. So let us celebrate how far we've come and identify what remains to be done. We are mothers, aunts, sisters, wives and companions, and today we show how strong we are.

KIDNEY HEALTH AND

KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION

K. Conroy: March is kidney awareness month in B.C., and today, March 8, is World Kidney Day. The 2012 campaign is aimed at public awareness of the necessity of maintaining good kidney health, and in the absence of it, how transplantation has advanced and may be a solution where possible.

Our kidneys are small organs about the size of your fist and do an amazing job to keep our bodies healthy. Their main job is to remove toxins and excess water, but they also help to control our blood pressure, to produce red blood cells and to keep our bones healthy. Every day your kidneys carefully control the salt and water in your body so that your blood pressure remains the same.

Worldwide more than 5 percent of the adult population has some form of kidney damage. An estimated 2.6 million Canadians have kidney disease or are at risk of getting it. The number of Canadians being treated for kidney failure has tripled over the past 20 years. At what cost to our health care system?

Hemodialysis is a treatment used in the majority of dialysis cases, and it costs roughly $60,000 per patient per year. The one-time cost for a kidney transplant is approximately $23,000, plus $6,000 a year for necessary medication. Over a five-year period a transplant is approximately $250,000 less expensive per patient than dialysis, while considerably improving quality of life.

Nearly 80 percent of the over 4,000 Canadians on the wait-list for an organ transplant are waiting for a kidney. Sadly, though, the donor rates have stagnated since 2006, and the need for organs outpaces the supply. Kidney patients wait about three to four years for a deceased-donor kidney transplant. The longest waits are here in B.C. — five to seven years. As good as dialysis can be, it is not the first choice of the way of life for most people. A transplant can give someone a new lease on life.

However, there are things we can all do to prevent kidney disease in the first place. Exercise, eating healthy, drinking lots of water and low salt intake are key to maintaining low blood pressure and healthy kidneys.

But you can make a difference today in other ways. If you haven't already done so, register your intention to donate your organs, speak to your family and loved ones to make sure they know your wishes, and consider a living organ donation or joining the living donor paired exchange.

WOMEN IN BUSINESS AWARDS

IN SURREY

D. Hayer: Today, on International Women's Day, I would like to recognize the winners of the third annual Surrey Women in Business Awards held yesterday at the Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

This very significant recognition of the business power of women held in Surrey was sponsored by the Surrey Board of Trade and organized by the CEO, Anita Huberman, and the president, Mary Jane Stenberg, who are business powers in their own right.

In the entrepreneurial category, the winner was Kim Russell of Canadian Tourism College, and the finalists were Cathrine Levan of Kickstart Communications and Saima Naz of Higher Grade Learning Centre. In the professional division, the winner was Vivienne Wilke of the city of Surrey. The finalists were Naz Kullar of Community Savings Credit Union and Ronnie Singh of Surrey Dental Hygiene Clinic.

The winner in the corporate category was Amy Hennessy of Fortis B.C., and the finalists were Kristen Ash of Helping Hands Rehabilitation Clinic and Jane Graydon of B.C. Biomedical Labs. In the leadership category, the winner was Ellie King of the Royal Canadian Theatre Company, and the finalists were Ingrid Bos of Coast Capital Savings and Tricia Chio of Business Development Bank of Canada.

In the not-for-profit category, the winner was Kathleen Kennedy-Strath of Kinsmen Lodge, and the finalists were Marilyn Herrmann of Surrey Food Bank and Laurie Larsen of CUPE 402. Bonnie Burnside was the winner in the Community Achievement Awards.

Special thanks goes to award sponsors: Simon Fraser University, A.S. Bubber chartered accountants, the Surrey Leader newspaper and Whalley Printers. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating and thanking all the winners, finalists and nominees of these prestigious awards and all of the very successful business women in Surrey.

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

D. Black: It's been 150 years since the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster first opened its doors. As B.C.'s first hospital, it opened in 1862 with just 30 beds, all of them for men. The hospital is now the busiest air ambulance hospital in the province and, incredibly, serves one in three British Columbians.

[1345]

It's also one of the busiest emergency departments in B.C. and in Canada. Patient visits top 67,000 per

[ Page 9945 ]

year. It's a provincially designated trauma, heart and neurosciences centre for Fraser Health region — a region that stretches from Burnaby to Boston Bar and south to the U.S. border. It's a regional referral centre for orthopedics, high-risk maternity and advanced kidney care.

Staff and supporters of this busy facility are celebrating the 150th anniversary in a variety of ways. Tonight a large crowd will gather at the fifth annual SHINE Gala. In addition to celebrating 150 years of excellence at RCH, they will be helping to raise more than $250,000 to purchase life-saving equipment. If you were born at RCH or had life-saving surgery there or work there, you are invited to share a story on a special website that was launched today — rchcares.com.

The future is also a high priority for the hospital's administration and staff. A plan to increase the number of acute care beds, modernize the emergency department and improve infection control has been submitted to the government. This expansion simply must proceed soon, so Royal Columbian can continue to meet the needs of the growing population it serves and to ensure quality health care in the future.

PENTICTON VEES JUNIOR HOCKEY TEAM

J. Slater: When I drive through the neighbouring community, I see nothing but blue. You would think I was driving through the Smurfs' village, but I was not. I was driving through the community of Penticton, home of the Penticton Vees. The community has painted the town blue in support of their junior hockey club.

Al Formo, who has done colour commentary for the Vees for the last 45 years, said before Tuesday night's game that the date is auspicious for the team. History has a way of repeating itself, and if it repeats itself, the Vees are going to set that record tonight.

It was March 6, 1955. Then the Penticton Vees won the world championship against the Russians, defeating the Russians 5-0 in Germany.

That was March 6, and here we go again. Before a huge crowd of 3,655 fans, March 6, 2012, the Penticton Vees broke the North American record for the most consecutive wins — 41. This record was previously held by two Ontario teams 20 years ago. No other junior or pro team in North America has come close to winning 40 straight.

The Vees won their 20th straight home game during the regular season at the South Okanagan Events Centre. They also set a new record for the most wins in a 60-game season — 53 — and tied the mark for the most points in a season, with 108. While they still have two regular games to go, the Penticton Vees have clinched first place and will be heading to the playoffs starting March 16. Go, Vees, go!

Oral Questions

B.C PLACE BUSINESS PLAN

AND NAMING RIGHTS

J. Horgan: Yesterday we learned how seriously the B.C. Liberals take private sector investment in British Columbia. When it was raised in this House that $35 million to $40 million in sponsorship rights were left on the table by the government, the response was gales of laughter.

After years of negotiation, of good-faith bargaining between TELUS and PavCo in the province of British Columbia, a deal was done and then reneged upon. My question to the minister responsible: does he think today that it's funny that B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for more money at B.C. Place?

Hon. P. Bell: What I do think is funny is that the members opposite think they are the bastions of free enterprise in this province.

We went through a long and involved negotiation with TELUS. It was well over a year in length. The discussion revolved around the rights to rename B.C. Place as Telus Park. In the end the offer that was made was deemed to not be in the best interest of taxpayers. It made more sense to maintain the integrity of the name B.C. Place. That was the decision that was made, and we're very comfortable with that.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, it's odd, when we are in a deficit situation here again for the third consecutive year, that the government would think in its wisdom that the naming rights…. Regardless of how people feel about what you call the stadium in Vancouver — I'm a Vancouver Islander, and there are people from all across British Columbia, many of whom will never set sights on B.C. Place in person — $35 million is a lot of money when you're in a deficit. And $35 million is now on the backs of taxpayers to make up for the financial mismanagement that has been the replacement of the roof of that stadium over the past four years.

My question, again, is to the minister. He says casually that $35 million can be recouped through other means. I'm wondering if he has the temerity, to use a word often misused by the Premier, to table a business plan, to demonstrate to the people of British Columbia where that money is going to come from. Is it going to come from more taxes, more debt? Or are you going to find $35 million from some other private sector company tomorrow?

Hon. P. Bell: Speaking of tabling documents…. On this side of the House we're kind of wondering if the

[ Page 9946 ]

members opposite would care to table the budget that they've prepared, which perhaps accounts for up to an additional $6 billion in spending. How would they like to put that document out in public so that people really know what the NDP stands for?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: As regrettable as it is that the government of British Columbia is still the B.C. Liberal Party, someone needs to be responsible for the mismanagement at B.C. Place. It's normally the minister responsible for PavCo.

Again, I'll pose the question to him. Perhaps he'll focus on an answer so the people of British Columbia can have some confidence that this gong show that has been the replacement of a roof will somehow stop, and we can get back on a sound fiscal footing and find the money to pay for this action.

Where is the business plan that will recoup the $35 million that you left on the table, with TELUS holding the bell?

Hon. P. Bell: Listening to the member opposite's question, I'm going to assume that he actually supports the renaming of B.C. Place to Telus Park. It should be noted that the member opposite is perhaps exaggerating a little bit. The $35 million was spread over 20 years — $1.75 million per year. It actually created a large number of opportunities for TELUS to use within the facility for advertising. All of those opportunities now will be freed up, and we'll be able to sell those to other advertisers.

I'm more than confident that we'll be able to get the level of funding back to PavCo and to B.C. Place that's necessary.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Liberals' mismanagement of B.C. Place is well known. The dome roof collapsed under their watch when they assured everybody that it would be fine. Then when they started reconstruction, they claimed the new roof would pay for itself, yet had no business case to prove that. Construction then went hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, and there may be more yet to come.

It wasn't on time. The retractable roof doesn't open or close when it's raining. Their financing plan was a roll of the dice on a mega-casino with a Liberal insider through a shady process that was roundly rejected. Now there's the deal that's been botched with TELUS. Will the minister please table in this House today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: …a business plan explaining how the Liberals plan to get B.C. taxpayers out of this mess? I know that the minister may laugh about this, but British Columbians certainly aren't.

Hon. P. Bell: One of the risks with taking a position — and I suspect one of the reasons why the NDP doesn't normally take positions — is that it just may conflict with something they said at a different point in time.

[1355]

I would suggest that the member opposite, the member for Vancouver–West End, go back to the Hansard document of October 29, 2009, when the member opposite said: "I, too, like the name B.C. Place." He goes on: "I can tell the minister that I'd be quite upset if we decided to sell off the name B.C. Place, especially given what a substantial investment the people of B.C. have put into the stadium over so many years. It really is B.C.'s place in that context." Congratulations, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, regardless of what you think of the renaming of B.C. Place, it was those folks on that side of the House who went after TELUS, courted them again and again, spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of taxpayers' dollars, trying to get a deal. The minister actually told me he thought he would have a naming rights deal with TELUS very shortly. Now they've walked away. Well, failure after failure has been the Liberal trademark on B.C. Place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister claimed it would pay for itself. I asked again and again for a business case to show that. There wasn't one. It's now costing British Columbians nearly $600 million, after going hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The government gambled and lost on a shady deal with a Liberal insider for a casino. Then they botched the deal with TELUS.

My question to the minister, again…. He thinks this is humorous, yet it's millions upon millions of British Columbians' dollars. Will he table in this House today the business case to show British Columbians how his government is going to get British Columbia out of the mess that they created?

Hon. P. Bell: Apparently, the members opposite would accept any deal. That's what they're telling us — that any

[ Page 9947 ]

deal, no matter whether it's good or bad for the taxpayers of British Columbia, should be accepted. But let's fast-forward from the 2009 estimates to the 2010 estimates, because there was some consistency from the member opposite at that point in time.

On April 1, 2010, the member opposite in the Hansard record said: "I was disappointed to hear in the minister's answer that B.C. Place itself will be renamed — sold off to, I guess, the highest bidder. As I understand it, it's British Columbians that have put $563 million into this project. I understand somebody else may come in with some money, but I would think that those that put in the majority of the dollars should be the ones to name it." Words from the member opposite.

M. Karagianis: Well, the man that runs B.C. Place does not seem to have nearly the same confidence in the Liberals' plan for where this revenue stream is going to come from. In fact, Mr. David Podmore said: "He needs the B.C. Liberals to relieve PavCo of the need to find the $35 million that they walked away from in the TELUS deal." So perhaps Mr. Podmore would have more faith in this government if the B.C. Liberals had a business case for this $35 million shortfall.

[1400]

Now we know that the cornerstone, the centrepiece, of the B.C. Liberal budget mismanagement fiasco this year was a sell-off of $700 million of public assets. Is that what they're going to do — sell off more family silverware to cover this $35 million shortfall?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the member for Vancouver–West End has been fairly consistent with his views on naming rights and B.C. Place up until the last two days — three estimates, three times in a row.

Here's the quote from the estimates, May 4, 2011 — just not even quite a year ago. "I know one of the ministers said that he didn't want B.C. Place, the name, to be sold off. I tend to agree with him. If taxpayers" — of British Columbia — "are putting up $563 million and somebody else could come in and put in $20 million" — the member opposite quoted — "and their name goes on it instead of the great province of British Columbia, it just feels a…bit odd to me."

We are making sure we make the right decisions for British Columbia. It represents the best possible value, and we're confident in our ability to make sure that stadium produces long-term results for B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's fast-forward to today, when the B.C. Liberals have just walked away from a deal that they tried to put in place for two years and left money on the table. Now, Mr. Podmore has said that because of this B.C. Liberal mismanagement….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we're having a hard time hearing.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: Mr. Podmore, who runs B.C. Place, has said that because of the mismanagement of the B.C. Liberal government around this TELUS agreement, they are asking…. He's saying that the B.C. Liberals are going to have to relieve PavCo of the responsibilities here. Well, there is only one place they can find that relief — from B.C. taxpayers. It's the only creative plan they've had for getting out of the budget mess they've got us in — to sell off public assets.

I would like to know, and B.C. taxpayers would like to know: what are they going to sell off to pay for this mess that they've made?

Hon. P. Bell: The principle behind making sure that you make sound business deals is something that this side of the House actually understands. Members opposite seem to be willing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second, Minister.

It's your time, Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: Members opposite appear to be willing to make any deal at any cost. That is not the position of this government. We believe in the principle of getting best value for taxpayer dollars in this province. We've done that consistently, unlike the opposition through the 1990s that have a long and sordid history of making poor deals.

The member opposite goes on and continues to talk about the value of protecting the name B.C. Place. The member for Vancouver–West End said in 2009, " I think the people of B.C. — at least, my constituents, anyway — would support, since we have spent so much of our taxpayers dollars in that place," that it continues to be B.C. Place.

All of a sudden, for political expedience, it appears that we have a little change in view on the other side. Mr. Speaker, the future is friendly.

SENIORS CARE CASE

IN NANAIMO HOSPITAL

AND IN-HOSPITAL BILLING POLICY

D. Routley: Erin Caldwell's husband spent 6½ months in Nanaimo Regional Hospital awaiting placement in long-term care. While he languished in acute care, Mr.

[ Page 9948 ]

Caldwell was not getting any services such as clothes-washing, exercise or stimulation. His condition deteriorated, so Mrs. Caldwell hired someone so that he could at least have clean clothes and a little fresh air now and then.

Does the minister feel that this was appropriate care Mr. Caldwell received while occupying an expensive acute care bed?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member will recall I have already said, both inside this House and outside, that I believe it is regrettable that anyone spent six months in an acute care facility and that the only thing I would have felt to be more regrettable is if that individual had been discharged from that facility to a place that was not equipped to provide the unique kind of care the patient required.

[1405]

There are in British Columbia a very small number of individuals who require very, very specialized care. I will say again that it is regrettable an individual spent that length of time in an acute care hospital pending the availability of the kind of bed, the kind of facility and the kind of care that they required.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: What's regrettable is the long history of failure on the part of the B.C. Liberals to honour and care for our seniors in British Columbia. That failure is documented well by the Ombudsperson.

This situation only got worse for the Caldwells. While Mr. Caldwell was waiting placement on the wait-list, VIHA began billing Mrs. Caldwell 80 percent of Mr. Caldwell's pension. As a result, she could no longer afford that extra support. Mr. Caldwell had no one to wash his clothes, got no walks or fresh air, and with that total lack of stimulation, his condition went downhill quickly.

Does the minister not agree that it was unfair, inefficient and dangerous for Mr. Caldwell to be stuck languishing in acute care without any support, and then, to add insult to injury, he was billed for the services that he wasn't receiving?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won't repeat my comments from a moment ago about the regrettable situation that the patient confronted in terms of the length of time he spent in the hospital.

I would, however, remind the member that the co-pay policy that he has referred to dates back in various forms to the 1990s. So to suggest….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I realize the members won't want to hear this, but these are policies that are designed to ensure that there is fairness. They are, as the member has pointed out, based on two things: the income, and the belief that when long-term care is being provided, it is appropriate to ask, where a patient is capable, for them to contribute to that long-term care.

K. Conroy: The Ombudsperson report was clear, and what's regrettable and what's unfair is that seniors are charged for their time in hospital because of delays in the health care system.

Recommendation No. 114 says that health authorities shouldn't charge patients who are stuck in hospitals because of the Liberal government's failures. Yet Mr. Caldwell was stuck in acute care, waiting for services in residential care, paying 80 percent of his pension for services he wasn't getting. That's regrettable. That's unfair to seniors in this province.

If the minister really feels it's regrettable, if he really feels it's unfair, then maybe he should stand up today and implement these recommendations so that no more seniors like Mr. Caldwell are out there, paying for services they're not getting.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, as I have done previously in the House, I will point out that the in-hospital billing policy that the member refers to and takes great issue with, in terms of her submissions here today, dates back to 1999. So I take it….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, a second policy pronouncement from a member of the opposition, who says: "Change it."

We actually take the view that in terms of providing long-term care…. And by the way, great progress has been made. The member from Cowichan-Ladysmith — I think it's Cowichan-Ladysmith — may harken back to the good old days when patients waited over a year for placement in a residential bed.

[1410]

The fact that that has been reduced dramatically is something that we are very proud of on this side of the House, and we're continuing.

FUNDING FOR GROUPS PARTICIPATING

IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

J. Kwan: Today is International Women's Day, and the Missing Women Inquiry is collapsing. Dozens of women went missing from the Downtown Eastside and the Highway of Tears and were murdered. They are predominantly aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women organizations and community groups were among the first to call for an inquiry into

[ Page 9949 ]

this tragic situation. Today all groups representing aboriginal women and community groups have withdrawn from the inquiry, yet their voices are essential to the inquiry. It so angered the aboriginal community leaders that Chief Stewart Phillip said: "The Premier of this province was so out of touch with the significance of this inquiry that she denied increasing funding or providing adequate support."

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Will she be the voice at the cabinet table on behalf of the aboriginal community and call on the Premier to take action now so that aboriginal women's voices and community groups could be heard at this inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: As we've said over the course of the last two, if not three, days in the Legislature…. I appreciate the passion that the member opposite brings to the floor of the House about an issue that matters not just to her but to every single member of this House. In fact, that's why the government did take action.

It created a study commission and a hearing process which allows for there to be a process in place, which means that individuals and organizations can participate in this process without legal support. In fact, as I demonstrated yesterday, Commissioner Oppal has travelled — for example, across northern British Columbia — and met in numerous, numerous communities, talking to aboriginal communities, aboriginal men and women, whose voices are critical.

That's why we took action. That's why we provided support, legal support, specifically to those most impacted — the families of missing and murdered women.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: It is not about passion. It is about justice and fairness. That's what this side of the House is calling for.

Ms. Gervais, the one and only legal counsel representing aboriginal interests, before she lost confidence in the inquiry, said that the aboriginal community at large is skeptical of the process. She further stated that the aboriginal community feels the panel is not a good structure to put witnesses in.

Ms. Lilliane Beaudoin, the sister of Diane Rock, one of the murdered victims, said: "Mr. Oppal is just trying to save time and money by getting a lot of witnesses on at once. We came for a public inquiry, and we're not getting one." This is a statement from a family member of a victim in the Pickton inquiry. So is it a wonder that Ms. Gervais calls the representation of aboriginal interests at the inquiry "aboriginal tokenism"?

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Is this acceptable to her? And if not, does she have the courage to tell the Premier that the Liberal government is wrong in not funding the 13 groups with standing and take action now so that the voices of aboriginal women and groups can be heard at the table?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, who is, I'm sure, well aware of the fact that this government created the inquiry commission.... We certainly expect the results to be brought forward in a timely way.

[1415]

To suggest for a heartbeat that there has been a lack of resources provided is simply inaccurate. British Columbians today have invested more than $4 million in this inquiry. In fact, the commissioner, out of that $4 million, made sure that there were four lawyers available. Those lawyers and legal support were provided to the groups that the member opposite mentioned. They did not take advantage of four additional lawyers — two pro bono, two provided through the commission inquiry funding — to do exactly what the member opposite is asking to be done.

S. Fraser: So 24 to four — the deck is stacked. On today of all days we should recognize that the Missing Women Inquiry should be one of the most significant inquiries in the history of this province. So many women have lost their lives while many questions remain unanswered for the families of these victims.

A quote: "Our women face racism and systemic stereotyping at every turn. For aboriginal women, this racism and stereotyping is rampant right through the system, from the police to the courts." That quote is from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from 1996. Nothing has changed under this government.

The commission has urged this government twice to fund Mr. Oppal, their own handpicked commissioner. He said twice to fund a list of 13 participants granted standing, having called the government's decision to not provide the counsel "the height of unfairness."

This government has failed to provide the tools necessary for the commission to fulfil its mandate, which has destroyed the credibility of the inquiry in the aboriginal community. Aboriginal groups should be supported in fully participating. They should be given the time to be heard in evidentiary hearings on the record like everyone else at that inquiry — 24 lawyers.

What actions does the Minister — we're not getting it from Justice — of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation…? What will she do to repair the ties with the aboriginal community in this inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: Everyone in this House, not simply the member opposite, is acutely aware of the need to ensure that this inquiry is conducted with integrity, with inclusiveness and with the opportunity to bring back recommendations so that what happened to women in British Columbia simply never happens again.

But for the member opposite to stand in this House and begin to impugn the reputation of Commissioner

[ Page 9950 ]

Oppal…. I would remind the member opposite what the previous Attorney General, who was an NDP Attorney General, Colin Gabelmann said about Commissioner Oppal: "Mr. Justice Oppal has conducted the inquiry in a way that is sensitive to the needs of differing groups."

So the fact of the matter is that Commissioner Oppal is well aware of the importance of including aboriginal voices. He has done just that in communities like Nisga'a, Kitsumkalum, where hundreds of aboriginal people had the opportunity to participate. That is an appropriate process where voices will be heard.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKE

AND TSUNAMI IN JAPAN

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have the honour to rise today to speak about the one-year anniversary of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011.

Thousands of lives were forever changed when an earthquake measuring 9.0, followed by a massive tsunami, devastated many parts of their island nation. This occurred in one of the best-prepared countries in the world, but the toll was worse than anything that could have been expected or planned for. It is hard to fathom the extent of the damage to roads, buildings, homes and livelihoods.

[1420]

The greater tragedy, however, is the toll this disaster took on hundreds of thousands of families who lost loved ones in a matter of minutes. Theirs is a profound loss, one that has moved British Columbians to help.

On behalf of the Japanese government, it's my honour to thank the people of British Columbia for the extent of their generous support following the tragedy. For its part, the province was pleased to provide $1 million last year to the Red Cross to help with immediate medical and emergency support for the people of Japan.

Joining us in the House today are representatives from the Canadian Red Cross. In the past year more than 160,000 Japanese Red Cross volunteers and 896 Red Cross medical teams were mobilized to provide support to survivors. More than 30,000 emergency kits were distributed to support thousands of families living in evacuation centres. More than 87,000 patients were treated. More than 126,000 families received household appliances and furniture to help them return to a more normal life.

Signs of recovery are clear, with most of the debris now removed and shops and businesses gradually reopening in many places.

When I look at the donations, the volunteers, humanitarian efforts and progress being made in the many areas, I'm truly inspired by the dedication and perseverance by and with the people of Japan. The events in Japan emphasize the wider importance of emergency preparedness to governments and individuals, to ensure that communities are stronger, safer and more resilient should a large-scale emergency strike.

Each of us needs to make personal preparedness a priority. I encourage everyone in the House today and all British Columbians to visit Emergency Info B.C. on line for emergency checklists and other helpful information.

To our friends in Japan, I say on behalf of all members of the House: gambare .

K. Corrigan: The official opposition certainly would like to thank the minister and join the minister in her expressions of concern and support for the Japanese people, whose northeast coast was devastated by the earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent Fukushima nuclear disaster.

I would join in thanks for the Red Cross and the many other organizations who have contributed to the rebuilding of that country. The Japanese certainly have shown great character in rebuilding and in economic recovery. However, despite that resilience and strength, our thoughts continue to be with the families and the communities that were destroyed by these events.

One only has to consider the size of the field of debris which is drifting towards North America and the fact that we now have to plan for its arrival as an emergency to get some sense of the scope of the devastation in Japan. That debris consists of houses and cars and television sets and other things that are pieces of the lives that were destroyed. As it comes to our coast, where in fact many of our first Japanese citizens made their homes, many of them in the industry, we think of the Japanese-Canadians.

Our condolences and concern continue for the people and communities of Japan, but we also think about the many Canadians of Japanese background who still have very strong connections with family and friends in Japan who have been so impacted by this disaster.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon we will continue second reading debate of Bill 22 intituled Education Improvement Act, and in

Section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development.

[ Page 9951 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

K. Conroy: I'm going to continue my remarks that I made this morning. I'd like to reiterate that I truly feel that this legislation will hurt students, further alienate teachers, undermine relationships within our schools and deliver another blow to our public education system.

[1425]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I want to just briefly talk, on a personal note, about what teachers have meant to us and how I think that this bill, Bill 22, will affect students in the classrooms now. In the late '90s our two younger children were in the school system. They were in high school, in fact. At the same time, our family was going through rather a difficult time. I worked full-time; my husband worked full-time. He was the MLA for Rossland-Trail, and he had some quite considerable health issues.

Our teenage daughter and son were struggling with what teenagers normally struggle with, as well as high school. Our daughter was having particular challenges. She was fortunate in that she had a teacher, a special ed teacher, who took time with her and took her from a young woman who in grade 10 was on the verge of dropping out, getting involved in things that she shouldn't have been, to recognizing her potential.

Marilee Papau recognized Sasha's potential and said: "This is a kid that's going to go somewhere; this is a child that can do something." She worked with her and helped her so that not only, in fact, did Sasha not drop out; she graduated with honours and today is a 30-year-old young woman with three amazing grandchildren of mine, who is going on to school now and is going to become a registered nurse.

I think it was just due to a special ed teacher like Marilee Papau, who had the time to work with our daughter, who had the time to give her the attention she needed and make sure that she did graduate and turn into a fully functioning, great kid that she is.

Our son also was going through the difficulties that our family faced, and he had another amazing teacher, Augi Cupello. Ben wasn't sure what direction to go in. Should he be a teacher? Should he go into trades? What should he do?

He was really confused at that time, and Mr. Cupello sat with him and said: "Look, Ben, here's what I think you should do. I think you should get a trade and then carry on with your education, because you can do it. You're a smart kid. You can be a teacher someday."

He had the time to spend with Ben, the time to be there with him, to talk to him when Ben really needed that, as a high school student. That support for kids in our education system was pulled from kids with Bills 27 and 28.

Bill 22 is doing nothing to reinstate that support for kids like Ben and Sasha were in the 1990s. They got the support they needed. They're high-functioning young adults now in this day, and I thank those teachers that were there for my kids and those teachers that are frustrated nowadays, today, because they don't have that same support in the school system.

I'm sure that the Liberal members on the other side of the House are getting just as many e-mails, phone calls and personal visits from people that are concerned with this bill. It's folks from all walks of life who are speaking eloquently about their frustrations with the government and the legislation this bill imposes.

In fact, a city councillor and a retired teacher called my constituency to say, "I support the teacher action fully; it is like we are living in Putin's Russia," and he's frustrated with it.

You know, retired folks who no longer even have kids or even grandkids in the system care about our province's future. They're really concerned with this legislation. They feel that Bill 22 is going to further erode the education system in the province.

I had Linda from Winlaw. She wrote to say:

"The people of the province of B.C. must be given the opportunity to vote on the labour laws the current government is trying to pass. To make laws about a union can pay strike pay to their striking workers, fining people over and above the loss of wages when they strike, fining unions for going on strike and deciding who is allowed to strike needs a referendum….

"How a few elected people can change hard-earned labour laws and throw out the hard-earned rights of workers is beyond my comprehension. Have these issues been discussed with your parents? Does anybody read history? Please stop Bill 22, and let the province vote."

That's from Linda in Winlaw.

Now, Dave from Kostan — an interesting letter that he'd written. He said he's writing to express his opinion about the teachers' negotiations and is very disappointed in the way that the government has handled this situation.

"You are the biggest business in the province but are setting a very poor example for other businesses. I operate a small business but also work at a union job. The benefits and the wages you as MLAs have, as well as what other workers enjoy, are there because of what unions have done in the past through the negotiation process.

[1430]

"For employers to try to gut collective agreements to increase profits or to try to buy votes is very offensive. Teachers are not overpaid. A teacher with five years of university and considerable debt makes less than a first-year apprentice in the trades. Most teachers work because they love what they do."

He finishes by saying:

"I'm proud of the senior students who speak in favour of education and teachers. They have the ability to speak to the issues because they have experienced firsthand the deterioration of their school system. I am very happy that they will soon be informed voters."

It's interesting. Dave's right on the money. Students have been extremely eloquent in their concerns that

[ Page 9952 ]

they've shared. In fact, the Lucerne students from New Denver showed their solidarity with teachers. I want to quote Danica Hammond. She said: "Our teachers are fighting for valid things that are important, so we feel it's important to give them support."

Not only have they spoken out about this; they've made an appointment to come to my office and talk to me about it because they feel so passionately about it — students who understand the benefits of a good, quality education. Is that not what we want to see from students in this province?

Now, I had a number of letters that I found quite emotional, and so I do want to share them. This one is from a young woman named Lizz. She says:

"You have no idea how happy it makes me to actually have my opinion listened to. My name is Lizz, spelled with two Zs. My name is like me: strange, odd and made by my friends. I can tell you more about myself, like the fact I suffered from depression for two years during middle school, that I went from a straight-A student to a B student, or that I have the most supportive friends and teachers.

"I could tell you that in my 14 years of life I have witnessed multiple car crashes, six family deaths, a friend that committed suicide and the most beautiful sunsets. I can tell you that I was a competitive figure skater and MVP in almost every softball tournament I played in, or that I volunteered at a retirement home for a year and a half.

"But in the end, none of that matters. What matters is that in the next four years of my life I will become an educated adult, ready to vote, make mistakes and maybe even drive. That is only if you give me the chance. Without school funding, I can't become the person I want to be.

"Let me tell you a bit more about myself. I cut — used to, I mean. That was because of my depression. If you look at statistics, most people who suffer from depression are females from 12 to 22 years of age. Most of those people have an above-average IQ. That is because we are unable to expand.

"Teachers have to spend time with children who don't understand, instead of letting us expand our education. We are sent to the library to study alone. Our friends become distant, and we eventually cave in on ourselves.

"I can tell you what teachers made for me. They made a challenge program, specifically designed for those labelled 'gifted.' They made me see my true potential. They made me see past the scars on my arms. They made me see that there is something brighter than the blood running down my arms, and that was my future. They made me see I can make a difference, that I can stand up for what I believe in. They showed me that even though I'm still a child, I have an opinion and a right to voice it.

"What did teachers make you? Somebody with the ability to read, write and get into politics. Somebody who knows how to think for yourself. Or did they make somebody that doesn't care about their children's education? You know what they made me? Somebody who, in four short years, will be able to vote Green Party.

"What we want isn't unreasonable: smaller class sizes, more special needs programs. These are reasonable requests if you think long-term. When you pass Bill 22, think about a girl somewhere, just 12 or 13 years old, who is thinking about death way too much, a girl who wants to use school as a refuge but can't because somebody in an office took that choice away. Please, think about me."

This is from Lizzie.

Natasha from Vancouver:

"What has occurred over the course of the last year, especially the last few weeks, has moved me enough to speak up about it. I'm a 16-year-old grade 11 student currently at a Vancouver high school. I have been following the action around the teacher-government negotiations decision, and what has happened recently has led to a great deal of frustration and emotion for myself and my peer group.

[1435]

"As decisions are carried through, it is disheartening to watch as a helpless minor who, along with friends and family, is being affected and will furthermore be affected by the careless actions being performed.

"As a high school student, I am almost powerless in what transpires in government, yet as an educated person, I have common sense and knowledge. The glaring truth lies before me. The poor decision-making I have seen has made me so frustrated that it has led me to want to reshape my career path so that I can be involved in government in my future years, so that nothing like this will ever happen to the public education system for my own children.

"With teachers in my family, I get to experience firsthand how hard they work and what passion and drive they have to aid students to exceed their full potential. Their dedication and love are what propel me to continue to have enthusiasm for school.

"Anyone who has common sense is able to figure out that if the conditions get better for the teachers, then as a result the students reap the benefits. It is a symbiotic relationship. You put money into the schools and teachers, and you will see the improvements in students' achievements. The two go hand in hand.

"If you are so keen on improving education and the lives of children, and I hope that the government should be, then why is it that things essential for success in schools and classrooms are being stripped away? One of the most striking things about Bill 22 is that it outlines that there will be no limits to how many special needs students can be in the classroom."

She has a quote from the Minister of Education: "There is no reason to assume, on the face of it, that a child with a designation is going to be any different or any less manageable in a classroom situation than a child without a designation."

"This statement, the bill itself and the lack of conscience and action from the majority government are appalling. Obviously, these persons representing this bill do not understand what it entails to support a special needs child.

"I have a six-year-old sister, diagnosed with a rare congenital disorder. She is clearly developmentally and physically behind the rest of her peers. Even when she comes home from school and I give her one-on-one support to teach her how to grip a pencil and draw a circle, or attempt to show her basic skills that a grade 1 child should have, it is challenging, exhausting and takes a great deal of time.

"Hypothetically, if she is placed in a class with a great deal of other special needs students, she will certainly not be provided with the support she deserves or needs. I want her to have the best opportunity possible in school and life, and there is nothing more frustrating than watching people in the B.C. government taking those opportunities away from children, as if it means nothing at all.

"One cannot understand what it feels like to be in this situation if they have not experienced it themselves. I cannot describe to you the feeling of being a helpless student, watching all of this unfold. It is extremely discouraging to be a witness to such poor and insensitive judgment.

"All of you have been elected into government. You wield the most power in what happens in my life, my friends' lives, my family's life and hundreds of thousands of lives across this great province. You represent us, and it is your job to stop injustices such as this from occurring. It is easy to make decisions and statements from behind a desk, but the actions being taken affect a wealth of young people.

"Education is the foundation of success and the future. If we cannot properly provide that, then how exactly do we propose to be

[ Page 9953 ]

a functioning society? The only hope left for me to hang onto, for now, is hope — hope that we can move forward, contrary to what appears to be happening currently.

"For those of you with a conscience, please take children's lives into consideration. Stand up for us. We are your future."

That is Natasha from Vancouver.

Now, parents have been expressing their stories and concerns in many ways. Some parents have expressed their concerns of what's happening today, in today's classroom, and how Bill 22 is going to affect their children. Also, they're talking about what happened with their kids in the last few years, and parents across the province are saying: "This isn't right." They're saying that a fight with the Liberal government, with the teachers, is affecting their children. It's affecting the children that are in the classrooms today.

I had a chat with Cheryl. She's a parent from the Arrow Lakes region, and she's also an education assistant. As a parent in the Arrow Lakes region, which is up north of my constituency, she said that she's disheartened to see the downturn of the public education in our province. She said: "Problems began ten years ago, and no improvements have surfaced recently." She said: "It's put the future of the education of our children at risk."

[1440]

As an education assistant who works in the Arrow Lakes region, she's witnessed the suffering of students in classrooms with no class size limits. "Increasingly, classrooms have students with both identified and unidentified needs. It's impossible for teachers to teach when they are dealing with such a wide spectrum of learners in the classrooms.

As the other students in the class try to get an education, the teacher and this education assistant try to get the others to work without acting out. She asked me…. She said:

"Would you like to come and spend 78 minutes a day, every day, trying to work with this group? Would you like to be sworn at, disrespected, have items hurled at you, look for solutions, referee fights and search the room for any glimmer of hope that someone is actually learning and retaining information for their future?

"It's not fair. Our education in this province is failing the very students that are in it.

"Please work with the teachers, not against them. They already have too much against them as it is. Educating the future of our province is a challenge. Don't make their work even harder. The teachers need to be heard, not ignored. Work with them for a fair contract. Don't rip it up and say they don't matter."

She thanked me for my time and went on to say that she had to get home because she had more work to do to get prepared for the class the next day. That's Cheryl from the Arrow Lakes — a small part of my constituency in the north that struggles to make sure that the kids in that area get the education that they need.

We've all heard from teachers. Hundreds and hundreds of teachers from across the province have been talking about their experiences in classrooms, their experiences in trying to deal with the composition in their classrooms and what Bill 22 is going to do to them — what Bill 22 is going to do to the composition and the makeup in the classroom and how it's going to, for instance, put any number of kids with identified needs or unidentified needs in the classroom, and not with the support those kids need.

The teachers have expressed so many concerns on how they're going to deal with it. I want to read a few of them. Jill from Rossland:

"I'd like to remind the Liberals that by stripping our contract to suit their agenda, they have taken away conditions for kids and teachers that were fairly bargained for. Teachers forfeited salary increases for those trade-offs. Thus, by stripping the contract with this draconian legislation, they have rolled us back in salary further, without mentioning the implications for kids and teachers inside the classroom.

"I teach a grade 4-5 split with 28 lively students. The government wishes me to be current in technology, provide individual learning plans for students, assess and evaluate according to each student's needs, manage the behavioural students, provide excellent teaching strategies and methodologies, and be happy and alert, kind and considerate, while making sure the parents' needs are also met, no matter the time of day.

"Yes, I can do all of that in a respectful environment where conditions are not eroding, where funding supports the expectations of the minister, where school boards aren't pitting communities against each other because more schools will have to close…"

She acknowledges what our school district has already announced, that it's a $1.55 million shortfall in school district 20, and they are trying to figure out how they are going to make ends meet.

"…where mediation and creative thinking move us forward for the education system in B.C. for kids, and yes, to the Premier, for families. She doesn't walk the talk at all.

"Bill 22 is a massive slap in the face of hard-working, passionate teachers who care about what they do, will forfeit days of salary to stand up for the rights of teachers and education.

"I tell my daughters that there are times that you must stand up for what is right."

Those are excerpts from Jill Spearn's letter from Rossland, B.C., who says she's still very proud to be a teacher.

I had a father in my constituency contact me. He wanted to remain anonymous because he was afraid of the backlash to his daughter. His daughter is a teacher. When we talked he said:

"I wanted to drop you a note on the situation the teachers find themselves in. My daughter is a school teacher in Kelowna. In my opinion, she is a great teacher, and so do the kids in her class.

[1445]

"Every time I meet one of the parents they are so happy they have her as a teacher. The kids love her. They invite her to all of their birthday parties, and she makes the time on weekends to go.

"I can tell you that her morale is now at an all-time low. What I find disturbing is that she attended UVic for five years, waited four years at Kelowna to get a full-time job, and her wage increases

[ Page 9954 ]

have been zero percent, or less than inflation, for that whole time. A janitor at Teck makes as much or more than her. Nothing against janitors. They deserve it too.

"What concerns me is that Bill 22 does not give the teachers union any input. I know from my political experience that if you hire a mediator without input from the other side, you do it to get the answer you want. The mediator gives you the answer the government wants, or they'll never be hired again.

"Everything the teachers want to talk about is not on the table. I just wanted to give you some feedback as a parent of a teacher that has invested her whole life to become a teacher — a profession she used to really enjoy.

"The majority of teachers are scared to say anything due to fear of being fired. My daughter does not know that I sent the note to you, but please, again, no names. I can take it, but I do not trust the dictator regime we have in power and the possible backlash on my daughter. I do not want these comments to reflect on my daughter."

What a shame.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, can I draw you back to the contents of Bill 22?

K. Conroy: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

What a shame, because class size and composition is a very important issue to good education, and it is a part of Bill 22.

So many teachers are concerned about the class size and composition that's going to be taken away. The students will be left without the ability to learn in a teaching environment where teachers will have the ability to ensure that they get a good education, due to large class sizes and due to the composition.

You know, in the smaller constituencies in the province, in rural B.C., school districts are struggling to make ends meet. Bill 22 is not going to help those school districts to make ends meet. In fact, they're going to be faced with a choice — a choice of looking at this bill, when it comes in, and saying: "In order to make our budgets balance, we're going to have to increase class sizes." Not only are they going to increase those class sizes, but the composition of the classes is going to be very difficult for the teachers, very difficult for the learning environments of students in those classes.

It's so frustrating for the teachers that have talked to us, for the teachers and for the students. The students know that they will be in the same situation.

What I find interesting with Bill 22 is that Bill 22, if it becomes law — I'll say "if", as a dream — will actually prohibit teachers from striking and limit their collective bargaining rights. I think my colleague from Nanaimo talked about this rather eloquently, how the government is once again eroding workers' legal rights in this province. It's actually violating legal rights of workers in this province.

I think a number of times this government has violated legal rights, and they've been called on it — called on it in the Supreme Court of Canada. Here we are again in this situation with Bill 22.

If Bill 22 becomes law, the government will of course demand that the teachers respect its provisions, including those that make strikes illegal. It will condemn those who defy the law, this act, as lawbreakers, and punish them with severe fines — extremely severe fines: $475 a day for a teacher; $2,500 per day for a union officer; $1.3 million per day for the union.

When you look at that kind of money…. They're going to fine teachers $1.3 million, yet the government will pay out $6 million for the legal defence of convicted criminals. I ask you: where is the respect in that? I don't see that in Bill 22. I don't see respect for teachers. I see a government that is demanding that the rule of law be obeyed or respected, but at the same time is dangerously close to encroaching upon the rule of law. I think that they really need to relook at that.

[1450]

When we look at the experience in this House, when we look at the experience from the government, from their…. The reputation that B.C. has, as far as law goes, across…. It's not regarded as respectful of workers. It's not regarded as respectful of the law. If it was respectful of the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't be coming out and speaking against the laws that have been implemented by this government.

Once again we see it with Bill 22. We see

an act that's coming in that is dangerously close to encroaching upon the rule of law — the very law that the government will come out and say needs to be respected.

I want to touch from a retired teacher and a fellow whose wife is also a teacher. He's from Cranbrook. Dean says his wife is still working, and she's a high school physics and chemistry teacher. He sees her coming home exhausted every day, doing the job she loves, teaching the kids she loves. It's her lifelong calling, he said.

He asked a number of questions in relation to Bill 22. He says:

"Now, I ask you to think about what it would take for a dedicated professional like my wife to continue to dedicate her life to this vocation and serve kids like she has for the past 20 years.

"Does she hear government leaders who value the work that teachers do and support those teachers by recognizing and valuing their professional autonomy in designing educational programs for kids? Or does she hear a government that seeks to harness and control teachers' voices and attempts to demonize dedicated professionals in the eyes of the public by restricting teachers' rights to bargain the conditions of their work and improve learning conditions for kids?"

It's the very essence of Bill 22 — to bargain conditions of their work and improve learning conditions for kids being taken away from teachers.

"Does she hear government leaders who treat her with respect by bargaining in good faith and recognize that every expenditure on education is an investment in our future that goes directly into providing better services to kids? Or does she hear a controlling government that takes rigid and unreasonable positions in a fake bargaining position that no thoughtful professional could accept in good faith?

"Does she see government policies that support the creation and extension of trusting, collaborative, professional working environments through authentic recognition of teachers' voices

[ Page 9955 ]

and professional opinions in designing educational systems? Or does she see a government who fails to understand the importance of true collaboration in education and, instead, focuses on irrelevant data collection, disrespectful hypervigilant monitoring and continues to advocate an archaic model of hierarchical administrative control?"

He was still teaching when the B.C. Liberals began what can only be described….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Black: Thank you for the opportunity, on International Women's Day, to debate Bill 22 and to wish all women in British Columbia a happy International Women's Day — just take a quick opportunity to do that.

Bill 22 is called the Education Improvement Act, and I just have to say it's such an Orwellian title to a bill that really will not improve education, will make it much more difficult for students in the classroom and much more difficult for teachers in the classroom, administrators and for the whole system. So to watch kind of doublespeak in the title of the bill really is quite astounding.

I come from a family where everybody went through the public education system, just like most of the members of this House. My father graduated from Magee high school many, many years ago. My sister and brother and all of us went to school in that area.

My husband graduated from the other side of town. He graduated from Britannia. In the time when he and I met, it was rather revolutionary for a girl from the west side of town to be dating a boy from the east side of town. But thankfully, those kinds of attitudes have changed over the years.

When I think about my time in school, just as most of us in the House do, in public education, I remember a number of really outstanding teachers who had an impact on my life, just as they do today on the lives of my grandchildren. I have five grandchildren now in primary school education in New Westminster and Coquitlam. My three sons went through the public education system. They're all now in successful careers and have done very well through public education.

[1455]

My husband spent many years in the education system both as a teacher and as a principal in Vancouver and, most of his years, taught and was an administrator in the inner-city schools. So he understood and worked with a very complex group of students who came from many parts of the world as refugees, as immigrants. Children from…. At one school, the last school I think he was at, there were 140 different language groups in the school. That speaks to the complexity now of the education system in British Columbia.

I think it's important to put Bill 22 into context. It has to be put into context over what's been happening in education for the last ten years under the leadership of this government, of this Premier, who was a previous Minister of Education. Since the year 2002 the system has lost 1,500 — 1,500 — specialized educational teachers. That includes 277 teacher-librarians, 106 school counsellors, 736 special education teachers, 328 ESL teachers and ten aboriginal teachers.

I'm really looking forward to hearing from the Premier her rationalization for this bill, why it is she believes it's good for education — why it is she believes that this Bill 22 could be called the Education Improvement Act, where everywhere I look in the bill, I only see parts of this bill that will have a continuing negative impact on the system and on the children the system serves.

Madam Speaker, you know and most people in this House know that the classroom today is a very complex environment, much more complex than when any of us went to school, and today we ask a great deal from teachers in the public education system.

Our expectations as a society of the teaching profession are incredibly high. We want teachers not only to instil in their students a love of learning, an excitement about learning and an anticipation of onward learning in their lives. We also want them to watch for signs of abuse in children. We want them to raise the self-esteem of the children that they teach. We want them to provide a quality education to students regardless of their abilities or their disabilities. We even ask them to check for lice in the hair of the students today. There is a very complex environment.

We have students who come to British Columbia from all over the world, from all kinds of difficult past situations — countries at war, countries where famine exists — and we integrate all of these students into our public education system and ask our teachers to lift them up. We really do have incredible expectations at the same time we have a government that has been reducing the support systems and the tools teachers can use in the classroom.

Like other members before me, I want to read a few letters and e-mails that I've received from students, parents and teachers in New Westminster, and all of them are from New Westminster.

The first one is from a student at New Westminster Senior Secondary, and his name is Luke McAndless-Davis. He is a grade 11 international baccalaureate student from New Westminster Senior Secondary. He wrote this to me when the government was considering bringing in this back-to-work legislation. He says:

"I'm deeply concerned by your government's recent decision to attempt to end this teachers' job action by legislating against it."

I'm reading this one because it speaks to what members on the other side of the House have said about the disruption in education for students. He says:

"You've claimed that this must be done because the government and the BCTF are too divided on the issue. You claim you're doing this because 'it's always students who pay the price when adults can't cooperate,' but I'm writing to inform you that this has not been my experience of job action.

"I'm a motivated student who engages in many extracurricular

[ Page 9956 ]

activities that require the intensive involvement of my teachers. I am in my school's chamber and jazz choirs that compete and tour, compete in festivals, perform regularly, have rehearsals every day. These amazing opportunities would not be possible without my committed teachers, who continue to run these groups while job action continues.

[1500]

"I'm also completely aware of all my grades, can count on extra help from my amazing teachers and continue to attend rewarding field trips. I'm not suffering from the job actions of my teachers. In fact, I feel that seeing my teachers participate in Canada's grand tradition of peaceful protest and democracy has given me a valuable lesson — that individuals can make a difference.

"It's clear that the job action of the teachers is not causing my education, or that of my peers, to suffer."

He goes on further than this, but he concludes with:

"I call on you to do simply this: cooperate." Wise words from a student. "Continue to negotiate with the BCTF. Come to the table with open arms. Come to an agreement that will benefit all parties involved. Show us students that negotiation and compromise is possible and that it's not the bully with the big stick or legislative powers that wins the day.

"Thank you, and I urgently await a reply from the government."

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington seeks leaves to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: We have in the gallery with us Drew Farrance and Leann Dawson. Drew Farrance is a resident of Fernwood and an employee at the University of Victoria. Drew is also the president of CUPE Local 4163, representing educational employees at the University of Victoria.

Leann Dawson is a resident of Nanaimo. Leann is a former chair of the Quesnel school district and a retired employee of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Susan Jansen is a former employee of the city of Victoria. Susan is now a staff representative with the Canadian Union of Public Employees and has spent a number of years working in the Fraser Valley before returning to Victoria to work at the CUPE area office here.

As well, joining them is Trevor Davies, the occupational health and safety adviser with the city of Colwood. Trevor is also the president of CUPE Local 374, representing municipal employees in a number of communities in the lower Island, and is the general vice-president with CUPE B.C., which represents 85,000 members across B.C., including 27,000 school staff support.

As well, we have Jason Dales, who is the president of CUPE Local 1978, representing employees at the capital regional district, West Shore Parks and Recreation, Greater Victoria Housing Society and health science professionals at Vancouver Island Health Authority.

I ask for the House to give them a warm welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Black: I will continue by just reading a short e-mail that I received from another student in New Westminster. He writes:

"My name is Howard. I'm 14 years old, currently a grade 9 student in New Westminster Secondary School. I value my education, and I know my teachers also value it. But do you? If so, bring an end to the teachers contract dispute by actually acting like the adults you claim to be. Bullying isn't what adults are supposed to do; listening is."

That is another student, a 14-year-old from New Westminster.

From parents on Bill 22, parents in New Westminster. A woman writes to me, and she says:

She talks more about Bill 22, and then she says:

"We would appreciate it if you would speak on our behalf as constituents and parents against Bill 22 during debate. This law, Bill 22, sounds like bullying behaviour to me, and I'm shocked that a government whose Premier has spoken out against bullying would resort to this kind of legislation."

More e-mails — I won't have time to go through them. I've received an inordinate number of e-mails just from my community, as well as e-mails from around the province.

This one is from a teacher in New Westminster. Her name is Kelly. She said:

"I'm writing to you as a resident of B.C. — New Westminster — and a proud teacher at NWSS. I teach music, and I am the fine and performing arts department head at the high school. I am by no means a unionist. I am a critical thinker, and I look at all sides of a situation before making an independent decision.

[1505]

"But I am so horrified at the heavy-handed, extreme legislation introduced in Bill 22. Should this bill pass — leaving out the punitive measures against teachers and salary arguments — the situation is dismaying.

"As well, the punitive measures against teachers are an extreme bullying tactic meant to divide and conquer our profession — demoralizing for the profession and lacking in general humanity, which I think is essential to building an efficient, positive and forward-moving community."

She goes on to talk about what she calls a faux mediator in the legislation and then ends with:

"I have never spoken up like this before, but I feel so strongly that I had to communicate this to you, and I hope that you will communicate it to the Legislature. If the current government's plan moves ahead, education and the teaching profession will certainly be diminished in British Columbia."

Another e-mail from another teacher and resident of New Westminster who says she's a longtime Vancouver elementary school teacher. It's a very long e-mail, and I'll just read a few lines from it. She says she started working in Vancouver in 1989, and at first she thought she'd died and gone to heaven.

She said 1989 was a very exciting time to be a teacher in Vancouver. The district was working actively to support immigrant families, develop programs for ESL and respect for diversity, and the Year 2000 education plan had just been introduced. "As a teacher I was empowered.

[ Page 9957 ]

I worked with dedicated professionals and participated in quality teacher-led professional development."

She went on to talk about where she had taught before, in Spain, and she taught in California, to migrant Mexican families, and expands on that. Then she talks about how happy she was to come back to B.C. and work in the public education system here. She talks about class size and composition throughout this letter. But she finishes with this:

"Further, Bill 22 is not about education improvement. It's a mean-spirited attempt at getting back at teachers. It is about gutting the public education system." She says it's an abuse of democracy and makes a mockery of the Legislature.

She says: "Is this our Premier's plan, to table a law that is unconstitutional and then spend ten years and tons of taxpayers' money again fighting it in court?" She finds that unconscionable. She goes on with some stronger language, but I'll move to the end.

She says: "So I call on all MLAs to defeat this bill in honour of our children, in honour of all those who came before us and sacrificed so much to create a Canada that is worth living in. I call on this government to honour the constitution of Canada and support free collective bargaining. Teachers should be applauded for advocating for their students rather than vilified." That's from Paula in New Westminster.

The last one maybe I'll read parts of from a teacher is from a woman also in New Westminster. Her name is Tanya. She says she's a grade 5-6 teacher in New Westminster and she's saddened and upset about what's happening with the negotiations and with her government.

I'm quoting her directly now: "I have been so passionate about teaching my students about the government in the grade 5 curriculum." And I think most of us as MLAs know that this is part of the grade 5 curriculum, and I know I've often gone into classrooms to talk to the students about what it is like to be an MLA and to be a Member of Parliament, something I always enjoyed.

She said:

"It's something I have been so proud of as a Canadian. I've been proud of how our government listens to its citizens and allows us to have a say in what happens. It's really difficult to teach my students with the same passion when I don't feel like we have a say with this government. They decide what they think is best without being properly informed or having a real understanding of what teachers do on a daily basis."

She worries, she says, that our system is in danger of becoming similar to the U.S. system, which she doesn't believe is something to hold in high regard. She talks about what's going on in her classroom, and she says she has a class of 30 students, five of them with individual education plans, special needs.

[1510]

She says she struggles every day to meet the needs of such a diverse group and asks us to imagine hosting a birthday party of 30 children, five of them with special needs, and to attempt to teach them math. She feels that that might give us a better idea of what teaching in a classroom is like.

She says she hasn't had a current math textbook now for the past four years and has had to photocopy from a textbook for two different grades. Add five students who are each on individualized plans, and you have a tremendous amount of work just for one subject. She asks us to multiply that by six subjects. This certainly doesn't fit within a five-hour work day. She honestly says she works nine hours every day and takes work home on the weekend.

She finishes up with:

"In the past ten years I have seen a real change in the students who are coming to school. They are needier in many ways, both socially and academically. If you don't support the teachers who care so much about them, you will have a much bigger problem on your hands in the future. We are the last, best hope to make a difference in children's lives. Please make a difference in their lives by supporting their teachers and listening to them."

Maybe this will be the final one I read from teachers. There are so many of them that it's hard. This is a teacher who has been in the British Columbia education system for 17 years. She says she spends money on her students who come to school without school supplies, book bags, breakfast, mitts, toques and winter coats. She lives in New Westminster but works in an inner-city school in north Surrey.

"I have a split class of 28 grades 4 and 5 students who are nine and ten years old. I have 11 grade 5s. Two of those students are designated special needs. Both are severe behaviour problems. Three more of my grade 5 students are kids who fall into the grey area. This means that they do not qualify for learning support because they are 'low and slow.'

"I have 17 grade 4 students. Two of those students have moderate intelligence disorder designations. One of them is Down syndrome and has chronic health issues. Both are working at a grade 2 to grade 2.5 level. In addition to that, I have one who is not designated but is in the process of being designated severe behaviour.

"All of this means that on top of having to teach two curriculums, I have to write behaviour plans for my behaviour kids, make adaptions to my curriculum so my grey-area kids can be successful and modify areas of curriculum for my MID students.

"Having said this, I would like to walk you through my work day."

Then she goes through her work day, which is astounding.

She ends with:

"Don't get me wrong. I love teaching. I'm a good teacher. I try hard to make a difference. Working in an atmosphere of intimidation and distrust is not the way I want to finish my career.

"I urge you and your colleagues to do everything in your power to defeat Bill 22. We just can't afford for our students to be subjected to any more of this callous disregard for public education and the teachers who teach our children."

That's just a sampling of the many e-mails and letters and visits I've had from teachers, from students, from parents in my community, phone calls. It's of real concern in New Westminster, and I think that's shared, quite frankly, across the House. I'm sure that other MLAs on both sides of the House have been receiving these kinds of letters from students and from teachers who are very

[ Page 9958 ]

concerned about our public education.

One of the things I've noticed during the debate in the House is that a couple of members from the government side of the House have made comments saying that teachers are intimidated by their unions, that they're being bullied by their unions. There has been more than one member say that in relation to Bill 22.

I think we really need to look at the reality out there, and the reality is that the BCTF received an 87 percent strike mandate. I know teachers. I've lived with one. I know that the last thing most teachers want to do is walk out of the classroom. I think that is an overwhelming majority of their membership to indicate that they were prepared to walk off the job if the education system wasn't treated with more respect.

[1515]

Bill 22 lays out conditions for a mediator, but we didn't need legislation to do that. A mediator could have been appointed without this legislation. In fact, in Bill 22 it's a sham mediation process that's being imposed, and the terms of reference in Bill 22 basically predetermine what the outcome will be.

The government has claimed that they repealed the earlier legislation that was ruled unconstitutional in Bills 28 and 29. However, they have reintroduced into this Bill 22 the same provisions, the same language that the courts found to be unconstitutional and invalid.

It's clear that Bill 22 weakens class-size rules. It allows for more children in the classroom. It allows for more children with particular special needs in the classroom without putting in place the kinds of supports that the classroom teacher needs in order to accommodate more children with special needs. It's very clear that this legislation is playing politics with students, teachers and their families.

The key question on Bill 22 is: will this legislation make the classrooms better for students? And the answer is also clear. The answer is no. It will not. The legislation will actually do the opposite. It will add to the deterioration of the classroom situation for teachers and for students.

Over the years public education has really been the great equalizer in our society and in our province. It can be argued that public education has actually created the middle class in Canada and in British Columbia. Now with increasing inequality in our province, we need a strong, well-resourced public school system more than we have ever needed it before, and this bill is taking that system in the opposite direction and, I think, is very worrisome for our society and for our future citizens.

There was a recent B.C. Stats report that came out, and it revealed that in British Columbia we have the largest gap in Canada between the affluent and the most vulnerable. This government's own agency stated that "compared to other provinces, B.C. ranked dead last in 2009, with the largest gap between the top 20 percent and the bottom 20 percent of income earners."

This is reason enough to oppose and vote against Bill 22, because it will further weaken our education system and further perpetuate the growing inequality in our province if children don't get the quality education they both deserve and want and that their families want for them. It may deprive by weakening our public education system. We deprive many students of a chance to succeed. We deprive them of a chance to flourish and to be everything that they can be with the help they need to succeed. I feel very strongly that Bill 22 is taking us in the wrong direction. It's eroding our public education system, and I will be here to vote in the House in opposition to Bill 22.

I thank you for your time and take my place.

Deputy Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington seeks leave to break an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome…. In the gallery we have John Burrows. John Burrows is the long-time president of CUPE Local 50. In that capacity, he represents employees at a variety of workplaces, including the city of Victoria, the Victoria police board, United Way of Greater Victoria and the Victoria SPCA. I ask everyone here to make him feel welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: I rise to take my place to debate Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. When I received this bill, when the government tabled this bill, my heart sank, frankly. It brought back the days and some history around the education system and some of the legislative changes that were debated in this House.

[1520]

The history of this bill, I think, is important. I want to enter into this debate by bringing forward the history so that we can contextualize what has happened in the past and what it means today — Bill 22. Because if we don't know our history, then I would argue that we won't be able to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Let me bring us back to January 26, 2002, when the Liberal government at that time tabled Bills 27 and 28. Now, Bill 28 was called the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Some members of this House would remember that. Sounds like nice words, kind of like this bill, Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. But I have now come to learn to not let the title of the bill trick you into believing that is in fact the substance of the bill.

Back in January 2002 — in fact on a Saturday, January 26 — we were called back to this House to do what we

[ Page 9959 ]

now know was around-the-clock, all-night debate on the series of legislation that the government brought in. The government brought in, in the area of education, Bills 27 and 28. It took away the rights of teachers to collectively bargain and effectively took away the rights of teachers, in their collective agreements, to a say in class size and composition.

At that time the current Premier, when she was the Minister of Education, in debating Bill 27 said: "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…."

Then following that bill, Bill 28, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, was rushed through the House in an around-the-clock, all-night sitting. The then Minister of Education, now Premier, said that the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act "marks a turning point for public education, a turning point for every student in British Columbia." At that time the Minister of Education claimed that Bill 28 makes a move toward more flexibility, a more responsive, better-managed system that meets students' needs.

Then the matter was challenged in court. To the courage of the B.C. Teachers Federation, they challenged the government in court, and the Supreme Court struck down the B.C. Liberals' changes to the teachers collective rights as unconstitutional. Let me be clear. The Premier was the Minister of Education at the time when the Liberal government brought in these changes.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Liberal government was in breach of the B.C. Teachers Federation's guaranteed right to freedom of assembly as expressed through collective bargaining. The judge found that the Liberal government had trampled on the collective bargaining rights of teachers by legislating away class sizes and composition.

The judge further said: "By passing the legislation without so much as consulting with the BCTF, the government did not preserve the essential underpinning of collective bargaining — namely, good-faith negotiation and consultation." The ruling outlined that the government saved $275 million a year by stripping teachers' right to bargain class size and composition in Bills 27 and 28. Today the government says that they will put back $30 million in the new learning improvement fund to deal with class size and composition.

[1525]

That's the history of this. It is important to highlight some aspects of that history, because it brings us back to today. What does Bill 22 do? Has it shown that the government has learned from the history of the past?

I would argue not, because the most important lesson of that is about ensuring that we have the proper and appropriate learning environment for the students. The government says over and over and over again that they care about students, that they respect the teacher, yet here we are. At a time when the government could be spending this time in good-faith negotiations with the B.C. Teachers Federation, they are instead bringing forward a bill that says: "I've got the hammer, and if you don't do what I tell you to do, I am going to bring down the hammer."

The Premier said that she is going to bring down the hammer anyway, yet the government wants you to believe that they are bringing in a mediation process that is going to be fair and square — that somehow the last three days, when the teachers were not in the classrooms, protesting Bill 22…. The government wants to blame the teachers for having done that, when in fact the government could have taken that time to engage with the teachers, to find a solution and work with a mediator that is an independent mediator to find the answers.

The government didn't do that. They are itching for a fight, but for what? I don't know, other than, I have to think, the Premier must think that somehow this is a good political fight for the sake of it. At the expense of that who pays, Madam Speaker? I'll tell you who pays. It is the students who pay, and it is the parents who pay, and it is the teachers who have to pay.

I have known so many teachers in my life. They are these wonderful, wonderful teachers all across the province of British Columbia. I so admire what they do each and every day, because their task is not easy, and this in a context of diminishing funding in the education system.

The Premier said a decade ago that she was bringing in legislation and actions in this House to ensure that we have a top-notch education system. Well, what has happened since that time?

In reality this is what has happened under the Liberal watch. On class size and composition, in the year 2010-11 there were over 16,000 classes that have had over 30 students or more than three individual education plan students in that classroom. That is actually in violation of the government's own law around class size and composition. The BCTF has stated that they now have over 10,000 outstanding grievances from the year 2009-10 through to the initial legislation and that all of those 10,000 grievances are on class size and composition.

The government and the ministers, the Minister of Finance…. I heard him say that the teachers don't care about class size and composition. Are you kidding me? They fight day in and day out to make sure that the learning environment is optimal for their students, because they do care.

They throw their heart and soul into this. Why? Because they love their children and they love their profession. That's why they do it. How dare anybody suggest that they don't care?

If you take a look at what's happening in the classrooms today, the per-pupil funding formula introduced by the then Minister of Education, now the Premier, has

[ Page 9960 ]

led to a systemic shortfall in funding for school districts across the province. B.C.'s educational funding fell from the national average under the Liberal government.

[1530]

There's no one else to blame except for the government themselves. The Liberal government wasted money, nearly $90 million, on a failed experiment called the BCeSIS student information system. That's what the government has done, and that is what I call mismanagement of taxpayers' money.

And in Budget 2012 the Education budget is virtually frozen. With inflation alone and the increased costs that came from government being forced onto the school districts, that means is that there will be cuts in programming in the education system to the tune of at least $100 million. You can just imagine what that would look like in the classroom, Madam Speaker.

I spoke about teachers a moment ago and the wonderful, wonderful, dedicated teachers across the province of British Columbia. I've come to know one particular teacher quite well, I would say, through her public advocacy for students in the inner city.

In the inner city we're different. We're unique. We are a beautiful community with love and care for each other. That said, we're also a community with many challenges. Today's teachers, in the inner-city schools particularly, face challenges in a very different way.

Back in the days, there was a time when your focus was about teaching, but today the situation is such that the complexity of the makeup of the classroom is beyond measure. I'm not just talking about ESL students in terms of demographic changes. I'm not just talking about special needs children because of their different levels of development. I'm also talking about family structures and what that brings into the classroom.

We have students who are homeless in our community today. We have students who have parents struggling with addiction in our communities today. We have students who live in poverty in our school system today. They come to school with no food in their bellies, in the winter months with no jackets on their backs, in shoes with holes — and, sometimes, sandals — in the snow.

We have children who come to school with bedbug bites all over their body. They have lice in their hair. They are traumatized with experiences that I cannot recite in this House because it is just too much for any one child to take. The teachers see that, directly in their classrooms, and it plays out.

The teachers told me that in the inner city they have a code-blue system. I'd never heard of it. What does that mean? That means that they have a crisis in the classroom, a child is in a traumatic state, and they literally have to have a lockdown in their classroom. They tell me that their cloakroom has become a counsellor's office, where children hide under their coats because of the issues that they are dealing with at home.

Teachers try to play counsellor-teacher-mentor to these children. They try to play social worker to these children, and they're doing it at a time that the resources are completely diminished. Teacher-librarians are slashed. Special needs workers are diminished in the classroom. Counsellors are barely available. Children that they know should have been designated for special needs are not getting the designation, because there's a wait-list. Children who should have received additional support are not getting that support, because they don't fit the classification that has been defined as what are special needs.

[1535]

Yet the need continues. The schools don't have the resources to buy speech therapy for a child who is struggling. Imagine that — a child who cannot learn because that child is having trouble articulating what he or she wants to say. And the resource to support that child to grow and the opportunity to flourish is not there because the resource is not there. It breaks my heart.

The person who brought this to my attention is a woman by the name of Carrie Gelson. She's a grade 2, grade 3 teacher at one of my inner-city schools. She is a beautiful mom, a beautiful human being, in trying to advance all these issues. She's not alone in doing this work. She, among so many other front-line workers, is doing all of that work, and they're struggling each and every day. They are begging and asking for donations. They're fundraisers. They're doing fundraising for the kids.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I draw you back to the contents of Bill 22.

J. Kwan: Absolutely. They are doing fundraising in the classroom. How does that relate to Bill 22? It relates to Bill 22 because the government, in this bill, is taking away the ability to address effectively the issue of class size and composition.

I kind of think that I've actually got stuck back in 2002. Somehow the lessons that should have been learned from the courts have completely been missed by this government. They don't see it at all. Then they pretend that Bill 22 is somehow a process of cooling off those teachers.

Oh, and those angry, angry teachers. It's supposed to cool them off. "It's a cooling-off period," they say. Well, what kind of cooling-off period is that, when the government does not put forward an independent mediator and does not put in a process that actually respects the teachers?

They have failed to listen to what the teachers have been crying for — and calling for help so that they can have a better learning environment. The government ignored all of that. That's how the context of what I talked about and those classrooms that the teachers face each and every day relates to Bill 22.

[ Page 9961 ]

[D. Black in the chair.]

I want to put on the public record this beautiful letter. I've received over a hundred of them in my riding, just like all of my colleagues. I'm sure that the government's side, as well, has received letter after letter from dedicated teachers, from parents — people who are concerned about what's happening right here in this Legislature. They want to voice their opinion, to share it with us around Bill 22.

This one I have chosen amongst the over a hundred. I am sorry I can't put them all on the public record. I chose one because I think it's a representation of what people are telling me as their MLA, as they're telling other MLAs in this House.

It reads:

"I'm a teacher, and education is something I'm passionate about. For me, trying to create an environment where each child can grow is at the very root of a civilized society. I think that this battle the teachers union is waging is one worth fighting. The provincial government is making it impossible for teachers to do their jobs well.

"I have a grade 7 class of 30 wonderful children. I have a diverse mix of personalities, learning challenges and cultures. Each day we come to school to learn about the world around us and how to best interact with and contribute to it.

"Sometimes it is hard. Sometimes there's a child who is so angry about the divorce of her parents that she comes to school and lashes out with violence because it is a place where somebody will take notice. Someone — a teacher, an aide, a counsellor, a principal or a vice-principal — will stop and ask them what's going on. Sometimes there's a child who struggles every day to learn what some of the other kids already seem to know.

[1540]

"As the teacher, I look for their strengths, the things they do well. I try to build on them, show them how to look at the world through the lens which is uniquely their own. If I fail, that child might carry anger and frustration through his whole life, a life where dreams are not realized, where perhaps drugs and alcohol abuse seem to provide the only relief. If I don't build a child's hope and engagement with a world around him, I have failed him.

"This was a time when children with disabilities went to a separate school. Now they're integrated, contributing to the increasingly diverse microcosm which is the classroom. It takes a village to raise a child. We need the diversity, but we also need the specialists who are trained to identify and adapt for that diversity.

"It is impossible for one person to meet the learning needs of 30 students. I see my 30 students for more time per day than their parents do. I think every one of their parents wants the very best for their child. They want them to grow up to be good, contributing members in society.

"What is the alternative? As a teacher, I would like the government to come to the bargaining table in good faith, to look at options for how we can create social environments where teachers can do their jobs well.

"Education is the means by which we transfer the values of our culture: honesty, integrity and respect for the individual. I believe Canada is a place where everyone has the right to the best education possible."

This is the letter from a teacher from the east side of Vancouver. It is, I think, a letter that reflects all of the teachers across the province of British Columbia, who wish that they could have an educational system that they can work in to support the children in their classrooms so that they have the best opportunities for the future.

After all, this is why, I think, we as human beings engage with each other and do different things in our community and then have children — so that we can build on the future for a better tomorrow, to give those opportunities to the younger generation and the generations to come. The education system is key to that.

The damage of Bill 22 to our system is going to be devastating. It builds on, yet again, the hostility that the government had already brought on when they brought in Bills 27 and 28. Since that time, little has been done to try to engage in such a way that builds on the relationship with the teachers.

We hear over and over again that the government says that they respect and value teachers, yet time and again, through their very actions, you see something else. Why else, then, would Bill 22 be brought to this House, when the government says that they really want to ensure that there is a cooling-off period, that there's mediation, that we can actually cool our heads and find solutions?

We're not finding solutions when the government is taking action to escalate the emotions and to penalize the teachers, who are simply just trying to advocate for the students in their classrooms. So when the government says that they care deeply about our education system, those words ring hollow in the context of what's before us and in the context of the actions that they have chosen to take.

Now, the Premier not very long ago even violated the rules of the House in question period. Right on the day when the Minister of Education tabled the bill, Bill 22, the Premier was so eager to get into the discussion of Bill 22 that she violated the rules of the House in question period by talking about the bill. You're not supposed to talk about the substance of the bill once a bill's been introduced.

[1545]

This is a Premier who knows about those rules, because she's been here…. Albeit she took a short period of time where she was out of the Legislature, but she's been a parliamentarian since 1996, minus the time that she was a talk-show host on a radio show. So she knows about the rules of the House.

Yet to date, debates have taken place, and the Premier has yet to take her place in this Legislature to officially put her comments on the public record about Bill 22, where it should be done — not during question period or any other time, really, but rather to do it in this House, like we're all doing it right now.

In fact, many of the Liberal MLAs have stopped taking their place in the Legislature, as well, to debate this bill. I don't know why that is, when they say that education is a priority for them, when the government and the Premier keep on saying that they have a family-first agenda.

Well, education is the cornerstone of families — wouldn't you think? I most certainly think so myself, as

[ Page 9962 ]

do many British Columbians. Yet we don't see the Premier engaging in that debate. Why is she not doing that? It's curious to me why she's not taking her time to put on the public record her comments around Bill 22. As much as the opposition would like to know what those comments might be, I think that all British Columbians would like to know.

I want to take a moment to go back to this. Now, I know that we talked about the education system, we talked about the inner-city schools and we talked about the impacts of what's going on in the classroom. We talked about Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act.

In fact, the act itself removes the requirement that there be no more than three students with individual education plans in the classroom. It removes maximum class-size district averages, which work in conjunction with maximum class-size limits to ensure that class sizes overall do not increase to unmanageable levels.

The government has been told by the courts that class size and composition are issues that must be dealt with. Then, on July 1 of 2013, the government states that teachers will have the right to bargain class size and composition. But Bill 22 does not guarantee this right. Is the government once again showing British Columbians and the courts of British Columbia that they have failed to learn the lessons of the past and must be engaged in yet another process that is not helpful but, rather, damaging to our education system?

I call on the government to take pause and to reflect on that. I call on the government to stop this game — and it is not a game — and truly put the interests of students first; put the education system and the importance of the education system first, before their political agenda; and stop fighting and trying to engage in a fight with the teachers. Let's work together and find an independent mediator that can solve this problem for all of us and for future generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to engage in this debate, and I look forward to hearing other colleagues who would have something to say about this important bill.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to stand in my place and represent the people of Juan de Fuca in the debate of Bill 22, the poorly named Education Improvement Act.

Hon. Speaker, you were not in this place at the time, but in 2005, when I was first elected, the then Leader of the Opposition gave me the privilege of being the Education critic at a time when there was unease in the system. There had been concern as a result of actions by the B.C. Liberal government in the early part of the century, and it was a real honour to take on the role of opposition Education critic.

[1550]

I have to say that it was eye-opening in many, many ways. First of all, to be upfront and personal with the contempt that government had at that time for collective bargaining, the contempt that they had at that time for the teaching profession generally…. It was also very rewarding to meet with teachers, to meet with trustees and parents all across the province and get a true understanding of the challenges our complex system faces as we move into the second decade of the 21st century.

Those challenges are even more acute than they were in 2005. We have, by all measurements, one of the most robust and successful K-to-12 systems in the country and perhaps even in the continent. I think all of us are proud of that on all sides of the House. But it's not without its challenges, and those challenges, in my view, are not resolved or not assisted or not improved by using legislation to resolve collective bargaining issues.

At the heart of the challenges that we're facing today in 2012 are decisions that were made by the current Premier, the then Minister of Education, in 2002. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was one of two members of the opposition at that time in this place. So 77 to two was the number. It was like a Nebraska football game.

It was something that certainly most British Columbians were concerned about. Governments come and go. They rise and fall. I've been observing politics as a student and as an employee and now as a member of the Legislature for over 30 years. I know that this isn't a partisan statement. Governments sometimes run their course.

"To each a season," as it's been said. Certainly, it's quite clear based on this legislation and the antics of the past number of weeks and months here in British Columbia that the season is coming to a rapid end for the current government. I'm fairly confident — although met by smiles from the member from Cloverdale, the current keeper of the deficits — that this is going to happen sooner than I think he would like, but not soon enough for most British Columbians, certainly not soon enough for people in the teaching profession.

But we got here in 2002. We've had challenges. Governments and the B.C. Teachers Federation have had challenges with collective bargaining. That's no secret. We've all been talking about that, members on the other side, members on this side.

But it's my view, and it's certainly the view of the official opposition, that you don't resolve conflict with a blunt object. I think in most instances — in family life, in communities, in schools — that blunt objects are the last course of action. Instead, nuance, cooperation, consensus is the approach that most people would like to see in this Legislature, in their families, in their communities and in their schools.

I do not believe that we resolve what has been, in this instance, a decade-old problem with respect to class size and class composition with legislation that takes what had been enshrined in legislation, previously enshrined in collective agreements, and then say: "Well, it doesn't matter; we'll worry about that next year." That's exactly

[ Page 9963 ]

what Bill 22 does.

In 2002 my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and her irrepressible sidekick, the venerable Joy MacPhail, stood two against 77 on a weekend — on a weekend — because the government didn't have the finesse to pass legislation with but two opposition members without using blunt objects.

Of course, I believe that is why the current Premier, the then Minister of Education, has really not missed a beat. She went on the talk show circuit to talk about whatever her listeners wanted to talk about. "Bill on line two." "Vanessa on line three." "What do you think about this, that and so?"

Well, you know what, hon. Speaker? I think we'll all agree that life is not that simple. Oh, to be a talk show host. I'm confident that when many of those on the other side are retired after the next election they would be delighted to take up a perch on a radio show so that they could wax eloquent about the challenges of the day without any accountability for what the impacts might be.

I want to just highlight for a minute that notion of accountability, because we are in a delicate situation. All members on all sides of the House recognize that the labour disruption in the K-to-12 sector and the implications of Bill 22 are profound on the functioning of our school system. The impact on children will be great. The impact on families will be great.

[1555]

I believe there is a way out of that impasse, and over the course of my remarks, I'm hopeful that I will lead the government to its senses. The force of my arguments will be so successful that the Health Minister and others will stand in their places and agree: "The member for Juan de Fuca is onto something. Why don't we put down the cudgels? Why don't we put down our weapons? Why don't we put down the hate and start a little bit of love in this place?" A little bit of love.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, yeah. We've got to pay the rent, I guess. Unless you own a football stadium, and then it doesn't matter.

But it's that aggressive approach to collective bargaining that I believe has been an abject failure over the past number of years. When Bill 22 was tabled just last week — it was on a Tuesday — first reading was granted just before question period and the orders of the day, as is customary with legislation. Introduced a first time and, by the rules of the House, it was not eligible for debate at second reading until the next sitting of the House after the day it was tabled.

Minutes after the member for Shuswap, the Education Minister, tabled the legislation, the Premier was on her feet firing jabs back and forth. I want to just remind the House and those who may well not have been able to watch question period on the day of the debate…. I want to just remind members of some of the comments that the Premier made the very day the legislation was tabled in this place.

She said: "This is the place for that debate to happen, and with this withdrawal upon us" — that being the potential, at that point; withdrawal of services — "I'd urge the Leader of the Opposition to step up. The government is being entirely reasonable in this debate" — which had not yet begun.

Entirely reasonable. I guess if something hasn't happened yet, it's dead simple to be reasonable. I guess that's what the thinking was at the time.

"It is time for the opposition to stand up and be responsible and place the issues on the floor of this Legislature, where they belong."

Well, hon. Speaker, that's exactly what we've been doing for the past week. As Opposition House Leader, I made it abundantly clear to the Education Minister and to the Government House Leader that every member of the official opposition had an interest in this bill, every member had a view that education was fundamentally important to their constituents, and this was the wrong approach to repair a broken relationship.

Every one of us was going to speak. That's what I said then. That's what we've been doing over the past number of days. But the Premier, who was so anxious just a week and a day ago to debate this issue in this place, said the following: "This matters to families, and this debate needs to happen in the Legislature."

I agree. I'm glad that the Premier is backing us up on this. The Premier believes that the debate should happen in this Legislature. She went on to say that parents in British Columbia "are watching this Legislature, and they want to know where every single member in this stands on the issue of a work stoppage in our schools."

I agree. I absolutely agree with the Premier. We should all be standing in this place, taking our positions to speak on behalf of our constituents on the issues of the day — most importantly, this legislation.

Lastly, she said: "If the opposition refuses to debate that, refuses to put it on the floor of this chamber, refuses to ask questions about it, I'd ask this. What does it say about the priority they put on public education in this province if they refuse to even discuss it?"

Well, I agree, hon. Speaker. I agree with the Premier of British Columbia. It may never happen again, but I absolutely agree that each member….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah. Wait for it. Wait for it.

Each member should stand in this place and talk about the substance of this bill and the implications for their communities.

Well, here's the deal. Every single member of the op-

[ Page 9964 ]

position will have stood in this place and will have debated the substance of this bill — will have stood up for teachers, will have stood up for collective bargaining. But you know who will not have stood up and spoken on this, hon. Speaker? The member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey has not participated in the debate to this point in time. I'm advised by the Government House Leader, who I always take at his word…. I do that sincerely and genuinely. He has advised me that the Liberals are done. "We're not talking about this anymore." A week ago, hon. Speake