2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Forests and Range Statutes Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 10)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Government support for first nations

J. McIntyre

Mental illness awareness

C. Wyse

Richmond Youth Soccer Association

J. Yap

Public transit

R. Fleming

Cooperative governance in B.C.

J. Nuraney

David Walton

S. Simpson

Oral Questions

Government role in teachers labour

dispute

C. James

Hon. S. Bond

Hon. M. de

Jong

D. Thorne

J. Horgan

J. Kwan

Access to nutritional supplements for

income assistance recipients

C. Trevena

Hon. C.

Richmond

Government support for social housing

D. Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Government support for low-income

seniors

R. Chouhan

Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual

report, 2004

Hon. R.

Coleman

Second Reading of Bills

Teachers' Collective Agreement Act

(Bill 12) (continued)

R. Chouhan

G. Coons

D. Cubberley

M. Sather

G. Gentner

B. Lekstrom

Motions without Notice

Continuation of sitting beyond ordinary

hour of adjournment

M. Farnworth

A. Dix

J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Teachers' Collective Agreement

Act (Bill 12) (continued)

M. Karagianis

G. Robertson

S. Hammell

C. Trevena

J. Kwan

R. Fleming

C. Wyse

C. James

J. Horgan

L. Krog

D. Cubberley

Hon. M. de Jong

A. Dix

S. Fraser

G. Coons

R. Chouhan

H. Bains

G. Gentner

B. Simpson

C. Trevena

M. Sather

C. Evans

R. Austin

J. Brar

D. Thorne

C. Puchmayr

M. Farnworth

K. Conroy

N. Macdonald

C. James

D. Routley

S. Simpson

B. Ralston

D. Chudnovsky

J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community

Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues

(continued)

Hon. I. Chong

M. Karagianis

C. Trevena

N. Macdonald

J. Horgan

C. Wyse

B. Simpson

S. Fraser

[ Page 561 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today Carol Arnold, who resides in my constituency. Carol is of Métis-Cree heritage and is seconded to the Gulf Islands school district to work as a faculty associate at Simon Fraser University. She's engaged in teacher education with the indigenous people's teaching education module. It is important to note that 60 percent of Canada's aboriginal population lives in B.C. and that this segment of the population is the fastest growing in western Canada. The majority of first nations are under the age of 25.

Carol is part of a delegation of the public school teachers from across the province, and she serves as co-chair of the aboriginal education committee for the B.C. Federation of Teachers. Please give her a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to welcome to the chamber today Lynda Croft Reynolds Turney, who indeed has been a friend of mine for 33 years. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I have two introductions to make today. First, I'd like to introduce to the House Sheila Maracle, who is a constituent of mine. Sheila is from the Mohawk nation in southern Ontario. She's lived in B.C. for the past 15 years and has taught for ten years in Vancouver's inner city, where the schools have a majority of aboriginal students in their class. Please make Sheila welcome.

I'd also like the House to welcome Christine Stewart, who is a Ganada and citizen of the Nisga'a Nation. She's a Vancouver teacher, and Christine has just defended her master's degree in July. The topic was indigenous teachers working in lower mainland public schools. Please welcome Christine Stewart.

[1405]

R. Lee: In the House today we have some visitors from Guangdong, China. We have Jock Zhao,

section chief of the Zhongshan Overseas Chinese Affairs Bureau; Mr. Yan Lin and Mr. Jianing Song from Zhongshan Radio and Television Station; Mr. John Zhang, principal of the Bond Language Institute. Accompanying them is Mr. Lincoln Liu, president of the Victoria Hook Sin Tong Charity. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Austin: It's my privilege today to introduce two members who are visiting here. They are both constituents of mine and friends. The first is Sue Spalding — she's a member of the Tsimshian nation — and her partner Shane Pauls, who is a member of the Tahltan nation. They are both aboriginal educators. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

M. Polak: I would like to introduce to the House Daryl Racette. I had the pleasure of working with Daryl when I was part of the aboriginal education advisory committee in the Surrey school district. Would the House please make Daryl welcome.

M. Karagianis: In the gallery today we have eight people who represent a very innovative entrepreneurial enterprise called Street Newz . Street Newz represents and is an entrepreneurial effort on behalf of all those who live in poverty on the streets. I would like to introduce Janine Bandcroft, Ted Hawryluk, Ken Bath, Robin Kingsley, my good friend Rose Henry, Robert Lightheart-Jones, Jim Hedger, Diane Wallrich and Larry Wartel. Would you please make them welcome here today.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a special visitor from the United Kingdom. I'm pleased to welcome Martin Cronin, the newly appointed consul general for the United Kingdom in Vancouver. He's here for meetings with a number of ministers mainly on trade, commerce and energy issues, and we welcome him to British Columbia and wish him well today. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

L. Krog: With great pleasure I introduce three guests today. One of my old classmates from law school, a senior public servant from Ottawa, Milly Nickason. Accompanying her is her mother Millicent Nickason and her uncle Dr. Gilbert Ogilvy. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Routley: I would like to welcome to the House a friend and constituent, Brock Mcleod, a fine activist, a defender of education. I would like the House to please make him welcome.

R. Hawes: Years ago, when the Minister of Agriculture was a young man still trying to find his way, he met a mentor that straightened out his life and taught him everything that he now knows. That mentor is in the gallery today, Mr. Ted Adlem. He happens to also be the president of my riding association. Could the House please make him welcome.

[1410]

G. Coons: I'm pleased and honoured to have the privilege of introducing a good friend and colleague from Haida Gwaii. She's one of my constituents. She's an aboriginal teacher from Tsimshian nation. Her traditional name is Bilham Yuks, which means pearl on the fin of the killer whale. She is from the Git'le'giux tribe from the house of Meduck, grizzly bear. Her crest is killer whale. She has been a proud member of the B.C. Teachers Federation for five years, and she currently teaches grades two and three in Skidegate on Haida Gwaii. Please join me in welcoming Michelle Davies to the House today.

[ Page 562 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House we are joined by three members of the Elliot family. They are three young people. Two of them are full-time students, one is a high school student, and one is a full-time SFU student. I would like to welcome Molly Elliot, Nigel Elliot, and Caroline Elliot, affectionately known to family and friends as Boomer. Will the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased today to welcome my good friend and a good friend of many on this side of the House, Cheryl Hewitt. Cheryl has been a longtime advocate in the health care and cooperative movements. Importantly, she is a lifetime member and activist in our party. She is currently the treasurer of the provincial NDP. I'm pleased to say that she managed my election campaign, and I thank her very much for all that work. Please make her welcome.

G. Hogg: This morning I had the honour of meeting with a resident of Surrey–White Rock. She's an aboriginal teacher in the Surrey school district. Her name is Gaaxstalas Wedlidi. She's a member of the Tlowitsis first nation. She's a passionate teacher who cares deeply about the services provided to the students of Surrey and this province. Would you please make her most welcome.

G. Gentner: It's with great pleasure I introduce to the House Lynda Toews, a teacher from my constituency of Delta North, although us colonials refer to it as north Delta. Lynda teaches adult basic and special education at the Invergarry adult centre in Surrey and is an executive member of the BCTF. Could the House please give her a warm welcome.

M. Sather: I want to add my welcome to a member of my constituency, Millie Nickason, who is here today. Millie is 82 years old and just full of life. She recently came to my constituency office asking that assistance be provided for people who are seeking treatment across the river in terms of getting there — not for herself, but for others. Would all members please make her welcome.

M. Farnworth: I'm pleased this afternoon to introduce to the House Laura Rudland, who is a teacher in the Vancouver school district and lives in my constituency. Laura is also president of the First Nations Education Association, Provincial Specialist Association. She's also a member of the Metlakatla nation. I would ask the House to please make Laura welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 10 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm introducing Bill 10, which proposes amendments to three forestry statutes: the Forestry Revitalization Act; the Forest and Range Practices Act, or FRPA; and the Wildfire Act.

The proposed changes to the Forestry Revitalization Act correct the

schedule to reflect the current owners of licences and allows further updates to be made to the

schedule as they are required. This bill also makes parallel amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act. These amendments clearly authorize the compliance and enforcement actions that may be taken for past contravention of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and for contraventions of the grandparented code under which some licensees continue to operate while they transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The amendments ensure that all contraventions of the code are subject to the compliance and enforcement actions set out under the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act. These amendments will ensure that the government can continue to protect the forest and rangelands for all British Columbians.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FIRST NATIONS

J. McIntyre: I'm pleased to rise today to report to the House that I had the privilege of attending the Premier's announcement last week of the provincial government's doubling the funding to $6 million for the Squamish-Lillooet cultural centre in Whistler, in my riding. This centre will showcase first nations history and culture and will be a lasting legacy for generations to come from hosting the 2010 games.

It also demonstrates the benefit of partnerships not only between two first nations but among first nations, various levels of government and the private sector — in this case, Bell Canada — who have combined resources to build what will be a tremendous cultural addition to the region. Building new arts and culture facilities will have the added benefit of reinforcing Whistler's status as a first-class international four-season resort.

[ Page 563 ]

Throughout the past year I have had the privilege of developing constructive relationships with first nations leaders in my constituency as we work together to advance this government's commitment to build new relationship with first nations. I have had various meetings with the Squamish nation, Lillooet, Nekwakwa, the newly formed Iskut nation, as well as the Lower Stl'atl'imx Tribal Council to assist in achieving goals and dealing with concerns.

I'm proud that in the budget update, this government has committed $100 million to a New Relationship fund that supports capacity-building and will assist first nations communities to be effective partners in consultations regarding the use of land and resources. British Columbia will be an even better place for all of our children to grow and thrive as a result of our government's approach based on recognition, respect and reconciliation.

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS

C. Wyse: I would ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging that this week is Mental Illness Awareness Week. Mental health touches all segments of the population. I think that every one of us here has probably been touched at some point by an individual with a mental illness.

Despite the fact that one in five Canadians is directly affected by mental illness, the social stigma that our society has yet to fully overcome prevents many from getting the help they need. Fifty percent of the ten leading causes of disability are related to mental disorders. Mental health conditions now contribute more to disability in Canada than any other single disease group, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The theme of Mental Illness Awareness Week this year is "Face mental illness." The Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and all of its member organizations, including organizations in B.C., are putting forward the faces of courageous Canadians who have gone forward with their stories of mental illness so that we can all see that they are just like you and me.

I would ask that all of my colleagues reach out to individuals and organizations in your community that are marking this week, and not just this week but every week, so we can promote greater understanding of just how we are all impacted by mental illness.

I would, in particular, ask my colleagues to also recognize that today is Depression Screening Day and to raise public awareness about this so that people in your community can get the help they need. Public institutions like colleges, universities and organizations in the community hold free screenings to build public awareness and get people help. There is much more to be done to ensure that people with mental illness can lead healthy and productive lives.

RICHMOND YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about the greatest sport in the world and how it's doing in my community — that would be soccer — and the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Richmond Youth Soccer Association.

[1420]

I recently had the opportunity to be a guest along with the Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts at the wonderful dinner held to celebrate this anniversary at the Vancouver Austrian Club in Richmond. Back in 1955 the Richmond Youth Soccer Association started with just six teams. Since then, soccer in Richmond has grown rapidly. Thanks to the support of countless volunteers, Richmond soccer today has 168 boys, 100 girls and 100 adult teams. This coming weekend 113 boys teams and 110 girls teams will be coming from all over the lower mainland to participate in the 29th annual Thanksgiving tournament. It will be a great weekend for sport in Richmond.

These men, women, girls and boys play soccer year after year, developing their skills, working out and having fun with friends in a team environment. Over the past 50 years over 25,000 children have come through the Richmond Youth Soccer Association. Some of the notable players include Randy Samuel, who played for the Canadian national squad and the Whitecaps. Most recently Jason Jordan of the Vancouver Whitecaps Football Club was named the United Soccer League's first-division most valuable player for the 2005 season.

Three Richmond youth players under 14 will be going to Florida in November with the Whitecaps youth program to defend their North American youth league championship: Connor Radil, Joseph Martin and Tommy Cui.

Richmond Youth Soccer supports our government's great goal to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. This is important because the more people we get into a healthy lifestyle, the fewer health problems our government will have to deal with that are caused by inactivity. Fewer health problems will mean happier people and less need for expensive health treatments. Certainly, Richmond Youth Soccer is a valuable institution in my community.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

R. Fleming: I rise to speak today to make a statement about the important role that public transit plays in Greater Victoria and in over 50 other B.C. communities.

Every day B.C. Transit provides mobility to a significant

section of our citizenry. Public transit also plays a tremendous role in the development of our economy and contributes to the health of our citizens. Good transit systems enhance property values in commercial centres and assist in the revitalization of downtown centres. In areas of heavy congestion, investment in public transit helps goods move faster, provides personal time savings for commuters and improves employers' access to labour.

Public transit also helps our economy and public safety by reducing vehicle collisions. The rate of fatal

[ Page 564 ]

collisions per passenger kilometre is 1/20 that of car travel. Recently in Victoria a group of transit riders, supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, supported the introduction of late-night bus service on weekends. The cost of the service is relatively small; the potential to save lives, immeasurable.

My community is unable to fund this initiative and has been unable to make up for the cutbacks to transit service in the last four years. Today there are 100,000 fewer hours of transit service on the road in my community. With fewer buses on the roads, service is worsened. I'm deeply disappointed that the 2005 budget update has not shown any vision for communities or displayed any interest in public transit in Victoria and the 50 other small and medium-sized communities across B.C.

COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE IN B.C.

J. Nuraney: I want to share my observations at the UBCM convention, which I attended last week. I was very impressed to hear comments from mayors and councillors from different jurisdictions in our province like Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Hudson's Hope, Penticton and others. The common core was the excitement they felt because of the economic activities taking place in their municipalities. There was a marked sense of confidence and optimism about the future of our province.

Apart from this infectious optimism, what I found most reassuring was the hum of cooperation among the different levels of government. Remarks from our Premier, the Prime Minister and other leaders resonated with the new way of doing business through cooperation and consultation.

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke about her resolve to work in the spirit of cooperation, I felt a sense of new hope for our province. In a democratic society such as ours, it is expected for political parties to have differing points of view. However, when those leaders with opposing political philosophies talk about seeking common ground, it bodes well for the future of our province.

[1425]

I would like to thank both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition for their efforts in pursuing a new way in cooperation and in adopting a road that is less travelled in order to seek what is best for British Columbia.

[Applause.]

I consider it a privilege to be a part of this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. Nuraney: If I may, Mr. Speaker. I consider it a privilege to be a part of what I like to call a new way to improve the lives of British Columbians and for the generations to follow.

DAVID WALTON

S. Simpson: On October 2, I attended a celebration of life for my friend David Walton, who passed away from cancer. After struggling with the disease for 26 years and having beaten it twice, David finally lost his battle on September 1 of this year.

It was an honour for me to attend David's celebration of life along with hundreds of others, including the member for Vancouver-Kensington and David's cousin, the Minister of Economic Development.

David was born on April 5, 1959, in Squamish and raised in 100 Mile House. He graduated from Simon Fraser University and was the recipient of the Terry Fox Gold Medal award for courage in 1986, an award that is given to a person who has demonstrated those personal qualities of courage in adversity and dedication to society which have been exemplified by Terry Fox in his Marathon of Hope.

David was a longtime political and community activist, one of those people that we who sit in this place know are the backbone of the political process, an active New Democrat who volunteered in every capacity including many years as constituency president. He worked as executive assistant to the Attorney General and as ministerial assistant to the Premier. David was bright, committed and compassionate. His many friends in the political world will miss his wisdom, kindness and generosity.

His activism was much broader than simply partisan and electoral politics. It included his many years of community work both as a volunteer and professionally, including with the Pacific Community Resources Society where he worked for families and youth in need.

David has left behind many good friends and family who will miss him dearly. More than anything, he will be missed by his wife and soulmate, Anisa Kassam-Walton. David was one of those people we are all proud to have known. He was committed to social justice, to his family and to his community, and he was an inspiration in the manner in which he dealt with his illness with dignity and courage. I was privileged to have known David Walton. I ask this House to pass on its most sincere condolences and best wishes to his friends, his family and in particular to his wife Anisa.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ROLE

IN TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

C. James: With parents and students now in limbo, I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier if she will take any responsibility for increasing the level of confrontation in this dispute with teachers.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, that's an interesting question coming from the Leader of the Opposition. This is actually the side of the House that believed that education was so important that we said it was an essential

[ Page 565 ]

service, to make sure students stayed in school and in classrooms across this province.

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

C. James: Well, we can see where their essential service has taken us now. It's taken us to a crisis, to the brink of a crisis. Leadership demands a search for common ground, trying to find solutions. That's what leadership is about. But this government has not shown any leadership.

[1430]

Again I ask the Deputy Premier: do you think that it was a mistake for the Premier to brush off a request that was made three months ago for the government to sit down with teachers and try and resolve this dispute?

Hon. S. Bond: We have made it perfectly clear that class size is an important issue to us. We have made several opportunities available to have that discussion, including for a number of years the education advisory committee. We want to have that discussion. We think it's a meaningful place.

This morning my colleague the Minister of Labour met with members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Teachers Federation. As a result of that discussion and a briefing that I've had with the Minister of Labour, we are going to create in the province a learning round table. I expect this afternoon to be contacting parties — which include the B.C. Teachers Federation, trustees, parents and also administrators — to come and participate in a significant forum.

We understand that class sizes and situations for teachers are important. In fact, we are prepared to have that discussion. I invite the B.C. Teachers Federation to join us at that table.

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

C. James: I understand that disputes like this are complex and difficult. But it's been three and a half years. There have been opportunities to resolve this dispute and to find a table before this. Why, once again, does this government need to bring us to the brink of a difficulty for parents and students in this province before they finally look at a solution?

Again, I'd like to raise another issue with the Deputy Premier. Will she at least accept that the Premier and his party used the election process to again inflame the situation and create more confrontation by using the education system as a political tool?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, on the eve of what she has correctly described as a day fraught with uncertainty, that I'm a bit surprised at her question. We are at a point where we need to show leadership. On this side of the House we are doing so. We are doing so with a piece of legislation that is before this House, which I understand there are differing views on. But we are all legislators. We are all lawmakers.

The leadership that the Leader of the Opposition has to show is to make it clear to the people who she counts on for political support that she does not support what would be unlawful and illegal activity. This is her opportunity to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: And while we are committed to working and leaving no stone unturned to find a resolution to these complex matters, that is the question that the Leader of the Opposition must answer and make clear — that she, her party, will not support teachers or anyone else breaking the law.

D. Thorne: This government has made it very clear that they believe the bargaining system in British Columbia is broken in this instance, and it's true. It needs to be fixed. But it is not going to be fixed in a climate of anger and confrontation, a climate that this government laid the groundwork for.

Does the Deputy Premier understand how ripping up the teachers' contract in 2002 contributed to this serious impasse?

[1435]

Hon. M. de Jong: It is broken. We have been through the history, and there are versions of that history. But the part that is irrefutable is that through five rounds of negotiation, the parties have never arrived at a freely negotiated collective agreement. So we have begun the process of rebuilding or attempting to rebuild that negotiating structure.

Earlier today I announced, as I said I would earlier this week, that Mr. Vince Ready has accepted the role as the industrial inquiry commissioner to begin the process, to work with the parties, to get them to a state and a stage armed with a process that we hope will work better than the one we have now, where in a matter of months they can negotiate an agreement — a freely negotiated agreement — that is different from the last five insofar as it didn't involve governmental interference. In the meantime we want kids to be in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: By the minister's own admission, the bill that brought us to this crisis is not needed. Leadership is also about admitting mistakes and learning from experience, but every interaction that this gov-

[ Page 566 ]

ernment has had with teachers has been confrontational. In 2004 this government even overturned a Supreme Court ruling in favour of the teachers' position on learning conditions.

Does the Deputy Premier even begin to realize how using legislation to overturn the courts does nothing to help fix a broken bargaining system?

Hon. M. de Jong: Surely this member realizes the trauma and uncertainty that accrues in the lives of teachers, students and their parents as they drift further and further into escalating job action. There was a choice, and we made it. We made it armed with a report from a fact-finder that many of the members opposite have quoted from — some of them favourably, actually — which said there is absolutely no prospect of a settlement. We did so on the basis of 35 meetings that had taken place where the parties apparently couldn't even agree on getting a cup of coffee.

I said at the outset that no one is happy about the fact that we're here, but it's time to settle this and move on, to use the good services of Mr. Ready and construct a negotiating framework that stands some prospect of succeeding.

J. Horgan: This government is so concerned about class size that they've increased it right across the province. We've had confrontation in this province for the past four years, whether it be health care workers or whether it be teachers. Any organized group of individuals in this province has seen nothing but contempt and ridicule from that side of the House.

We had an election campaign where the result materially altered what this world looked like, and we thought on this side of the House…. The public thought that the government had heard what the people had said — that they wanted balance, and they wanted support for people in communities. This government rejected that. Here we are at the brink of the cliff as a result of this government's actions.

Will the Minister of Labour stand in his place and agree to meet tonight with the B.C. Teachers Federation, tomorrow morning with the B.C. Teachers Federation, and resolve this dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is a remarkable statement that the hon. member makes. In dismissing, as he apparently does, the over 130 freely negotiated collective agreements, I think he does a real disservice to the working men and women who actually agreed of their own volition to those agreements.

I've just had a meeting, and it was a candid and frank exchange. We certainly are prepared to continue that discussion, but as I said to the people at that meeting, it is difficult to have that discussion when the very people we look to, to set an example for students are breaking the law. That's not on, and that makes taking this discussion forward very, very difficult.

[1440]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I want to tell the minister about setting examples. I want to tell the minister about an individual named Mark Neufeld. He's a teacher in our community. He's a constituent of mine. He's not an activist. He's not a radical. He came to school on Wednesday morning, and he said to his cross-country team that he's been coaching for years: "I can't in good conscience continue to do this." He said to the basketball team that he coaches proudly: "I cannot continue to do this when the government that sits in this House disrespects and undervalues the work that I do."

What did that man do? What did that individual do? The example he set is that he started walking. He walked ten kilometres from Claremont School to this building to meet with the Premier. That's an example that I would be proud to show my children. Not yours.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member got a question?

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I would rather have the kids in my house look to Mark Neufeld for leadership than Gordon Campbell. Where is the Premier…?

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member. Listen, please. Member, you know the rules.

J. Horgan: I apologize to the Premier for that comment.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Mark Neufeld walked to this place. He has been outside for 24 hours wanting to meet with the Premier so that the Premier will show leadership in this issue. The question is: where is the Premier to talk to this individual?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I appreciate the passion and commitment that teachers like Mr. Neufeld bring to their profession on a daily basis. That is why the Minister of Education actually did meet with him. There is no doubting that these are difficult, complex and at times vexing issues that we have to deal with, as they have been over the better part of a decade and a half at least. But I am still awaiting a clear indication from the critic, from the government benches, about where he and his caucus stand. Do they stand for a society governed by the rule of law? Or do they stand for the proposition that we have laws that you simply pick which ones you want to abide by and…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Minister, just wait a second. Members.

Continue, minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do detect a growing feeling of discomfort on the opposition benches, because it is a difficult question to answer. Is it about abiding by the rule of law or, when a friendly organization is involved, simply looking the other way? On this side of the House, we stand irrevocably beside the right of students to be in the classroom getting an education.

[ Page 567 ]

J. Kwan: Conflict and confrontation is the approach that this government has chosen. The government ripped up collective agreements in 2002. This government stripped teachers of a self-governing body in terms of their ability to govern themselves in 2003. This government overturned a ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court to strip classroom support conditions from the bargaining table in 2004.

My question is to the Attorney General: is it one law for the teachers or a different law for this government? Which is it?

[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: We believe class size is so important that we enshrined it in legislation with caps and flexibility for school districts. We've also said that while we believe class size is absolutely essential, and it is important we have those discussions, teachers need to be at the heart of those discussions.

But there is a role for parents and trustees and people who are involved in the lives of children every day in our schools to be involved in the discussion about class size. That's why we're going to create a permanent learning round table — to have those meaningful discussions to make sure that today we're saying to the B.C. Teachers Federation: come and sit and talk with us. Help us determine the terms of reference. Help us work together, but please, most importantly, let's keep our students in classrooms.

J. Kwan: Let's just be clear. This Liberal government overruled a court ruling by legislation, using the legislative hammer when it was convenient for them. They will change the law just like that, because it is politically convenient for them. Then they want to ask questions, and then they want to cast aspersions by pointing fingers and creating an escalating crisis today that will actually cause law-abiding citizens to engage in an activity that they may not want to but are forced to do.

I want to ask a question to the Deputy Premier: why is it so convenient for them to overturn a law when it suits them, when instead they could have chosen an alternate course — a course that would actually bring people together and ask the teachers, ask the educators, ask the school trustees, ask the people who have an interest in education, in improving education, to come to the table to address the issue of class size and class composition? Why didn't they choose that alternative and instead chose to break the law by overruling it?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, let's make it clear. There has always been an avenue to have a discussion about class sizes. The difference has been…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …that the union has suggested that the only place to talk about class size is at the bargaining table. We disagree. We want to now create….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Bond: We would like now, as I have just mentioned, to create a learning round table. We want to find a way to have that meaningful discussion.

But let's make it perfectly clear. What we're really waiting for here is to talk about leadership. Let's see the Leader of the Opposition stand with us today and say that this would be illegal and that we want you to stand beside us and keep students in classrooms.

ACCESS TO NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS

FOR INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

C. Trevena: William Duboise is a resident of Campbell River who is waiting for a lung transplant. Mr. Duboise receives a person-with-disabilities benefit and has applied to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to provide him with a monthly nutritional supplement. The cost for these supplements is $165 a month. His doctor says Mr. Duboise's life will be endangered without them.

The ministry has denied this request. The reason? The administrator disagrees with the doctor's assessment. I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance: why can administrators overrule doctors on what are potentially life-and-death cases?

Hon. C. Richmond: I thank the member for her question. I am not familiar with this situation, so if you would please provide me with the information, I would be glad to bring an answer back to you and to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Member, it was kind of taken on notice. Do you have a different question?

C. Trevena: I do, thank you very much. Thank you for saying that.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. I know of other cases. I would like to know whether, on principle, bureaucrats get a bigger voice than doctors on certain cases.

[1450]

Hon. C. Richmond: I think the member is aware that I cannot talk about individual cases in this House, and if she has other instances, I would like to hear about them. We evaluate every request for assistance on its own merits, and virtually no one is turned away when they're in a time of crisis.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

D. Routley: Recent reports point to the reality that homelessness is growing in both urban and rural communities. Thousands of British Columbians are slipping below the waves, but the Premier is planning to eliminate the provincial housing program by '07-'08,

[ Page 568 ]

a program that has created 7,800 units since its creation in 1994.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Will the minister explain to this House why such a successful program is being cut and why plans to address the need for increased social housing have been put off for another year?

Hon. R. Coleman: That is not the case. We are not cutting a social housing program. As a matter of fact, this government has done more for social housing in four years than the previous government did in ten.

Let's be aware of something. The opportunity existed for the previous government from 1990 to 2001 to do something about the SAFER program to help seniors in British Columbia — ignored them completely for ten years. We stepped up to the plate, and we have 7,700 more seniors eligible for support in the province just from our SAFER adjustments alone.

The Premier's Task Force on Homelessness is already announced and has committed $20.6 million in provincial funding for 533 units in 12 housing developments across the province for homelessness. We are working on a provincial housing strategy that will be so exciting and so good for people on the ground that you'll see more and more people being assisted by this government than any time in history.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Yes. I think we're supposed to bring a new tenor to the House, not only comedy.

Last week a fire broke out in an abandoned building in Duncan where a number of homeless people were living. Like many people on our streets, including those caught in the Duncan fire, the lack of housing is intimately linked to mental health and addiction issues. In Vancouver alone, 750 people with mental illness are on the wait-list for supportive housing. It is estimated that two-thirds of the homeless in Vancouver experience drug addiction and mental health issues. Will the Minister for Housing commit to increasing the number of supportive housing units for people with mental illnesses?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, what happened in Duncan was absolutely a tragedy. We are willing to work with that community to address the issues of homelessness in Duncan. Unfortunately, at the UBCM last week it was one of the communities that did not come to see me about housing as an issue that they wanted to talk about in their community, although a substantial number of communities did. We've committed to those communities to find ways for innovative practices to go into smaller and medium-sized communities for housing issues for them in the long term. That work is underway already, as a result of our discussions at UBCM.

In addition to that, like I said, we've already given 533 units of commitment in 12 housing developments across the province, including Vancouver, Nanaimo, Surrey, Victoria, Kelowna, New Westminster, Prince George, Terrace and Fort St. John. There's nobody in any community in the province who should ignore the issues of homelessness, mental health and addictions.

When we talk about homelessness in the province…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: …the first piece of leadership has got to come from here and that we tell communities: "Don't be afraid to stand up and not be NIMBYs and support projects in your communities so we can help the people at risk in your community."

[1455]

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS

R. Chouhan: Emelda Bain-Parten is a 78-year-old resident of Burnaby-Edmonds. Recently she was taken to hospital in an ambulance. Somewhere between the ambulance and the hospital, her dentures were removed to insert tubes. Somehow her dentures were lost. Instead of replacing her dentures, the government bought her a blender.

To the Minister of Health: is this the way to treat B.C.'s seniors?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising the issue. It's the first I've heard of it. If he would like to provide me with the details of it, we would be very happy to see if we can assist.

I think one of the things we should not do, though — although I know some members opposite are prone to it — is try to blame a great health system for unfortunate events that sometimes occur in it.

Clearly, there are thousands of people in our health care system who care deeply not only about the seniors that they see. They care deeply about all the patients that they see. Every day they make difficult, sometimes heart-wrenching decisions about health care, and I support those people. I will not presume of any person who works in the health care system or, actually, anywhere in government that they operate with any bad intent. I am sure that something unfortunate has happened here.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member should not presume that the system is against that person.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: Also, for the information of the Minister of Health, I do come from the health care industry. I

[ Page 569 ]

know how health care workers work there, how they take care of the elderly and the patients every day.

Imelda is a low-income senior. She cannot afford new dentures. Because she cannot eat solid food, she lost a significant amount of weight. In fact, she was so weak from her liquid diet that she is now down to 80 pounds. My question is to the minister. What are you doing to make sure that low-income seniors are getting the care that they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'll thank the….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, could you wait to be recognized.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry. I apologize. I was so eager to respond to this question, I may have got ahead of myself. So I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker.

The issue, again, is an important one. If the member would be so kind as to forward to me the details about this particular lady's situation, I would be glad to see what we can do for her.

What I will not do is attempt to politicize the circumstances of an individual and try to draw conclusions about a whole system, as regards that. We have done a lot of things. I'm tremendously proud of what this government has done for seniors. I'm tremendously proud of the Independent Living B.C. program that benefits thousands and thousands of seniors across this province. I'm tremendously proud of the Fair Pharmacare program that ensures that frail elderly who need the support get it.

Finally — because I know we're running out of time — I'm tremendously proud of the recent changes in the SAFER program which, as the Minister for Housing pointed out, benefit thousands and thousands and thousands of seniors in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission, 2004.

[1500]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 12 and in Committee A, for the information of members, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Community Services.

Second Reading of Bills

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

R. Chouhan: I rise to oppose Bill 12. Like many of my colleagues, I, too, come from a family of teachers. I have a sister, Jaswan Chouhan, who was a teacher all her life, and later on she became the principal of a senior secondary school. I have a sister-in-law, Jaginder Chouhan. She was also a teacher and became principal later on. She was appointed as director of education system. I have a sister-in-law who teaches in Burnaby, Toni Grewal. They all teach. They're all in this profession because they love teaching; they love students.

Teaching is a very noble and respectful profession, but by introducing Bill 12, this government once again has shown a total disrespect for teachers and their rights. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Labour on Monday, that they took no pleasure from introducing Bill 12. Well, if that's the case, if they're not happy, then do the simple thing: withdraw Bill 12. Utilize other options that are available. Negotiate in good faith with the BCTF, but don't sit here and pretend that you have tried. We know you have not.

The government may say that there were 35 different meetings with the bargaining committee of the B.C. Teachers Federation. For the last 18 years I have done lots of bargaining. I have done lots of collective bargaining negotiations in the last 18 years with the health care employers. I have taught hundreds of students in the last 18 years how to negotiate a collective agreement. One can have hundreds of meetings, but if your bargainers don't have the mandate to negotiate a settlement, then obviously no number of meetings would produce the desired result.

Time and again teachers have asked the government to meet students' needs. Teachers need adequate resources. The teachers' message is very clear. When the size of a class is so large, they cannot attend to all students. When students bring home the homework without proper class instructions, the parents are left with spending extra time with the children to complete their homework. God forbid if parents are not familiar with the subject. The student's education suffers even further.

I'm a parent. For many years I was the vice-president of the parents advisory council at the Cariboo Secondary School in Burnaby. I know how hard the teachers work. What do they get in return? Longer hours, lesser resources and a total lack of respect from the government.

[1505]

Teachers have rights like anybody else, and those rights must be respected. The government tries to claim that it respects teachers, but how could that be when their rights are trampled upon? Show them that you truly value their work — not the platitudes. If we want our children to get the best education, if we are serious about the future of our children, then let the teachers have the necessary tools.

In 2002 government legislation stripped learning and working conditions from the teachers' collective agreement and now refuses to deal with them. The government demands that teachers stay in the classrooms and continue to uphold the high standards. How can that be possible? Despite the deteriorating working conditions, the teachers have done everything

[ Page 570 ]

to maintain the high standards, but they cannot keep doing it forever.

In 2001 legislation was passed declaring B.C. teachers an essential service. The government changed the definition of essential service at that time. The previous definition was: "Necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." But to meet its political agenda, the government changed the definition to state: "The minister may direct the Labour Relations Board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious disruption to the provision of educational programs."

No other province has this kind of broad definition. In fact, no other province considered teachers as essential services. The ILO and the United Nations have found this legislation to be in violation of international standards to which Canada is signatory.

Over the last four years this government has closed 113 schools and has laid off over 2,500 teachers. The government tried to justify it by saying that the student enrolment was down, and therefore fewer schools and fewer teachers were needed.

Let's go over the facts. In my hometown, Burnaby, between the 2001 and 2002 school year and the 2003 and 2004 school year, student enrolment was reduced by 1.9 percent. But in contrast, the counsellors were reduced by 8.1 percent, ESL teachers by 17.6 percent, special education teachers by 11.8 percent and teacher-librarians by 9.1 percent. Teachers were reduced by 6.1 percent. These are the facts. This figure comes from the Ministry of Education itself.

Mr. Speaker, you can see clearly what this government has done to the education system, but this government is saying that all that was done to enhance the public education system. The government should be ashamed of what it has done. The facts speak for themselves. Over the last few days the government members have been falling all over each other to claim how much they value teachers, but the reality is different.

[1510]

Let's see how the teachers see this. Listen to what the teachers in Burnaby are saying. This is a letter from one of the teachers in Burnaby. It says: "Last year I had 31 kids in my grade four class. It wasn't just hard; it was impossible to get around and help each child with their needs during lessons. I even had to set up a take-a-number system."

Another teacher: "More behaviour students are incorporated into larger classes. Each student gets less attention than they need. The students and I become frustrated. More exciting, hands-on lessons would be appreciated, but lack of room, materials, resource assistants — that's learning assistants — and librarians make it more difficult."

Another science teacher tells us: "The lab space is set up for 28 students, but now students are crowded three to a bench. It's a safety issue." I have a lot more letters and statements from teachers. Each one of them is telling me how difficult it has become to teach and how concerned they are about the ability of students to learn. All of the teachers want a negotiated settlement.

The government should withdraw Bill 12 and mandate the BCPSEA to negotiate with our educators in good faith. The government should start respecting the free collective bargaining process. This government did enough damage to free collective bargaining in 2002 when it introduced Bill 29. That was the bill which took away the rights of health care workers. Through Bill 29, the government ripped up a truly negotiated collective agreement between the health care workers and their employers. That agreement was accepted and ratified by over 82 percent of the health care employers. But this government did not care then, and it does not care now.

By doing what the Liberals are trying to achieve through Bill 12, they may please their rich corporate friends, but they will not help any student — or parent, for that matter. Priorities of this government are wrong. They can find millions for their rich corporate friends, but they have no money for more textbooks, special needs teachers, librarians and ESL teachers. This government has millions for its rich corporate friends but no money for decent wages for workers. If this government is really serious about helping students, then it must withdraw Bill 12.

In 2002 the provincial government legislated a major stripping of the teachers' collective agreement, removing significant provisions that set limits for class sizes and established staffing ratios for the provision of specialist teachers. It made it illegal for teachers to bargain class size, class composition or staffing formulas in the future. Now the government is pretending to fix a broken bargaining process. The bargaining process is broken because Liberals broke it.

[1515]

The government has said it wants to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent, but on the other hand, the government has reduced the teacher-librarians. Between 2002 and 2004, according to the Minister of Education, teacher-librarian staffing declined by 25 percent. International research has shown a consistent correlation between school libraries, subject learning and information literacy. How do all these cuts put the students first?

If the Premier is really serious about making B.C. the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction, then he will instruct his government to withdraw Bill 12 and return to the teaching and learning conditions that existed in 2002, prior to the contract being stripped of those provisions by legislation.

What we need is leadership — leadership that would truly enhance public education, not continue on the path of confrontation. We need the government to recognize that it had made a mistake in 2002, and now is the time to rectify it by engaging in meaningful and good-faith bargaining — not through Bill 12.

Bill 12 is a recipe for disaster. It will not foster harmonious relationships between the teachers and the school boards, between teachers and the students or

[ Page 571 ]

parents. Maybe that is what this government wants — to create a wedge between the teachers, students and parents. The time has come for this government to stop being cynical and start treating teachers as professionals. Teachers are concerned about the learning abilities of their students. That's why teachers talk about class composition. Why do they do it? Let me read from information that I received from a teacher on this issue of class composition.

It all goes back to the inclusion of students with special needs. Students with mild to severe disabilities were integrated into regular classrooms following a government policy change 16 years ago. Almost immediately teachers noted that they had to change their teaching if classes included students with severe intellectual or physical disabilities or disruptive behaviour. The expectation that came with inclusion was that the teacher would teach according to the individual education plan for the student with special needs.

That changed the dynamic of the teaching of

the class. It became more like teaching several classes at the same time, but trying to keep things going in one direction at the same time. That's a tougher job. It means more preparation, more time spent in meetings with specialists and parents, time required to plan with the special education assistant if you're lucky enough to get one. But beyond that is the increased complexity of meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse group of students.

That's why teachers talk so often about class composition as their biggest challenge. They support inclusion if they have the support to make it work.

In the extensive tearing-up of the teachers' collective agreement in 2002, not only were upper limits on class size removed, but the class composition clauses were also eliminated. That opened the door for much more difficult situations for both teachers and students. Students with special needs had less support. At the same time, attention to the other students in the class was reduced. That's what teachers faced when they had to deal with more special needs with less additional support. Eliminating the contract provisions had a negative impact on the teaching and learning conditions.

[1520]

This government is responsible for breaking the system. The government has created unnecessary fear in the public's mind that the system is so unworkable that we have to bring in the law. But the public is not fooled. People understand who's responsible for that. British Columbians expect this government to show leadership, to come forward with a meaningful solution, not confrontation.

It's about time this government extended a hand of friendship to the teachers, to our educators, to show them that they really are concerned about the students and the parents. Sit down with those teachers and their organization, the B.C. Teachers Federation, and negotiate a collective agreement in good faith. Stop playing these games.

What we need is a meaningful gesture on the part of the government, not platitudes. The time has come for the government to show leadership, for the Premier to stand up for education, for the public education system, and do something about it. I sincerely ask and am hopeful that the government will withdraw Bill 12 and engage itself in negotiations.

G. Coons: I rise, as well, to discuss and debate second reading of Bill 12.

This occasion is one that I'm not proud to be involved with. We have just witnessed another blatant attack against our teaching workforce and, I may add, the day after we recognized World Teachers Day. This is a sad day for students, a sad day for parents and a devastating day for teachers all across this great province.

We have the greatest education system in this province. We have the best education system in the world and the most dedicated group of stakeholders that we'll find anywhere. Our teachers, our valued teachers-on-call, are the most hard-working, conscientious and devoted group of professionals that you'll ever find. Their commitment to curricular and extracurricular activities is renowned throughout the province and throughout Canada.

Teachers work with and educationally challenge our most valuable resource, our children. Parents put their trust and their faith in educators to shape and mould their children as they embark on a life-long journey of learning. Trustees put their lives on the line to strive for the best education system for their respective districts. I thank and I compliment all trustees throughout the province for this difficult task.

Parent advisory committees realize the importance of a well-rounded school that has the necessary funding to make the school the best it can be. I thank all parents for their dedication to this end. Students throughout the province throw their hearts and souls into their own learning curve, whatever that may look like. They come in all different sizes and shapes, so much alike yet so different and unique.

One thing that all these stakeholders expect is that the government of the day will adequately fund our education system and work with our teaching force, not against them, so we can continue to improve education for our students. This government has let down parents, students and teachers. This is a sad day for all those concerned about quality education.

There was an opportunity for progress in this dispute, but this government chose confrontation and the option that will not effect any change in working conditions in the classrooms. That is shameful. This government could have chosen the path to discuss learning conditions but decided deliberately, in a seemingly preconceived plot, to go straight ahead in another forced settlement. It's yet another imposition, an imposition that will only create conflict and chaos in our education.

[1525]

So why are we here today? The symbol of this government, Bill 12. The inability of the government…. It's a symbol of this government's incompetence to work with all of the stakeholders involved in our system and to bargain in good faith for an agreement that works

[ Page 572 ]

for British Columbians — one that would enhance and better learning conditions for students, one based on free collective bargaining where both sides sit down and discuss the issues to create an education system that works for students and for teachers, one that reduces confrontation and is based on listening and respect. This government had the opportunity to do this, and they blew it.

Teaching is a proud profession, and I'm so pleased to have so many educators in the gallery today. It's a proud profession, where educators can positively influence the lives and learning of their students, watching children gain that confidence, grow in their skills. Seeing the growth, the maturing into young adults, is something that makes it all worthwhile.

I know that feeling. I've been a proud member of the British Columbia Teachers Federation for 27 years. That is one of the many, many reasons that I'm in these chambers today. I not only witnessed a government that treated teachers without dignity and respect; I experienced a government that intimidated, chastised and bullied teachers at every opportunity.

As we all know, we're all taught to challenge and confront those who bully. How did we get here? Through this government's draconian ideology that we need to manipulate and control working people. In August 2001 Bill 18 was enacted. This declared education an essential service, which normally is reserved for where the life, safety or health of the population is at risk, as in hospital, police or fire services.

But don't misunderstand me. Education is very, very important, but it is definitely not an essential service. B.C. is one of the only jurisdictions, if not the only jurisdiction, in the world where education is essential, thus eliminating a key component of free collective bargaining: the right to strike.

This violation of fundamental rights, which are respected in democracies worldwide, was chastised by the International Labour Organization, which stated that this Liberal government should abide by international law. The ILO is a United Nations agency that sets international standards for labour relations, and Canada is a signatory to that. The ILO is not a union-run organization. It's jointly run by representatives of government, business and labour, and promotes internationally recognized human and labour rights. The ILO condemned this Liberal draconian legislation and recommended this bill be repealed.

On January 27, 2002, Bills 27 and 28 were enacted. These, once again, were condemned by the ILO. These had devastating effects in schools, in classrooms throughout the province. Bill 27 imposed a contract on teachers with a raise of 2.5 over each of three years, but this government refused to fund the forced deal, resulting in millions and millions of dollars that were downloaded onto school districts.

Recently on CKNW our Premier blamed local school boards for the ballooning class sizes, thus disavowing any responsibility. That's shameful. This week I had a local trustee from school district 52 contact me and demand that I bring this to the attention of the House and let our Premier know that it's not school boards to blame; it is this government and how they are defunding our education system.

This downloading resulted in 2,600 teachers laid off, where only 700 of them can be attributed to the infamous declining enrolment. And 113 schools shut down in communities all over the province, mostly in rural communities. The ILO indicated to this government that contract imposition, again, violates basic human rights and that "a unilateral action by authorities cannot but introduce uncertainty in labour relations, which in the long term can only be prejudicial."

[1530]

What do we see today, 3½ years later? We see that uncertainty in this province, and this government is to blame. The government was warned, and they ignored that warning. It did not stop there. Bill 28 removed provisions from negotiated contracts that limited class sizes, guaranteed supports for students with special needs and set standards of service from trained specialist teachers. In other words, this government ripped up contracts that dealt with student learning conditions. The results? The results were devastating to students and to teachers.

The impact on first nations students and on aboriginal programs and services throughout this province was severe: programs axed, first nations support workers laid off as school districts tried to meet the government's bottom line.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We certainly do need a new relationship in this province. Class sizes ballooned as the Liberals boasted that class size was enshrined in their legislation. I'll tell you what was enshrined: class sizes of 22 for kindergarten and 20 for grades one to three. It sounds reasonable, but there was no consideration, no regard for class composition and the number of children in those classes with special needs.

For grades four to 12 the enshrined class size wasn't a class size; it was a district average of 30 students. So a class with 22 students in one portion of the district could be countered with a class of 38 in another — as long as the average was 30. And again, no regard for class composition. Special needs support was drastically slashed as this contractual language gleefully ended up on the Liberals' cutting floor. There was a 28-percent reduction, with 740 fewer special education support positions over the last few years, and that's wrong. That's wrong.

Liberal government officials characterized the accusations as frivolous. Teachers in this province, workers in this province, all those who believe in fundamental rights: we do not find ripping up contracts, forcing an

[ Page 573 ]

end to legal job action and gutting positions that uphold quality of education to be frivolous in the least — not at all.

I've seen the changes. I've seen the frustrations. I've shared the stories with these teachers, with those dedicated teachers on call, the parents, the administrators, the support staff in our schools. More importantly, I've seen it on the faces of our kids. It's not going to get any better with the introduction of Bill 12. It will only create more problems.

Now I was going to talk more about my experience in the school system and the exhilaration I feel working with kids. I was going to share some of my experiences of teaching at Kaien Island Alternate School in Prince Rupert, where I was the head teacher for five years and worked there for six years, but that was one of the schools in our district that was shut down. That closed due to lack of provincial funding, sending the most vulnerable of our students to fend for themselves in a system that cannot meet their needs.

I don't think I'm going to tell my story just yet. I've been cut off before, and I don't want to be cut off, so I might come back to me, but this is not about me. This is more about teachers that have contacted me, and I'd like to share a few of them from my own riding and my constituency. I have a primary teacher, 20 years' experience: "More students, more students with special needs. I no longer meet the needs of either the regular or special students. Currently there's a class of 21 in a K-one-two, a kindergarten-one-two class with 21 students and five IEPs. Bottom line: too many. Everyone is impacted negatively. I long for the good old days when we had class size composition."

Another teacher, all grades: "Classes overloaded with special needs students." Another teacher, a secondary teacher, 15 years' experience: "Class size and composition limit the effectiveness of my teaching practices. Some get left behind, and others are not challenged enough. I look at too many kids. Composition horrendous."

[1535]

Here's an intermediate teacher in Prince Rupert, 25 years' experience. They have "seven students with special needs: two in wheelchairs, one vision-impaired, one hearing-impaired, one physically handicapped with cerebral palsy, one with a behavioral learning problem, one learning disabled, one student with learning disabled pending. This is unfair to the children. They won't get another crack at grade six when the government finally decides to fund education properly.

I have a teacher from Haida Gwaii who is teaching in a kindergarten-one-two-three class, a four-split class with 19 students: "The age and ability range is huge. The groups are huge. I'm burning out."

Another intermediate teacher on Haida Gwaii: "Students are suffering. So are teachers. Four grades in a classroom are too many. I'm trying to conduct a circus rather than a learning environment. When we know this is what works, it seems criminal that we're not able to provide learning conditions and class composition."

I have one last one, a woman I know. She starts off:

I'm the teacher that tries to remember the routines, the names, the students' needs and behaviours. I'm the teacher who gets the least respect. I am the lowly teacher on call. Last year I was amazed at the number of times I would be asked to conduct a lesson and students had to share textbooks. I go into a classroom with 26 students, and seven are designated. I try to work with them, but it's very difficult. I do my best.

Over the years since I've got my

certification, which was 1999, I have not even gotten a toehold in the seniority list, and I'm thinking of changing jobs. I'm looking for a full-time job. I've just applied for a job as an office manager. If I can get $16 an hour, then I will be able to make more money than in my present job combined with EI. I will — after six years of education and five years of substitute teaching — finally, finally have some money in my pocket and a job.

These stories are the stories that are occurring in all the classrooms throughout the province. These are not the stories we want to be telling; these are the stories that must be told. This government, the members on the opposite side, had the opportunity to listen, to see for themselves and find out what was really happening in our schools. They chose, as we've mentioned…. As they've mentioned, they made a decision. They chose not to listen; they chose not to find out.

They had the opportunity to work with the recommendation of the fact-finder. They chose not to do that. They had the opportunity to engage with teachers and all education stakeholders in an effective and meaningful dialogue regarding the critical issue of class size and composition, and they chose not to do that. This government has made many choices, like the choice to give huge tax cuts to corporations instead of putting it into programs that support children. I believe these are the wrong choices, and this government must accept the blame.

Bill 12 solves nothing. It will not get things better. The hon. members on the other side had a real opportunity to avoid conflict, to treat teachers with dignity and respect, to show balance, to sit down and work on solutions. They chose confrontation and disrespect. This is a sad day for quality education in our province.

Just one note. As draconian governments come and go, I know the resolve of great organizations throughout this province working together — organizations that respect contracts, that respect workers, that respect free collective bargaining — and I know that these organizations will still be here advocating long and hard for justice long after this Liberal government is just a faded memory. That's what's going to happen.

[1540]

I pay tribute to all the workers in this province who have come under the wrath of this current government. I fear the battle has just begun. I hope common sense will prevail. I plead with my colleagues on the other side: sit down, negotiate — not only with teachers but with all workers in this province.

I'd like to take this opportunity to comment, as we've heard before, on a local Victoria teacher from Claremont Secondary School, Mark Neufeld, who I

[ Page 574 ]

talked to this morning with his spouse and his young child. I went out there as he was just seeing his wife and child for the first time, after he spent overnight, after walking ten miles to get here. He is camping outside there because he has to do something. That's why we have 33 members on this side up here talking about Bill 12, talking about how, hopefully, it will get repealed. Hopefully, this government will come to their senses, because we have to do something about that for the education system in this province.

Mr. Neufeld tried to get a meeting with the Premier but to no avail. The Minister of Education did have a meeting with him, did chat with him, but he fears his message will not be heard. So I will relate his message on the public record to the hon. members on the other side and to all British Columbians out there listening.

His message is:

If you had a good public school teacher, if that teacher meant something to you, if you had a coach who meant something to you, do the right thing. Honour that we need class size and composition appropriate to meet the needs of students. We want a better public education system, not to make it worse. As teachers, we try to tell our kids to do the right thing. We try to get them to believe that government functions properly, that we live in a democracy. Let's have British Columbia show some leadership.

That was his message, and I totally agree with that.

I'm optimistic about the future, but the future depends on what happens right here in this Legislature. I was pleased yesterday during question period when the Minister of Forests and Range, when questioned about softwood — and I would love to quote this from the Minister of Forests and Range — indicated: "We're going to be the ones that will negotiate in good faith. We're going to be the ones that will be honourable and accept the deals we make, and we'll stand up to and honour the deals we make" — and here's the clincher — "with the Americans in the future."

Now, I am hopeful that not only will this government negotiate in good faith with the Americans but that they bring it back home and they negotiate in good faith right here in British Columbia. I'm sure when the message gets out — that that's their stance as far as negotiating — that Liberal caucus members will reflect on these words and bring some honour back to our province and begin to negotiate in good faith, not only with teachers across the province but with all British Columbians.

Now I can get back to me. When I first started teaching, I taught in the special class in 1977 in Prince Rupert. I had a class of ten kids. My job description was: do whatever you want, but we don't want to see these kids. I was a first-year teacher, and I was in that school, actually, longer than I'm spending in this Legislature. I come to this Legislature about seven in the morning and leave about 8:30 or nine at night. I was leaving my school at 11 o'clock at night. My closest and best friends were the custodians.

I travelled around from classroom to classroom, finding out what teaching was about. I look back on those days with a lot of honour and dignity, because I had kids, and I started to integrate them. They were just normal kids, but they couldn't handle it in a regular classroom. I started to say: "Well, maybe they can be in the shop class or the PE class," or whatever, and then all of a sudden they were all farmed out — integrated into classrooms — and I nearly did myself out of a job, except they kept sending more in.

[1545]

As we developed through the years, we had more and more kids being integrated into the school system, and teachers accepted that. We negotiated in those times, in those days, across the province with our school districts. We sat across the table and said: "This is what's good for education. This is what's good for students." We negotiated language that dealt with class size and class composition.

We said, "If you have a class of 27 to 28 kids, then three students with special needs would be appropriate," and we all agreed, because it worked, because we could take the time and the energy. When you have 30 kids in the classroom — and it's an hour class, if you're teaching at a secondary school — you do whatever you need to do in the front, do a bit of a lesson, and you may have 20 or 30 minutes left to deal with 30 kids.

When I was back at Charles Hays Secondary School last year teaching math 9, I had 31 kids in school and about seven, eight or nine of them really needed extra help and support. How much time did I have? I had maybe less than a minute with each student. Now, if I was distracted because somebody needed a couple of more minutes, then there was a handful of students that did not get any of my attention that day, and that's shameful.

That cuts right to the heart when you know that there are students in there that want the help, that need the support, but you just can't get to them because you've got a handful of others that are taking up the time. They should be in classrooms where their needs are being met.

I went to Prince Rupert because I applied to be an alternate ed teacher, and after six or seven years I did make it. I made it to the top. I was at the Kaien Island Alternate School, and I was working with the best kids in the world, kids that don't fit into a normal situation in a school. Unfortunately — or in my case, fortunately — Prince Rupert has a high population of first nations students. My riding has the highest first nations population in the province. I respect their culture. It's so diverse, unique. I had a lot of good times working with students at the alternate school.

It was shut down, as I mentioned. Students were distributed into the other high schools. One high school didn't have much support, and the other school created an afternoon alternate class that these kids went into.

Lo and behold, when I came back to teaching after my stint as the president of the teachers union in Prince Rupert, I went back to this school, and I was assigned this alternate school position. I was just so pleased, because I was back at the top again, and that's where I want to be. But I went in there, and I had poor kids that didn't have the support, didn't have the services. They had me. I think back to that, and it was one of the most

[ Page 575 ]

challenging years of my 27 in the teaching profession. I had to do something about that. I worked long and hard to create a program, but it was so frustrating trying to fit these kids, these round pegs, into square holes, because the facility we had and operated for many, many years was shut down due to de-funding of education.

I think back to James. James was the most challenging student I've ever taught, and I loved him dearly. He would always come in, and the sign on him was don't argue with him, because he'll always win. We'd go out in the hallway, and we'd argue. He always won, but that was fine. I'm in lots of arguments, and I let some people win.

But one day we had a fire in Prince Rupert. We lost an apartment building, and 50 people lost their homes. I was in the Salvation Army helping out at a building where stacks and stacks of clothes and furniture came in. I was volunteering my time, and the press came by. I wasn't even considering putting my name into the hat to get into politics.

[1550]

I was in that Salvation Army helping out and working out. The press came along with the cameras. They took a picture, and I said something. I don't know what I said. But the next day, James came running up to me and said: "Hey, Mr. Buttons. How are you doing?" On the screen they had my name as Gary Buttons. I can say that. It's not my real name. Okay.

He laughed. Not only that, but he found out later on in months to come that I was putting my name into the ring. He was pretty astute, and he was saying: "So you're running for the NDP. I can handle that. If you need any help, let me know."

This was a student who came from five or six other school districts, passed around from classroom to classroom. Nobody could deal with him; nobody could handle the situations. Nobody had a designation for him. He needed serious help, and he was not getting it in the school system. I felt so frustrated.

On our TV system up north they do a week in review. About five days later they replayed me again, and he comes in Monday and says: "Mr. Buttons, you were on there again last night." I think back to that. When I go back home tomorrow, I'm going to drop into…. Well, I guess the schools will be under different operations tomorrow. But I'm going to give James a call and just let him know that I'm thinking about him, because that's what teachers do. They try; they try to make a difference.

Over my 27 years I feel that for at least 22 or 23 years, I have been making a difference. There are many teachers I work with right now who I actually taught — lo and behold — and that's difficult. But I'm proud to say that teachers do make a difference.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But it's frustrating. It's frustrating when we look at what's happened in this Legislature over the last four years, what's happened with teachers' contracts. I hope that this Legislature looks at Bill 12, decides to pull it, and works with teachers and works with stakeholders throughout the province.

D. Cubberley: I just want to thank the member for North Coast for sharing his comments with us and those from the heart. I think all of us have had the experience of teachers who have made a difference in our lives. Just listening to the member's comments about his own experience, it sounds to me as though he did make a difference in a lot of lives. Having been one of those kids who was round when the holes were square, I benefited from a couple of teachers who I guess recognized some innate capability of some kind that didn't necessarily show up on the standard grid and made some extra effort in my life. It has made a difference.

I'm pleased today to have an opportunity to respond to Bill 12, which was introduced by the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services earlier this week. It's a pretty bland name, and it belies the fact that this act terminates bargaining. Not only does it not settle the dispute, as the explanatory note claims, but it risks prolonging and inflaming it further.

Bill 12 is a short and deceptively simple act that arbitrarily extends a collective agreement that had long expired. In effect, it summarily puts an end to bargaining between the BCTF and the government's agents, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association. This act can only be seen as an insult to the collective bargaining process. It will, I think with justification, be seen as further injury to the teachers of British Columbia who were already aggrieved by government's reckless actions in 2002.

[1555]

I know that the Minister of Labour took pains to characterize the collective bargaining process as nonexistent, dysfunctional, broken — whatever other term could be conscripted to legitimatize the government's actions — I think coming at a point which the government had long planned to get to, at least judging by the absence of efforts to make positive overtures to teachers over the course of a year and a half.

I'm not just referring to the orchestrated nature of the public ad campaign that the government unleashed, coincident with its introduction of the legislation to suspend bargaining, a step it took without bothering, I think, to reflect deeply or publicly on the content or the implications of Mr. Connolly's fact-finding report, not just his conclusions, and a step it took without accepting responsibility for engineering the impasse that Mr. Connolly's report merely confirmed, and which I think should have led to sober reflection rather than draconian action.

I want to highlight a couple of points touching on the way in which government as an employer created, through its actions or its inactions, the kind of stalemate that was used in the end to justify the introduction of the act.

First was the very clear statement that due to the depth of feeling on the part of teachers about the importance of discussions and negotiations, not just about

[ Page 576 ]

wages but about working and learning conditions, that government needed to engage in a dialogue. A quote directly from Mr. Connolly: "As professionals delivering the educational services to children in British Columbia, teachers are seeking an opportunity to articulate their thoughts and knowledge on the learning conditions for students."

Clearly, teachers wished and needed and deserved to be able to discuss working and learning conditions with their employer. Just as clearly, the employer's representatives had firm instructions not to consider issues or proposals with respect to class size, class composition or access to appropriate supports such as teacher assistance. These had been deemed to lie outside the collective bargaining process. As difficult as that is to understand or make sense of, they were deemed to lie outside the collective bargaining process.

Of course, there is no mechanism, currently, for teachers to discuss these matters outside of bargaining, nor any history of that occurring with this government, nor were there any overtures during negotiations as to how that could actually work. It's not clear why teachers should believe that even if it could occur, it could translate into meaningful changes if the results of those discussions weren't set down in some form that's actually binding on school districts — like a collective agreement — as they had been in the past.

In this regard, the government is certainly being true to form, and that's not a compliment. Indeed, I think it was this government's paramount goal to sever not just the contract language the BCTF had negotiated around class size from the existing agreement in 2002, but to sever any linkage between working and learning conditions and the process of negotiations.

It took unilateral action in 2002 to strip the collective agreement, while it hoped to obscure what it was doing or soften it by mandating a 7.5 percent increase to wages, which in turn, it substantially downloaded on to school districts, thereby ultimately worsening the very conditions the teachers' agreement had sought to protect against. Nice job, folks. It's a really cute trick, if you don't consider the bitter harvest that we're reaping today as an outcome of the seeds that were sowed by those acts in 2002.

The lack of respect shown teachers by the arbitrary removal of limits placed within their collective agreement began a poisoning of relations that continued during an entire term of office and carried right on through the last election campaign. We sometimes hear members opposite say — and I find without a great deal of conviction — that they respect teachers and the work they do. But, you know, as our elementary school teachers taught us, in the end actions do speak louder than words — far louder.

[1600]

I heard the Minister of Education say this afternoon, for example, "We believe it's so important," — referring to class size limits — "that we enshrine them in legislation." We'll come back to that.

Engendering a climate of disrespect — the shameful attempt to mislead parents into fearing that teachers were jumping to a strike vote the day after the election was over, something the Premier himself launched — isn't a productive accomplishment in management terms. In industrial relations, if you care about outcomes, it's exactly what you're trying to avoid doing. You don't demonize the other guys. You don't provoke them. You know that your employees are your biggest asset and that they identify their work as deserving of dignity, however humble the work they do is.

And they rightly expect you to demonstrate that you respect their commitment and their work. The relationship in collective bargaining can never be about sticking it to your employees or provoking them into doing things based on reactions — not if you're acting as stewards of the enterprise.

But confrontation with teachers and provocation around their issues and the bargaining relationship is something that this government is really passionate about — indeed, I believe, relishes. Never mind the words; look at the actions. The actions speak clearly.

The second thing the government, had it cared about outcomes in students' lives, would have reflected more deeply upon in Connolly's report is this statement: "The lack of dialogue on compensation led to a public media debate about the cost of proposals that only increased the tension and conflict between the parties and did not further understanding, clarity or opportunity to find agreement within a collective bargaining process." Now, to my ear, that's an indictment.

That lands the responsibility right at government's door, because it was this government that called in the play that led to refusal to discuss compensation, and that at the same time chose to ramp up public emotion by circulating wild numbers that had nothing to do with tabled proposals — wild speculation used to whip up public emotions and misrepresent intentions.

When a government who claims not to be involved at the table, despite defining what can and can't be discussed and calling in the plays, interferes in difficult negotiations by ramping up emotions, it can only make matters worse. But that's apparently just what the government intended to do. Government's responsibility for damaging the relationship isn't just a matter of gutting contract language nor just the injury of handing the employer the right to degrade working conditions by taking learning condition guarantees away from teachers.

No, to my mind, it's the gross mismanagement of the system that flowed from governments doing all of that while off-loading costs onto school districts with capped budgets.

The cost of the MSP premium hikes passed through to school districts. Costs for teacher increases that weren't funded put into the legislated contract and downloaded onto school districts. Costs of inflation that every large program has on a year-over-year basis. Anybody who's worked in government at any level knows that there are increasing expenses due to inflation on an annual basis. You cannot deliver the same program every year with the same amount of money. You're reducing the program you're delivering if you aren't covering off inflation. But this government told

[ Page 577 ]

the school districts: "Be quiet. Eat those costs. Just go find efficiencies. Go away. Just do it."

Well, economies in school services can rapidly trigger deteriorating conditions, and now the chickens have come home to roost. Thrusting those costs down onto the system, combined with the loss of class size controls, produces negative effects in schools across British Columbia.

We often hear members opposite offer declining enrolment as the rationale for the reduction of 2,500 positions across B.C., and the closure of 113 schools certainly played a role. There were jobs that went with the closure of schools, as did contracting funding in the decision to close schools. But the real driver was the new costs, the costs that resulted in higher class sizes and more demanding class composition.

[1605]

That's just a phrase that we say in here: "More demanding class composition." On the ground, more demanding class composition is the challenge that teachers face — and fewer supportive resources to deal with those needing special attention. You know, when I went to school, there wasn't a phrase "people needing special attention." It didn't exist. As we will see, it is now a substantial portion of what teachers deal with in the classroom.

That was the reason we lost nearly a quarter of our school librarians and why the remainder of our school librarians now spend more time doing clerical library work and less time teaching students how to use libraries — because school districts reluctantly cut librarians and support workers in order to shave budgets to cover downloaded costs. In other words, if you think about, Mr.

Speaker, the net impact of government's decisions was to force the system to begin to cannibalize itself, and that's what it's been doing just in order to survive and to continue to try to deliver an increasingly difficult program to students. It's a rather ugly image, but it's apt. That's what's come from government action, and that's the context for teacher bargaining — bargaining the government approached in bad faith with no intention of allowing any discussion of learning conditions.

I have two school districts in my constituency. In the Saanich school district the teachers wondered about the government's arguments on declining enrolments as the rationale for fewer teachers — because that's what we hear in the chamber — so they used ministry figures to determine that their enrolments between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 were down by a total of 41 students. Now, it's true they have some long-distance students and there may have been more decline in students in school and more students in distance education, but the total decline in students was 41.

Then they checked on how many fewer people were working in the system, and you know what they found? They found they'd lost 33.2 FTEs. They lost 41 students, and they lost 33.2 FTEs.

Some of those, but certainly far fewer than half, were due to school closures, but the rest were positions like teaching assistants, which allowed teachers with multiple students with learning disabilities — which is what are showing up in class composition and/or other challenges, special learning prescriptions — to involve another teacher outside the classroom in providing them with specialized tutoring. That's the way we get efficiency in the classroom and the way we continue to allow teachers to have very high-level outcomes with high throughput.

We take some of the problems out of the learning situation and we give them special attention, and we move those people back in again. Surprise, surprise.

What we hear anecdotally from teachers, and I'm going to read a little bit of it later, about their individual classrooms is actually reflected in the numbers provided by their own school district and runs against the grain of what the government is saying. Now that, to my mind, is something government should be interested in talking to teachers and administrators about.

That's something that does belong in collective bargaining as a discussion, because it represents a growing problem in the workplace that has impacts on morale, on productivity and on learning outcomes. But it isn't a discussion in collective bargaining, and that is because one assumes that government would find it inconvenient to have to acknowledge the problem it's actually created.

[1610]

Damage was done by the government's actions, and the message was clear. The message to teachers was that working and learning conditions don't matter. How you feel about it doesn't matter.

The message, as one teacher put it to me, is that teachers are not professionals worthy of respect, but rather worker drones there to do as they're told — to shut up and get on with the job, irrespective of the working conditions and the learning outcomes, treated like drones, not valued for their skills and their commitment nor for their volunteering countless hours in unpaid activities, some of which are integral to the job of teaching, like marking, and that contribute to the overall improvement and enrichment of children's lives.

I know that it's difficult for members opposite to hear some of this, and I know that when they respond to what we've been saying, they're going to return to some of the hollow generalities and self-congratulatory rhetoric of progress that they like to serve up for public consumption.

But, you know, this is about real teachers working in real classrooms, trying day in and day out to optimize outcomes for our children. How they feel about their work and the workplace is an important factor in the quality of those outcomes. It's time we all grasped that, if we want to be the stewards of public education, which is what our job is.

You know, teachers tell it a lot better than a politician standing at a microphone can, in their own words and reflecting their own experience. I think it's a good thing for all members to get a sense of what it feels like to be in their shoes. So I'll indulge myself with a little bit of what I've been hearing from teachers.

[ Page 578 ]

These are all from people in my own constituency. This note says:

This is what my classes look like when I arrived this September. I was teaching four-four blocks, no prep, four different classes; every lunch taken up with extracurricular meetings or with opening my classroom door to provide a safe place for students to eat lunch.

I paused when I read that, because the implications of that are disturbing.

In my four classes with approximately 100 students, I had 26 students with IEPs. An IEP is an individual education plan — in other words, 26 kids with special learning needs. As my husband heads up to bed at a reasonable hour every night, and I sit up marking and prepping for the next day because there's no time at work, he says: "Come to bed. You don't get paid enough to work 14 hours a day." But I can't do that obviously. The kids and their parents demand marks. Extracurricular activities need to be provided. There's supervision, and special learning needs kids have to be given extra attention.

That's just one. There are many, many of these.

He says: "It's impossible to meet the needs of all students when the range is so vast and the breadth of the learning disorders, for which you have to become an expert, is so varied." I can grasp that. As a lay person, I can grasp that. "In the end, after many complaints to my AO, I did finally get a TA. It was still extremely challenging to meet the needs of the kids."

[1615]

One more just to give a sense that it covers a lot of lives: "I'm a teacher who has nine years of university training, including a master's degree in medical genetics, and I work very hard to educate the future scientists of this province." Good linkage there. It's not babysitting; we're actually producing the people who will contribute to our future productivity and allow us to expand our horizons and become the most literate and best-educated jurisdiction, not only in this hemisphere, but on the entire globe. "What I have gotten from this government? I got an unfunded raise of 7.5 percent." Here's the insight:

…a raise I paid for myself when I had my workload increased by 25 percent. My old maximum class size was 24. My classes are now all at 30, and I'm one of the lucky ones. Can I teach 30 kids? Sure. But I don't do labs anymore. My room can only safely accommodate 24 kids. That's what it's built for. I don't do written assignments anymore. At 15 minutes a paper, the 25 extra kids I have in my four classes would add over six hours of marking for every assignment. I give fewer tests and less individual attention to my kids.

He asked:

How is this better for my students? How can you say you're putting kids first when you destroy the morale, passion and credibility of the professionals you charge with teaching them?

I've had some direct experience in collective bargaining. I can tell you that when you as an employer let things get to this level and your own people begin to feel that you don't respect them and that you don't care about the challenges they face, and you put your energies into denying there's a problem or provoking them or mischaracterizing their motivations to parents, you're hooped. You know you couldn't run a viable business that way. I know members opposite are close to business. You know you couldn't run a viable business that way. You wouldn't. You'd be out of business. I think you know deep down that you can't run public education that way either.

If you actually consciously set out to poison the well, it's almost impossible to unpoison it later. There are many examples of that in industrial relations. I would hope that this government would come to its senses and redirect itself to begin acting like a steward of public education, the steward it was elected to be, in a province with the goal of being the most literate and best-educated in whatever hemisphere it is.

I fancy myself to be a realist. I know that bargaining relationships are difficult and that the one with teachers has been anything but smooth or made good transitions or worked especially well at any time and that prior governments haven't made it work. We recognize that. I think we know our own history. But what you've done to damage the relationship with teachers during this government's time in office puts the entire undertaking at risk. What you're doing with Bill 12 isn't the beginning of a fix.

You have to recognize that it takes two parties to make a relationship work. The one with the greatest power — and that's always the employer — has the higher obligation to make it work. It can never work anywhere if one of the parties gives itself permission to treat the other party with disrespect. It's a downward spiral. If you begin to institutionalize disrespect, you're moving very quickly down that spiral. If you begin to approach the other party as though it needs to be taught a lesson, it's practically over. That's the path you're beginning to go down.

In a mature bargaining relationship — there's a lot contained in that phrase, Mr. Speaker; and you know that as well as I — the parties know how to express their disagreements and accept their differences. It's not the prettiest thing in the world, but it can work. When one party decides it's not worth taking the time for dialogue, doesn't want to hear any more and gives itself permission to act unilaterally, then the downward spiral begins. That's exactly what the government has engineered by its calculated efforts to politicize teacher bargaining.

I have to tell you that if that's your goal, you're definitely succeeding in politicizing our teachers. Maybe that's what you want. Maybe you want that punching bag. Maybe you want that so that you can knock it over and, in some misguided sense, be seen to be doing something for children and parents and sta-

[ Page 579 ]

bility and whatever. It's not just the BCTF; it's the whole body of teachers — people who are professionals, who have a passion for teaching and learning and a commitment to seeing individual citizens reach their potential by becoming lifelong learners, who simply want to practice their métier in a place that values and honours their service.

[1620]

I've had them visiting me of late in my constituency office and here at the Legislature. It's quite moving, because these are people who are not political by nature. They're people who feel that they have to act because they're being pushed into a corner. I think it would be helpful, actually, if we could all try to understand how that dynamic works, because at some time or another in our lives we've all been pushed into a corner, and what you do when you're pushed into a corner and you reach that last resort is fight back.

These are people who are committed to being teachers, but they're pained and they're offended and they're insulted and they're disillusioned by what has gone on. They don't understand, because they aren't political people, why their calling in life…. They see it as a calling. They have to see it as a calling, because to put up with what gets thrown at them on a daily basis, they have to have a calling. You wouldn't stay. There are easier ways to make a living — far easier ways.

They don't understand why their calling in life is being politicized and their aspirations to do good things, the right things, for children in their charge are not being respected; why teaching and learning conditions are of so little interest to those charged with the stewardship of public education; and why class composition that can't possibly be handled by a single teacher is beginning to show up as a norm of school conditions. All that this can do over time, this denial about what's actually going on out there, is drive the good teachers out of the system.

That is not a laudable goal, and I cannot believe for a moment that it is an outcome anyone in this chamber wants to see. But that is what will happen if we continue down the path.

Where I come from, you have to keep talking across the differences. I heard it from a very rough-and-ready labour leader very early on in my career. He's still very successful and, I think, has the respect of a lot of people, although he'd be a heck of a tough guy to ever come up against. Buzz Hargrove in the middle of a strike, telling people: "Even though we are at this point, we are talking." He said: "I keep talking to the other guy even when the other guy doesn't want to hear from me any more. I keep talking, because the only way that you ever come to an agreement is to keep the conversation going. The only way you do that is by reaching out."

I have the sense….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, member. Time.

D. Cubberley: I can't believe that I've already come to that point. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence….

Mr. Speaker: No. Thank you, member.

D. Cubberley: Can I not make a plea that government take the time…?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, member.

D. Cubberley: I can't believe that the members opposite don't want to hear more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

M. Sather: I rise to debate Bill 12.

The Labour Minister says that the system is "broke." Given that this is about education, I have to say it's broken. Nevertheless, I must say that there are a lot of words that I think I could spell a lot better a few days or a few years ago than I can today, so I'll cut the minister a little slack there.

[1625]

On a serious note, this is, indeed, a dark day in British Columbia — the day this bill was introduced. I think it bears some reflection on the history that brought us to this point. Although we recognize — and I think that all members in this House recognize — that it has been and always is difficult to come to an agreement with regard to teacher negotiations because of the nature of their clientele. Their clientele are our children, our most valued asset.

Having said that, what I've seen — and I think that a lot of people in British Columbia have recognized — is that this government, since the time they were elected in 2001, has set the stage for a very unfortunate situation that we have today — a situation where our teachers…. It's not overstating the case to say that our teachers feel absolutely dispirited, and there's no way that that can be good for education. There's no way that that can be good for our children. There's no way that that can be good for our society, because without a strong education system, we're hooped. Our prosperity depends on well-educated citizens.

How did this come about? Well, I think any unbiased observer, if you look back at the history of what happened in this province in 2001, saw a government come riding in on what they felt was a white horse at the time, I'm sure, to rescue British Columbia. What shortly became apparent, unfortunately, was that they also had some very hard-nosed, punitive attitudes toward certain segments of our society. It became very apparent early on that one of those segments that this government had four-square in their sights was the teachers of this province.

You know, it's not very politically popular to criticize teachers, because parents recognize that their children depend on good teachers. A lot of those parents go to schools regularly themselves to help out in the education system. They assist teachers. They work with them. By and large, they know that those teachers are doing a very thorough and good job in educating their

[ Page 580 ]

children, so they're supportive of teachers. It's not politically saleable to attack teachers per se.

What this government has done, I have to say, is focused on the union that represents these teachers, the B.C. Teachers Federation. It's not overstating the case to use the phrases that have been used many times in this House already — that this government sought to vilify that body. They have tried in numerous ways to distance the B.C. Teachers Federation from teachers. In fact, that is exceedingly insulting. That's insulting to the teachers of this province, because their federation is the body that represents them.

It's a democratic body, and they exercise their free and democratic right to collective bargaining. The B.C. Teachers Federation is the spokesperson — the spokesbody, if you will — for the teachers of this province.

[1630]

We've gone through a succession of Education Ministers. Certainly, some of those have been particularly damning, I have to say, of the teachers of this province through their union, the B.C. Teachers Federation. No teachers in this province, I think, will forget — and I believe I can mention her name — Christy Clark when she was the Minister of Education.

This attack on teachers has been aided and abetted, I have to say, by media in this province. Week after week, month after month, teachers have seen their name, their profession dragged through the mud in the media in all different sorts of ways. One of the ways that I feel was most unfair was the attack on the College of Teachers.

Every professional body has an organization to represent…. They may have a union, as teachers do, to represent them in bargaining with their employer, but they have a professional body, as well, to do with ethics and standards and the like. In their case it's the College of Teachers. Almost without exception, so far as I'm aware, the members of that college are people from that profession.

What did this government choose to do? They chose to appoint people to that body in the majority, so teachers were left in the humiliating position of not having the majority of representation in their own college. Don't think for a moment that this hasn't had a profound effect on teachers. I've talked to teachers over the years, and they're just outraged. They were outraged at what happened to their college.

There have been a lot of developments of this nature that have led us to today. It's not an accident that we're here. Yes, the system needs some fixing, if you will. Although teachers have been legislated back to work in the past, I think it's quite safe to say again that…. I don't believe that the morale of teachers in this province has ever been anywhere as low as it is today. The reason it's so low, I have to say, is because of the attitude of this government — the anti-teacher attitude of this government.

I don't believe for a moment that all members of this House, by any means, are against teachers. I don't believe that. But what I have seen is that the leadership of this government — and the Premier of this province, of course, is at the top of that chain — has shown a profound disrespect for teachers.

The government always tries to focus it on the union. Most recently they've talked about: "Well, you know, the BCTF is such a problem that we're just going to bypass them. We're going to go talk directly to teachers." That's code for another insulting endeavour towards this profession. It's saying again that your union will not be recognized. Teachers are seeing that over and over and over again. It's part of the reason why we're here in the sorry state that we're in.

[1635]

I want to talk a little bit about how education has changed, because I'm not sure that members opposite, in all cases, are aware of that fact. I remember when I was in high school. When I was in school — and a number of members are probably in the same age group as I am — things were different. Teachers were respected by students and parents. Sometimes that respect was brought in a pretty harsh way, but it was there. Today, teachers are dealing with an entirely different situation.

I was talking to a high school teacher the other day, and he was telling me about how, in his classroom, a student had come in and was eating a sandwich in the middle of class. The teacher asked him to stop eating the sandwich and attend to the lesson. He refused. He asked him again, and the student got up and told the teacher to "f" off. I obviously won't use the full phrase, but he used the full phrase, and he repeated it.

I have to give the teacher some credit. Teachers also are certainly different than they used to be. He actually found some humour in it. He said that because this guy got up and said, "'F' off, Mr. Jones," twice in a row, he thought: "Wow, he's still calling me 'Mr. Jones' despite what he's saying."

In my day, you would be gone from school and probably wouldn't darken the doors again. I remember that in grade 12 one of my classmates — he was a good student in a small country school — decided, about two months before graduation in grade 12, to go downtown for some pop or whatever. He wasn't drinking alcohol. He came back to school late, and he wasn't that late, either. He was suspended for the rest of the year. He missed his grade 12 examinations. That's pretty harsh, but that's the kind of atmosphere it was.

I think the way that teachers are handling it now is better. I think the way this teacher handled that situation is better. He explained to me how they would sit down and talk with the student and try to get to the bottom of what was going on, bring in the parents and so on. Conditions have changed; there's no doubt. That's only one of the ways they've changed.

We've heard a lot about special needs students. I'm not exactly sure why, but I don't think there's any doubt that teachers have a whole lot more special needs students than they used to have. In Maple Ridge, in school district 42, where I'm from, there seems to be a particularly large number of students with autism. I don't know the reason for that, as I said, although I know that our school district does focus a lot on special

[ Page 581 ]

needs and has done a good job over the years. I don't know if parents are moving there with their children or what. But I know that in our classes and our schools there are a lot of children with autism and Asperger's syndrome.

I don't know if members know what it's like to be in a class or to be a classroom teacher when you have children with those kinds of profound special needs in your classroom. A child with autism requires a very strict environment. They don't have the capacity for tolerating a lot of change, particularly quick change. A teacher is faced with having to be able to assist that student with their particular needs but at the same time create a varied environment for the other students. If you have two or three or sometimes six special needs students, it's impossible.

Quite frankly, it's impossible to provide good education unless they have support. They need those special education teachers. They need those assistants to be able to help them to give those children the education that they deserve, and they're not getting it. We've heard a lot about that, and that is having a really negative effect.

[1640]

That's why you hear over and over again about class composition. We've heard it a number of times in this debate. That's why it's so significant to teachers, because they have profoundly behaviourally disturbed children, they have children with special needs, and they have an atmosphere where there's less respect for them.

In my community 65 percent of parents work outside the community. An average commute is probably two hours a day. They're tired and worn out when they get home. They don't have a lot of time, sometimes, to devote to their children's needs. There are a lot of single parents, not only in my community but in all our communities. Children do not necessarily have the supports they need to be ready for school when they get there. These are some of the challenges that teachers face.

Teachers are willing and able to meet those challenges given a fair and level playing field, but they don't feel that they have it. I have to say that I agree with them. They do not have it. This government has not provided the kind of environment they need to ensure that the children in our schools grow up to be successful adults. How shortsighted is that? If we don't have successful children becoming successful adults, our economy is going to suffer.

The members opposite are focused a lot on the economy, so they should understand. They say they understand the value of an education system, but I don't think they do. In dollars and cents terms, I don't think they get it. This is not good for the economy, never mind what it's doing to the hearts and minds, if you will, of these children and their families.

Teachers have concerns about the intent of this government. The government says their intent is to keep children in school. That's a laudable goal. We all want to keep children in school. But how is it that they're going about that? A lot of teachers I talk to don't believe that this government is supportive of the public education system. They, in fact, are concerned that this government is going to drive the public education system down. They look around. They've seen what happened with health care.

Notwithstanding what editorialists in the Vancouver Province might say, teachers are not irrational. They're not paranoid. But they're also not stupid. They believe that public education is under tremendous threat from this government.

What they've seen in health care is that health care is privatized. More and more of it has been privatized, and there have been a lot of problems with that privatization and the service that's being offered. They worry that the same thing is happening in the education system — that if the education system is driven down so far that it's no longer functional, parents will be forced to seek alternatives. Whether they want to or not, they will be forced to send their children to private school. Every time you take a child out of the publ