2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

M c Abee fossil beds

H. Lali

Journée de la francophonie

J. Les

West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund

K. Corrigan

Competition

N. Letnick

Value-added industry

C. Trevena

Ethel Tibbits Awards

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Log export policy and advisory committee ruling on timber supply

A. Dix

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

N. Macdonald

M. Farnworth

Participation of aboriginal groups in Missing Women Inquiry

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

Intervention in UBC admissions process

J. Horgan

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Government response to ranching industry issues

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act (continued)

R. Chouhan

Hon. G. Abbott

B. Ralston

K. Corrigan

L. Krog

B. Routley

N. Macdonald

R. Austin

S. Simpson

M. Elmore

C. Trevena

C. James

S. Fraser

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

D. Routley

R. Chouhan

[ Page 10093 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. McNeil: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a special guest joining us in the House. I'm pleased to welcome the new head of the government's new provincial office of domestic violence, Cory Heavener. This is a critical role that'll be accountable for delivering a comprehensive, coordinated action plan to strengthen and improve supports, services and policies to those who are impacted by domestic violence.

Cory comes to us from the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, where she has led two major investigations and reports dealing with domestic violence. She has also worked with experts in the field to recommend improvements to the system and supports for some of our most vulnerable population. Cory was also previously the associate provincial director of child welfare in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and has over 23 years of experience in child welfare in British Columbia.

[1335]

Throughout her career she has focused on enhancing services and systems of supports to vulnerable children and is well suited to provide leadership in this crucial role going forward.

I'm also pleased that the Representative for Children and Youth is very supportive of this appointment, and as quoted in the news release going out this afternoon, she acknowledges the value that Cory will bring to the office. Would the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to Cory Heavener.

H. Lali: Joining us today, right in front of me in the galleries, is a good friend of mine, Kevin Anderson. He is a longtime resident of Lillooet, and he is currently serving his fourth term as councillor in Lillooet. He's out here talking to ministers and lobbying on behalf of his community. So I would like the House to actually please give a warm welcome to my good friend Kevin Anderson from Lillooet.

J. Les: Monsieur le président, aujourd'hui c'est la Journée rancophonie en Colombie-Britannique. B.C. Francophone Day. In the precincts with us today we have Ms. Evelyne Decorps, who is the Consul General of France; and His Worship Mayor Nils Jensen, who is the mayor of Oak Bay; as well as Ms. Karen Oraas, Ms. Gaynor Clark and Ms. Kim Walker, the three francophile award recipients today at lunch for their contribution towards strengthening the French language and culture amongst British Columbians.

We also have Dr. Réal Roy, president of La Fédération des Francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Monsieur Bruce Dumont, president of the B.C. Métis Nation. We've also had the pleasure to have with us today in the precincts the presidents, executive directors of francophone organizations and members of our B.C. francophone community as well as federal and provincial government representatives. Would the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

I have two further introductions, two young gentlemen who are here today from the riding of Chilliwack-Hope. They are William Van Hoepen and Brandon Ter Haar — two real keeners. They are not yet old enough to vote, but they're sure old enough to help out in by-election campaigns, for example. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are 28 — I assure you I will not read out all of their names — members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who are here in Victoria to attend the IBEW winter school. A resident and constituent of mine, Phil Venoit, of Local 230 helped organize this event. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome, and let's have some sparks in question period today.

N. Letnick: It's spring break and therefore the pilgrimage of my family to Victoria to visit. I'd like to welcome my wife, Helene, and my daughter Naomi. Please help me make them feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act. This act contains amendments on the Oil and Gas Activities Act that will improve efficiencies for the sector and the Oil and Gas Commission. It addresses issues for municipalities and third parties doing work around the pipeline and fixes inconsistencies with other statutes.

[ Page 10094 ]

It also amends the Utilities Commission Act, changes which will strengthen enforcement, providing a broader range of investigative and enforcement tools. It amends the Clean Energy Act. The amendments will change the definition of electricity self-sufficiency to help keep rates for British Columbians among the lowest in North America. And changes to the Strata Property Act will prescribe when audit financial statements are to be distributed to strata lot owners and will clarify requirements for the first depreciation report for a new strata corporation.

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 30, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, 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.

[1340]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

M c ABEE FOSSIL BEDS

H. Lali: On February 25 the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources announced the formal recognition of the McAbee fossil beds, located 13 kilometres east of Cache Creek–Ashcroft, as a heritage site, thus ending the decade-long battle waged by scientists to protect the world-renowned site from development.

The process of protecting the McAbee fossil beds begins with the heritage designation. Columnist Stephen Hume writes:

"But the immense scientific value of the McAbee site lies less in the specimens prized by amateur and commercial fossil hunters than in its vast array of lesser-known plants, insects, nuts, cones, seeds and pollen that flourished when the world was much warmer…. The diversity of specimens…provide scientists with a remarkable tool for studying the ancient evolution of species and how they changed over millennia as their habitats and climate changed."

I take no credit, because all of the political work was done by someone else — Charlie Wyse, the former MLA for Cariboo South, who was the MLA for the Ashcroft–Cache Creek area from 2005 to 2009.

When supporters of protecting the site contacted Charlie, Charlie went to work and worked with Bruce Archibald, the geologist; Ashcroft and Cache Creek councils; the area director; tourist associates; and folks in the community. Charlie arranged and attended a meeting with Mr. Archibald and the then-minister responsible, the member from Prince George–Mount Robson.

The minister committed to a study, and a report was released in 2008 that confirmed McAbee's significance and now the designation. Anyone who knows Charlie Wyse will agree that when he latches onto an issue, he is like a dog with a bone. Charlie, like an ornery old dog, absolutely refused to allow the fossil beds to go to the cats.

Say what? You're thinking: "You mean Charlie didn't let it go to the dogs." No, you heard me right. I really meant that Charlie Wyse didn't let the fossil beds go to the cats. You see, the developer wanted to mine the fossil bed site and turn the debris into — you guessed it — kitty litter. Charlie was determined not to let that happen.

I thank everyone involved, especially the two ministers and Charlie Wyse, for all their hard work.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

J. Les: I am pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20, 2012, as Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique . Since the House will not be sitting next week, this event was celebrated at lunch today in the rotunda. The theme of this year's celebration was "Welcome, Francophile."

A francophile can be described as a person who likes the French fact, who has a keen interest in interconnecting with our French-speaking population and their contribution in strengthening the province, both economically and socially. Francophiles are a significant segment of our society in British Columbia. They have a major impact on French demographics, and they are partners in the delivery of services.

Today's proclamation of B.C. Francophonie Day honours our vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community of more than 70,000 francophones, as well as 300,000 British Columbians who have embraced the French language.

Our francophonie is an invaluable part of our heritage and a resource that contributes to improving the social, economic, political and cultural fabric of our province and of our country.

[All over the country Canadians chose to live and prosper in French. Congratulations to all francophone and francophile British Columbians for their contribution! Have a good francophonie day! Thank you.]

[French text and translation provided by J. Les.]

WEST COAST LEGAL EDUCATION

AND ACTION FUND

K. Corrigan: Well, this morning several members of the official opposition were pleased to attend the annual West Coast LEAF Equality Breakfast in Vancouver, where the several hundred attendees were treated to a keynote address by CBC broadcaster Chantal Hébert and heard about the good work that LEAF does.

West Coast LEAF, the legal education and action fund, works to achieve equality through B.C.-based equality

[ Page 10095 ]

rights litigation, law reform and public legal education. In the past year LEAF was an intervener in a number of very important cases, including, for example, the polygamy reference case, cases regarding sexual harassment and the rights of incarcerated mothers.

Indeed, I think LEAF can be proud that they have, over their history, not just influenced but actually shaped Canadian jurisprudence. In addition to their many interventions in important cases related to women's equality, LEAF also tracks legislation and certainly brings their concerns to government.

[1345]

They, of course, publish their annual CEDAW report — CEDAW standing for the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women — which reports on how they feel the B.C. government is doing with respect to women, the justice system and equality. They also published three equality impact statements, assessing the effects of legislation on marginalized women.

West Coast LEAF has also been very active in education work, reaching over 1,000 young people in the past year with workshops on workplace rights and their No means No relationship workshops.

I hope the Legislature will join me in congratulating and thanking West Coast LEAF president Catalina Rodriguez and her board, as well as executive director Kasari Govender and her staff team for the important work that they do to ensure women's equal access to and full participation in social, economic and political activities in British Columbia.

COMPETITION

N. Letnick: While it may seem at times that in this House there's too much competition, I firmly believe competition is good. By driving us to outperform our rivals, competition forces us to excel. It gives us all we've got, just to go that extra mile. A healthy combination of competition and collaboration has served to achieve some of the world's greatest accomplishments, like penicillin and making mankind travel to the moon and back safely.

In B.C. we're no stranger to competition and rivalry. Just look at Vancouver versus Victoria or Cranbrook versus Fernie. And where would the Kamloops Blazers be without the Kelowna Rockets?

Competition extends beyond sports, but the benefits remain the same. Small, medium and large-sized businesses throughout B.C. are competing every day, trying to provide better value for their customers and higher returns for their shareholders. It's that thirst to innovate and compete that now sees 9,000 tech companies in B.C. generating over $19 billion in revenue, employing over 8,300 people in high-tech jobs which pay more than 50 percent higher than the provincial average.

We live in the global marketplace, so it's extremely important that our companies and institutions keep sharp and maintain their edge if they are to succeed against others who would not lose any sleep in taking over B.C. jobs. British Columbians competed for the privilege of hosting the 2010 Olympics, and we won. We competed for shipbuilding contracts and landed $8 billion large, so in B.C. we know how to compete, and we do it well.

I would encourage all British Columbians to continue to embrace competition. It makes for a better and healthier economy, more productive workers and a better quality of life for all. On that note, go, Rockets, go!

VALUE-ADDED INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: We all talk a great deal about value-added, getting that extra benefit from something, that extra bit of worth. And when it comes to our natural resources, the need for that is all the greater. Now, that value added can be something as comparatively straightforward as a lumber mill — taking logs and milling them ready for market, ready for use; each step of the way, a value is added to that log — or it could be something a little bit more elaborate.

I'd like to highlight a couple of examples where value is being added to our natural resource, creating local jobs and helping local economies.

The Woodland Flooring Company in Comox is a small family-run business near Comox airport. The wood comes from woodlots in the area. The company kiln-dries it, mills and manufactures it and then sells its product — fir, pine, alder and maple flooring. For every cubic metre of wood used, the company increases its value from between 400 and 2,500 percent. A log for which they'll pay $70 a cubic metre can be transformed into flooring worth almost $1,800 a cubic metre.

Woodland Flooring creates jobs and keeps people working in the industry and in the community. It adds value to every log it handles. Instead of a loaded logging truck being worth $7.50 at 25 cents stumpage, it's on average worth $3,000.

On a larger scale, log homes are the visual embodiment of value-added. You can see the logs being used, not being shipped. Over in Gibsons, West Coast Log Homes employs about 34 people. By taking time to choose the logs, paying over market value, the end result makes each log worth about ten times its value if it was to be simply felled and shipped offshore.

As I mentioned, value-added can be as simple as running a mill — making sure our communities get benefit from our publicly owned resources, our forests — or it can be crafted products, but it's important to recognize the value of our public resources and to value our communities. Without investing in value-added, we'll have neither left.

[ Page 10096 ]

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS

J. Yap: Last Friday I attended the 19th annual Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards Luncheon. Named after the pioneering first publisher of the Richmond Review newspaper, the awards are given out annually to women who make a difference.

[1350]

Ethel started her career as a Vancouver Province reporter in the 1920s, before moving to Richmond, where she married husband Orland Tibbits in 1926. In 1932 she began working at a fledgling newspaper, the Richmond Review . Within a year she bought it. Together with her husband, Ethel ran the paper out of their store, called Blundell Grocery. Orland was circulation manager and Ethel was the editor of the Richmond Review .

Mr. Speaker, 41 women were nominated in five categories: sports, arts, youth, community and business. Adrienne Moore was the winner of the arts award. Tiffany Kirk took home the business award. Denise Coutts accepted the sports award. Maggie Kong was the winner in the youth category. Lastly but certainly not least, the winner of the community award was none other than the MLA for Richmond East.

The final award, the pioneer award, was given to Olive Bassett and Jennifer Larsen for their decades of volunteer work in the community. A standing ovation was given to these two outstanding women.

A volunteer in Richmond since the 1970s and a champion for those with mental health issues, Jennifer Larsen earned high praise from her peers for her dedication and hard work. Olive Bassett recalled how her first volunteer job was folding newspapers back in the 1930s for then Richmond Review publisher Ethel Tibbits.

All moneys raised at the luncheon go to local women's charities, including the primary beneficiary, Nova House, a shelter for women and their children fleeing domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, fellow members, please join me in congratulating all the recipients of the 2012 Ethel Tibbits awards for their contributions to the Richmond community and the province of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

LOG EXPORT POLICY AND ADVISORY

COMMITTEE RULING ON TIMBER SUPPLY

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Natural Resource Operations. The law in B.C. — it's more of a guideline now, I guess — is that no logs should be exported from British Columbia unless they are surplus to domestic needs.

The minister will know that last December the timber export advisory committee, which was set up to help determine what is surplus and what is not, assessed that logs from Quatsino Sound not be exported but rather that they be sold to Teal-Jones to be used for manufacturing and to create jobs in British Columbia.

But the minister overruled that decision. He overruled the decision of TEAC. I wonder if the minister can provide an explanation as to why.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as we've said previously in the House, the question of log export policy is one that we're reviewing, one that we ensure that we need to have the balance. It's interesting, with the questions coming from the members opposite, who have shifted their policy from at one point asking for a total ban on log exports to now talking about restrictions or attacks on it…. Again, they recognize the importance that log exports play in the economic equation — a necessary part of the economic equation, ensuring we have viability in the industry here on Vancouver Island and in the Interior.

We continue to work through that review. We continue to look and ensure that we have a balanced policy, and we continue to ensure that the surplus test is applied according to the legislation.

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

A. Dix: I suppose we should be thankful the minister didn't say that Teal-Jones's sign was too big.

But that's not an answer to the question. The committee, the timber export advisory committee, made a recommendation, made a determination, and the minister overruled that recommendation. Why did the minister overrule, in that case, that recommendation?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, the timber export advisory committee, which is an advisory committee to the process, provides that advice, and it is advisory in the process. We take all of that information into consideration when looking at administering the surplus test. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with the TEAC committee. We are continuing to review the policy to ensure that the surplus test and the fair-market test are applied according to the legislation, and we'll continue to do so.

[1355]

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

A. Dix: Again, that's not an answer. The minister owes people an explanation for his decision, and this is not nearly good enough. The committee made the determination that keeping those logs in British Columbia was better for our economy than exporting them. The minister overruled them and said exporting them is better than keeping them in the province.

[ Page 10097 ]

So I want to ask the minister, give him a third opportunity, because those are not answers. The minister needs to explain specifically in this case why he overruled that recommendation. That seems to be the least we can expect from the Minister of Forests.

Let me ask him again. Why did he overrule it? Can he provide a specific explanation as to why so that we can understand the evolving position of the government on raw log exports?

Hon. S. Thomson: Actually, the evolving position on log exports is the continuing evolving position of the members opposite, at one point very clearly calling for an outright ban, then shifting to restrictions, then shifting to taxes — all policies that risk jobs here, risk jobs in British Columbia, risk jobs in forest-dependent communities. As I said, we're working with the TEAC advisory committee. We're continuing to review the policy, we're continuing to ensure that the surplus test and the fair-market test are applied according to the legislation, and we'll continue to do that work.

B. Routley: Teal-Jones, Coastland and many more B.C. mills need logs, but they just can't get them. I've been told by mill managers that more B.C. mills will be gone if this level of raw log exports continues. B.C. exported a record 5.5 million cubic metres of logs in 2011.

B.C. mills would add shifts, they'd invest for additional lines if they could get all the logs they need, but these B.C. mills are being denied fair access. The minister said he would find balance. Why is this same minister making unprecedented decisions to shift the balance towards more raw log export?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, let's be clear. The log export policy is a policy that provides for jobs in here British Columbia, ensures that jobs are protected here throughout communities both on the Island and the Interior. It's very clear that the log exports are a necessary part of the overall equation.

We do need to continue to work to ensure that we find the appropriate balance. That work continues. Again, the policies that have been advocated by the members opposite — starting with a ban, shifting to significant restrictions — risk jobs here in British Columbia.

We will continue to work to ensure that the surplus test provides that appropriate balance. That work continues. We're continuing to consult with this TEAC committee in that process.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: The Liberal government's Premier and the minister, on many occasions, have hidden behind the surplus test. They've hidden behind the surplus test, and they've said that they've got a committee in place, the timber export advisory committee, to deal with these decisions, to determine whether logs are surplus to our needs. Why is this minister overriding the decision of the export advisory committee and effectively making them irrelevant?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the timber export advisory committee is an advisory committee to the process, an important part of the process, and one that provides advice, one that we meet with regularly. I continue to meet with them regularly — as early as last week, with the committee.

[1400]

We're continuing to look through the administration of the surplus test to ensure that it is administered according to the legislation, ensuring that it is administered fairly and ensuring that both the surplus test and the fair-market test are applied. That work continues, and we're continuing to review the policy.

N. Macdonald: What we see today is how you lose 35,000 jobs and end up exporting raw logs to the tune of 5.5 million cubic metres in a single year. These sorts of decisions…. There is a process that's clear. You have a committee of experts. These experts determined that there were jobs to be found in manufacturing. You had a manufacturer that was ready, that went through the proper process, and the minister chose to override it. Why?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's be clear. What the overall policy does, what the current policy does, is provide for jobs and economic activity here in British Columbia — $9.4 billion in export activity, harvest levels that have increased and 18 mills that are producing lumber for overseas markets, diversification of the market, making sure we continue to have that economic activity in the industry. That's what the current balanced policy does. We'll continue to work to ensure we have that balance.

But let's be clear — $9.4 billion in export activity, over 18 mills producing lumber for a diversified market. We're going to continue to work with the industry to make sure that we have that diversified market for the industry, to make sure that we have the economic equation right, the necessary economic equation to ensure that mills can protect jobs and operate here in British Columbia, including creating jobs on the harvest land base, jobs for truckers. That's all provided as part of our balanced policy.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: With all due respect, that's a ridiculous answer, because you have manufacturers that are ready. You have Teal-Jones, which has gone through the process. This is a company that produces jobs, value-added jobs. You have Coastland ready.

[ Page 10098 ]

You have a host of companies that are ready, and these are the crumbs we're talking about that go through this advisory committee. These are the crumbs, and even them…. This minister will deny those mills. There were manufacturing jobs there to be had. This minister, through his decision, which is unprecedented, took those jobs away, and the workers in British Columbia deserve a clear answer of why he did that.

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said clearly, we continue to work with the TEAC committee. They're an advisory committee to our process, and an important one. They have a broad base of input, a broad base of representation on the committee.

We're continuing to work with them as we review the overall export policy, as we review the administration of the surplus test, as we review the administration of the fair-market part of that surplus test. We are continuing to work them. I met with them last week. The policy is continuing to be reviewed, and we will continue to take their advice.

M. Farnworth: This isn't a policy question. It's a decision question — your decision, Minister, the decision that you made to overrule the timber export advisory committee that recommended keeping those logs here.

Why did you make that decision — to keep them overruled?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second, Minister.

I remind the member. Through the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I said, we are continuing to review the policy. We continue to work with TEAC and the industry on the administration's surplus test. It's an important part of the process. We are working through the policy, and that is part of the policy review. The current policy is administered on the basis of the legislation and the policy that's in place. We will continue to do that and continue to take that advice.

But again, I want to be clear that the overall policy, the overall balance that is part of the export policy, is one that protects jobs here in British Columbia, one that creates jobs. The process that the members opposite are talking about is one that would risk jobs here in British Columbia, put those jobs at risk. We need to make sure that we work through and have the appropriate balance.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The only job at risk is the minister's, by his poor performance here today.

The question is simple, Minister. You made a decision….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

M. Farnworth: Through the Chair. It's through the Chair, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, Member.

M. Farnworth: Through the Chair, hon. Speaker, the minister made a decision. He hasn't answered the question. Why did he make that decision?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, we're continuing to review the policy. We continue to meet with the TEAC committee in the process. The current policy is being administered as part of the overall policy that is in place — the administration of the surplus test, the administration of fair market value in the process. Those decisions were made on the basis of existing policy. We're going to continue to review the policy as part of our review.

But let's be clear. What we are going to do is make sure the policy direction that we put in place is one that provides the appropriate balance and one that continues to protect jobs both here on the coast and in the Interior and throughout the province, because it's clear that the log export policy is a necessary part of the equation that ensures that we have a viable industry here in British Columbia.

PARTICIPATION OF ABORIGINAL GROUPS

IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

J. Kwan: On her first day as Premier in the Legislature the Premier said that her government wants to make sure the aboriginal voices are heard at the Missing Women Inquiry. When the Premier refused to support the 13 groups granted standing, group after group lost confidence in the inquiry and walked.

Now the Premier has changed her position. It's no longer the voices of aboriginal women and groups that are paramount. How does the Premier justify this?

My question is actually to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Does she support the Premier sidelining the voices of aboriginal women and community groups in the inquiry that is supposed to be about the missing and murdered women, who are primarily aboriginal?

Hon. S. Bond: We canvassed this issue a number of times in question period, and we've made it very clear that we remain committed to ensuring that the commission continues its work, that aboriginal voices are a very important part of that process. In fact, just this week we certainly did regret the stepping down of one of the four lawyers that were provided by the commissioner to actually look at the issue of aboriginal concerns.

I would have thought today that the member opposite

[ Page 10099 ]

would have at least recognized that the commissioner has said very clearly that he intends to replace legal counsel, that he is taking a brief period of time so that new legal counsel can get up to speed on the file and therefore be more effective in bringing the voices of aboriginal people to the commission table.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The aboriginal community is in agreement that whoever is brought on cannot possibly go through the hundreds and thousands of documents in time to fairly and accurately represent aboriginal interests.

The head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Stewart Phillip, said: "It is clear that the B.C. Liberals do not want to hear aboriginal voices at the Missing Women Inquiry and that aboriginal community voices are relegated to outside of the parking lot."

This sentiment was confirmed when the Premier said yesterday: "The major reason for this inquiry is to look at what happened with the police in British Columbia." Virtually everyone agrees that the aboriginal women and community voices are essential to the success of the inquiry.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Does she agree with the Premier's sentiment, or will she stand up with the aboriginal community and tell the Premier that she is wrong?

[1410]

Hon. S. Bond: Commissioner Oppal has a full understanding and expectation that aboriginal voices will be included in the commission. That's why, as I pointed out to the members opposite last week, Commissioner Oppal led a series of forums across northern British Columbia. That's hardly the parking lot. In fact, he went to communities like Kitwanga, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitsumkalum, Nisga'a.

Again, if the member opposite would actually spend some time and go to the commission's website, there alone is story after story after story presented by aboriginal elders, men, women included in this process. That work will continue. We want to prevent this type of tragedy from ever occurring again in British Columbia.

L. Krog: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. We have heard answers in this House about how the commission is there to listen to British Columbians. Indeed, the Premier herself said on May 30, 2011: "All of those missing and murdered women were lost to their families and to our communities in the most tragic way possible. It's incumbent on all of us in every aspect, in every corner of our society in British Columbia, to care and to show that we care by doing something about it. That's what this government has done."

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations is very simple. Given that the chiefs from the aboriginal community have repeatedly asked this government to fund the 13 groups, how can the Minister of Aboriginal Relations sit in this House and not respond to the cries of those chiefs? Has she in fact taken the time to have a discussion with the aboriginal chiefs in this province on this issue, and if so, what have they told her and what is her answer?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, let's just review the fact that Commissioner Oppal hired two additional lawyers, and two pro bono lawyers were involved in the process, who offered to provide support and legal advice to the groups that the member opposite mentions in this House repeatedly. In fact, those groups chose not to take advantage of the four additional lawyers that were provided.

We've been clear. British Columbians to date have spent more than $4.5 million on an inquiry that is essential to ensure that this tragic occurrence does not occur again. We made a choice as a government. We chose to provide legal support to those most deeply impacted: the families of women who were lost.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It appears we're not going to get any answers out of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations defending her portfolio, so my question is to the Attorney General, who has again in this House raised the issue of the $4.5 million spent on the commission so far.

The taxpayers of this province spent tens of millions of dollars investigating the murders of Willie Pickton. This government happily paid $6 million in legal fees for two convicted Liberal insiders. How can this Attorney General stand in this House today and defend the Premier's remarks and defend this government?

My question to her is very simple. We have heard the Premier promise that all voices would be heard. Will the Attorney General stand up today and commit to funding this inquiry, to getting the funding for the 13 groups back so that this inquiry will not turn into a complete fiasco?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. The commission of inquiry, Commissioner Oppal, has very much been given the task of hearing the stories of aboriginal people, along with looking at what went wrong. That does include important and necessary testimony about and by police officers in British Columbia. That is the mandate of the commission.

To suggest that this government has not been supportive is simply inaccurate, and it continues to be repeated by the members opposite. We are committed to ensur-

[ Page 10100 ]

ing that recommendations are brought forward to the government.

[1415]

That is why we created a study commission — to allow individuals to participate in this process without the need of a lawyer. In fact, we don't equate the success of this process to the number of lawyers that are attached to the team.

INTERVENTION IN

UBC ADMISSIONS PROCESS

J. Horgan: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Advanced Education if she had taken any steps following revelations on Friday that the admissions process at the University of British Columbia's medical school had been disrupted and had led to the resignation of Denis Hughes, in part because of alleged interference and special treatment for applicants with well-connected parents. In particular, I made reference to Mr. Howard Waldner, the CEO of VIHA.

The minister has had 24 hours to review Friday's newspaper. I'm wondering if she could stand today and give some confidence to the people of British Columbia that the admissions process at the medical school at UBC is sacrosanct.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I have had a chance to review it, and I'm confident that the process for reviewing the applicants for UBC's medical school is rigorous. It's very competitive.

The applicant that the member opposite is referring to did not actually make it into UBC's medical school. The admission to the medical school at UBC is not tied to who you know. It's not tied to who your family is. I'm confident that the integrity of the admissions process for UBC's medical school is intact.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, yesterday the minister took the question on notice, as if she wasn't aware of the issue, and now the House and the people of British Columbia are to take her at her word that over the past 24 hours she has had a good look and everything's fine.

Could the minister, in place of her assurances, table in some form any review that was undertaken as a result of the interference of well-connected parents? Was there any process, internal or external, to justify what the minister just said?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: If we do something too slow, the members opposite criticize. When we appear to deal with an issue swiftly, the members criticize. I am confident that the integrity of the admissions process for UBC's medical school is intact.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

RANCHING INDUSTRY ISSUES

L. Popham: Over the past month I've raised concerns about the plight of ranchers near Big Creek who are losing their livelihoods because this government refuses to work with them on issues that are impacting them. According to Randy Saugstad, one of the ranchers whose story I brought into this chamber, his local MLA, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, said he was making a mountain out of a molehill when he spoke to her about these problems.

Does the Minister of Agriculture agree with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin? Does he believe ranchers who are going out of business because of this government's mismanagement are making a mountain out of a molehill?

Hon. D. McRae: You know, this was raised in the House, I think, several weeks ago, and it was directed to a different minister at the time. At the time I thought that, well, it wasn't really a question for myself, so I approached the member opposite afterward, saying: "It's really not my issue, but if you wish to talk about it, please come and see me. My office is in 301. You know where it is. I would be more than willing and would like to look into this issue." However, I have yet to have that visit in my office.

I'm going to give a question back. I will advocate for agriculture anytime I can. But you know what? We need to have that conversation. Are we talking about what's good for agriculture or what's good for politics in this House?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Well, I know the minister is new to his job, but ranching falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, Minister. I did very well address the Minister of Agriculture two weeks ago.

[1420]

The Minister of Agriculture has the responsibility to represent the concerns of ranchers at the cabinet table. So he should be listening to the concerns of ranchers near Big Creek — it's in British Columbia, Minister — and any other concerns brought forward by the cattle industry. But that hasn't happened.

Again to the Minister of Agriculture, will he visit these ranchers to hear their story? And in the words of rancher Randy Saugstad, will you come and see the community that you and your government policy are destroying?

Hon. D. McRae: They say we're destroying the industry. This is the same government that…. When they were in power, when they were driving jobs out of the province, when they were running up deficits and taxing taxpayers

[ Page 10101 ]

at a level that was unprecedented, they found $1 million for the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Now, $1 million is a lot of money, but in the last ten years, I'm proud to say, this government has given the cattlemen $31 million.

In case the members doubt my numbers, let me give you some details. I have the list here: $6 million for the BSE recovery program; we have $4 million for the cattle age verification program; $3 million to implement a beef industry strategy; $1 million to establish a cattle sustainability research chair at TRU; $5 million for agriflexibility funding; $2.5 million, AgriRecovery funding. Through the Ministry of Transportation, there's also been a $10 million fencing program.

We put our efforts where our pocketbooks are. We spend the money. We work with the cattlemen. They are a great organization, and they have easy access to my office.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue committee stage of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act. And in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

section 6 (continued) .

R. Chouhan: I heard that before lunch the minister answered that there was an inability of appointing a mediator because the associate chair said they could not find…. My question to the minister is: could you show me anywhere in the Labour Code where it says that the minister cannot overrule any directive, any decision made by the associate chair or the chair of the board?

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister, the point's well taken.

Members who are engaging in conversations, please do so at a tone that does not interfere with the debate in the chamber.

Perhaps I can have the member for Burnaby-Edmonds repeat the question.

R. Chouhan: My question is that…. Before lunch, I understand, the minister said they were unable to appoint a mediator, as they were advised by the associate chair that they could not have a mediator.

My question to the minister is very simple. Is there any provision in the Labour Code anywhere which says that the minister cannot overrule or override the decision made by the associate chair or any vice-chair of the labour board?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is the board that makes the decision with respect to the potential appointment of a mediator. This is an issue which we canvassed extensively earlier today, and we don't understand the relevance of the question which the member is posing.

R. Chouhan: The relevance to this whole bill is that we are talking about, under

section 6, to appoint a mediator. The board already has the capacity, the ability, to appoint a mediator under four different sections. They can do it.

If you look at

section 79 of the Labour Code, which also provides a bigger capacity and ability for the Minister of Labour to appoint a mediator…. It's the industrial inquiry commission, which has a clear mandate that that mediator can be appointed either from the staff that are already working for the Labour Relations Board, or it could be an outside mediator. So there is no limit where the mediator could be found under the existing terms of the Labour Code.

My question to the minister is: why were those steps not taken? Did he look at

section 74 to appoint a mediator?

The Chair: Member, that issue was canvassed extensively this morning. The minister may choose to answer, but I would invite you to review the Blues Hansard debate as well.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the advice that you have tendered to the member.

Again, just to reiterate, though, for the record, the B.C. Teachers Federation requested of the Labour Relations Board a mediator, as they have the opportunity to do under the Labour Code. The Labour Relations Board investigated that issue, or that request, and they have responded with the following. This has been read into the record now twice, and I'll read it into the record a third time so that the member understands.

This is the letter of March 12 from Michael Fleming, the associate chair of mediation at the Labour Relations Board. "As noted in my letter, the bargaining position of the parties and the difficult nature of this bargaining dispute are well known. Based on Ms. Cameron's report to me, I am unable to conclude that at this juncture the appointment of a mediator under

section 74 would be of any actual assistance in helping the parties to achieve a

[ Page 10102 ]

collective agreement."

So the member can indulge in hypotheticals, but those hypotheticals are irrelevant to the discussion of Bill 22.

R. Chouhan: Okay, but there are three other sections available under the Labour Code of British Columbia. What about

section 79? Did we explore the possibility of appointing an IAC under

section 79?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: It is correct that there are alternative ways that one could pursue a settlement. All of those options were canvassed as officials looked at this issue. All of them have the same fundamental challenge which a mediator under the Labour Relations Board would have, which is: government insists that any resolution process take account of the mandate of government for net zero.

So whether it's an IIC or any other way that one would go, again, government is not going to engage a process that does not involve net zero on the economic terms. You know, if the member believes that we should pursue a process that doesn't involve net zero, I'm glad to hear him say that. At least they can be frank, then, and bold about the position that they're taking. But that is the fundamental challenge that's represented here.

R. Chouhan:

Section 74 also says: "The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services can also appoint a mediator in a collective bargaining dispute if he or she feels that a mediator will likely assist the parties in reaching a collective agreement."

Then we have another section, which is

section 76. It's titled "Special mediator." It reads: "The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services has the power to appoint a special mediator, with specified terms of reference." So did the minister explore that under

section 76 — to appoint a mediator with the specified terms of reference?

Hon. G. Abbott: We did explore all of those options which the member mentioned. I'm pleased to note that in

section 6 we are appointing a mediator. That mediator, beyond areas (

a) to (e) — or

section 6(2), (

a) to (e)…. Those are the areas which the mediator must bring back advice to government, but the mediator is free to explore other areas, other elements which might form part of a mediated solution.

[1435]

But again, all of that is within the context of net zero. So one can characterize the facilitator here as a variety of things, but it is what one asks it to do…. I believe this terms of reference that is in front of us is both a thoughtful and a constructive one.

R. Chouhan: The mediator appointed under

section 6 of Bill 22 creates that poisonous relationship between the parties. A mediator appointed under

section 76 of the Labour Code provides opportunity for the parties to come together and find common ground. It also reads further that the special mediator keeps the minister informed on the progress of the mediation. The appointment of a special mediator does not restrict or prohibit a strike or lockout unless the parties so agree.

It's very broad. It's very open. That

section 76 has that ability already without going through this exercise, which is going to damage an already damaged relationship even further. Why don't we use the existing language in the Labour Code under

section 76?

The Chair: Member, I would again direct your attention to the Hansard discussion of this morning. Those issues were heavily canvassed this morning.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate your guidance with respect to matters that were extensively canvassed this morning. I don't want to offend your advice to members, but just to summarize the approach that is embodied in the mediation provisions of

section 6 and elsewhere….

First of all, one of the benefits we see is that it does bring an end to the strike, the phase 1 strike that has been ongoing for six months, which we canvassed this morning and which, I think, both the opposition and the government agree has had an impact on students in schools in British Columbia. We're not anxious to engage a process that would continue to see the phase 1 impact on students. We may have a difference of view there, but that's the view of government and the view of me as a minister.

Secondly — again, we've canvassed this repeatedly — the experts, the officials at the Labour Relations Board, have taken a very long look at the issues around mediation. They have concluded, and it is exemplified in the letter of March 12 from Mr. Fleming of the mediation division of the LRB, that there is no prospect of success in a mediation that does not involve net zero.

Further, the mediator in the case of Bill 22 is free to canvass any issues which he or she believes can bring the parties to a mediated settlement. It is an open mandate. There are some things we've asked the mediator to do, and we have set out a net zero context for those discussions. But unless the opposition is saying we should depart from net zero, period, this line of questioning on the part of the opposition is, I suspect, a fruitless one.

B. Ralston: This morning the minister.... Again he's made reference to the letter from Mr. Fleming at the Labour Relations Board. The range of legislative mechanisms available in the Labour Relations Code is quite varied and fairly open-ended.

[1440]

section 79 there's the possibility of creating an industrial inquiry commission, which is a broader form of review and mediation. It gives the minister — that's the Minister of Labour — discretion to "make or cause to be

[ Page 10103 ]

made inquiries considered advisable respecting labour relations matters, and subject to this Code and regulations, may do things he or she considers necessary to maintain or secure labour relations stability and promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes."

The commission can be bound by a directive from the minister. That would be the Minister of Labour. I'm looking at subsection (4).

"The minister must furnish the industrial inquiry commission with a statement of the matters to be inquired into, and if an inquiry involves particular persons or parties, must advise them of the appointment of the industrial inquiry commission.

(5) An industrial inquiry commission must inquire into the matters referred to it by the minister and endeavour" — and it goes on — "to carry out its terms of reference...."

So within that section…. I'm interested in pursuing what the minister says is the open-ended mandate given to the mediator in

section 6 on certain issues. But within a mandate that's focused, the industrial inquiry commissioner — he or she has a very broad mandate.

The minister said earlier this morning that this dispute really didn't engage his concern — I don't know whether I'm paraphrasing him correctly — until about six months ago when job action began to take place. Certainly, it's open under this provision to have done something — appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner earlier, if that was the wish.

Can the minister explain why this particular

section wasn't used, given that it's anticipatory in some way — gives a very broad mandate, yet focused on directions from the minister — to begin to solve the problems in this dispute rather than letting them come to a head in the way in which they've done, and using part of the tools of the Labour Code but not all of them?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, I'm advised that industrial inquiry commissions are generally utilized for engagement on structural issues — that is, issues that relate to bargaining structures in the province. Of course, we've had a couple of those in recent years, as the member will know: the Vince Ready inquiry of '05 and the Don Wright inquiry of '02. I guess it's worth noting that the Teachers Federation has not signed on to either of those bargaining restructures.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister references the most recent analogous procedure in 2005. That's now some time ago.

Section 79(1) gives the Minister of Labour "on application or on his or her own motion...." So that's something — with advice, presumably — the Minister of Labour could have initiated.

I'm just wondering, given the background of this dispute — as anyone who's followed it in any detail over the last 20 years will know — does involve some structural elements but certainly, the mandate of someone going into this, an experienced mediator or arbitrator with a mandate like this but focused by the minister's terms of reference, I think would have some possibility of success.

[1445]

I'm wondering, given that the minister became concerned when job action commenced six months ago, why this provision wasn't enacted and why only part of it is incorporated into the

section 6 that we now have here before the House at this time.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has stated on a couple occasions that I did not become concerned with this dispute until after phase 1 job action. That is not the case, and the member should look to Hansard if he wants to get an accurate description of what I said.

I have been concerned about this dispute from the beginning. My concern with respect to this dispute has deepened with every day that passed over the six months since the phase 1 job action began on September 6 of 2011.

Since that time we have seen students not receive report cards. We have seen — again, as we canvassed extensively this morning — vulnerable students, students at risk of failure, students on the bubble, who have suffered as a consequence of the absence of report cards and the absence of collaborative meetings between teachers, principals, vice-principals, superintendents, parents and so on. That is the core of this.

Again, to say that somehow launching an IIC that looked at structural issues related to bargaining at this point in time and leave the phase 1 job action underway…. It seems that we just have a fundamental disagreement with that. That would not be acceptable to me.

Further, given that the parties were invited, I gather, to utilize the approach set out by Vince Ready from his 2006 report, my understanding is that BCPSEA were ready to proceed on that basis but that was denied by the B.C. Teachers Federation. I'm not seeing this as a workable alternative to, I think, the very thoughtful, balanced and, I hope, useful structure engaged in this bill.

B. Ralston: Well, if my impression of the minister's comments is wrong, then I want to revise what I said. My impression was, without reading Hansard verbatim…. Sometimes it's necessary to parse the minister's comments that carefully because they are unusually precise. I don't mean that in a critical way. I mean that in a complimentary way.

My impression was — certainly, at the very least — that his concern deepened when phase 1 job action commenced. That's what I attempted to draw a reference to in my comments earlier.

But this avenue may be used, in practice, for structural issues. The legislation doesn't make any reference to inquiries into structural issues. It is fairly open-ended and has some real possibilities, I think.

The minister has said that the mediator appointed

[ Page 10104 ]

under

section 6 would have — again, I don't want to misinterpret — the power to bring any other issues that were of concern to the mediator, if I understood it.

Is the minister referring, by that comment, to subsection 6(4)(b), where the mediator must "make recommendations, consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2), on any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties"? Because that is a limitation on the scope of what the mediator is entitled to report on. It has to be consistent with the terms of reference.

I'm sure the minister wouldn't want to leave the impression that the mediator had a completely open-ended mandate on issues that weren't specifically enumerated. Could the minister clarify that section? Is that the one he's referring to? Have I correctly interpreted what he said a few moments ago?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Just to be clear — and the debate that occurs at committee stage is important in this respect — the sections and subsections say that the mediator will be required to make recommendations in the area of

section 6(2), (

a) through (e). But the mediator will be open to making recommendations on all issues which they believe may be germane to the settlement of this dispute.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that answer, but if the minister could refer me to the specific

section that he's drawing on to offer that

interpretation…. Is he referring to the wording of

section 6(4)(b)? It does say: "make recommendations, consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2)…." So there's a limitation on that, and it is not open-ended — at least as I read the section.

The minister has some legal advice there that may be able to shed some light upon the

interpretation that he's urging on the Legislature. Whether a court would accept that, I don't know.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, with respect to sub (4)(b), those are the elements that are required — that must be done by the mediator. It is our view that the mediator can…. Because of the absence of restrictions and that in the bill, there's nothing to limit the mediator's opportunity to bring recommendations in any other area.

B. Ralston: Just so I understand that, then…. There are the enumerated terms of reference in subsection 6(2), there's the direction on the contents of the report in sub (4)(b), but the minister is saying that that

section is permissive and the mediator can make recommendations on any other matter that might be in dispute? Is that what I'm hearing from the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, and I'd direct the member to the phrase "on any outstanding issues." That, we believe, achieves that.

[1455]

Is the minister saying that all those things that are in

section 27 of the School Act can be included in the mediation?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate that the issues get complicated here because they begin to refer to sections that are further in the bill. But as we understand the member's question, it is whether class size and composition will be elements that are negotiable in the current mandate.

The answer is that class limits will not be negotiable until the round of collective bargaining beginning June 2013. However, manner and consequence of class size and composition — that is, the process and impact around class size and composition — is negotiable, and therefore it would be within the purview of discussion for the mediator.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Just to finish this piece, when you're talking about manner and consequences, you're referring further to section (2)(e), which will later say that "the collective agreement may contain provisions referred to in

section 28 (1) (

a) and (

b) of the School Act." That's the manner and consequences.

[1500]

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

[ Page 10105 ]

B. Ralston: Again, I want to look at and seek a further point of clarification on 6(4)(b). Ordinarily in the principles of statutory

interpretation this

section would be interpreted in light of the ones that precede it in the same section. So I'm interested in the definition of "any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties."

Presumably the mediator is directed to look at the elements in subsection (2)(

a) through (e). Can the minister offer a definition, then, because this is a rather precise phrasing, of "any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties"?

One

interpretation would be that the mediator begins to assist the parties in dealing with the elements contained in section (2)(

a) though (e), and if there are any left over, those would be the ones that would remain in dispute between the parties. The minister has offered a broader definition of any outstanding issues. I'm just interested in the range and the degree to which it can be attached to any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties.

It's clear from the minister's comments — at least to me, and he can correct me if I'm wrong — that the parties are not limited to section (2)(

a) through (

e) elements. Since it's any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties, presumably one side could raise an issue, and if the other side disagrees, it's an outstanding issue. It's still in dispute. I'm wondering what the outer limits of that possible

section are in the wording that's being offered in subsection (4)(b).

Hon. G. Abbott: Hopefully, this will provide some clarity to the member's important question. Over the course of a year the parties in this dispute have tabled bargaining positions. The mediator is seized of a number of those issues, specifically (

a) through (e).

Outside of those issues that are noted in (

a) to (

e) there are, I guess, approximately 1,100 issues that have been tabled but are unresolved at this point. The mediator may find it appropriate to investigate and/or make recommendations on some portion of those 1,100 or, indeed, all of the 1,100, if that's what he or she wished to do.

The Chair: The Member for Delta North seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: In the gallery today are 22 of the finest grades 5 and 6 class students of North Delta. Ms. Lily Lee is here with parents from Hellings Elementary, which is actually three blocks down the street from where I live. It's the same school that my children attended.

[1505]

They are a great and wonderful school. We had a lot of fun and went down to the dungeon today and showed them what the real Legislature looks like down below. Would the House please make them welcome, and may they enjoy a wind-free ride across on the ferry back home tonight.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Member for Surrey-Whalley continues on

section 6.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned 1,100 issues that have been tabled and are unresolved. Is the minister saying that it would be up to the mediator, then — or you're expecting the mediator, then — to sort through those 1,100 and decide which ones are, in the words of section (4)(b), "consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2)," and then that would be the limitation? I can't imagine — maybe it's theoretically possible — that all 1,100 issues fall squarely within the terms of reference set out in

section 6(2).

Is that what the mediator is being asked to do or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: Plumbing the subtleties of the legislation is always fascinating. I'm delighted to be doing that.

If the mediator were to take one or several or all of those 1,100 that were outside of the terms of reference listed in (2)(

a) to (e), it is our view that the recommendation would not be inconsistent with the intent of this legislation.

B. Ralston: Under the legislation, this is all to be accomplished, then, by June 30. That seems to be a big job, but I hope there is someone that the minister has in mind — I'm sure he has someone — who'll be capable of carrying that out.

Just for the purposes of illustration, I want to ask the minister, for example…. Looking at, in reference to the response he gave to my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake….

Section 6(2)(

c) refers to: "the new collective agreement is to enable high-quality teaching and learning through." And there are a number of subheadings. Let's take the first one, "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement" — whatever "improvement" might be.

The minister has said that

section 13, the proposed revisions to the School Act, would not be included in the terms of reference and would be off-limits for consideration by the mediator. It seems to me that the issue of feedback and evaluation might very well overlap some of the powers and prohibitions that are referred to in

section 27.

Can the minister explain how he expects that will be achieved? What is the legislative purpose of

section 6(2)(c)(i), for example? How can that be reconciled with his previous answers?

[ Page 10106 ]

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: It is the collective opinion of the officials assembled that it is not clear there is an overlap or an inconsistency between the matters the member references. We'd invite him to provide a more specific example for our attention, if he has one.

B. Ralston: Well, I'll endeavour to provide an example. Again, I apologize for jumping ahead, because I'm sure we don't want to foreclose discussion on

section 13 when we actually do get to it.

For example, in the proposed subsection 27(3): "There must not be included in a teachers' collective agreement any provision (

a) regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act, the courses of study, the program of studies or the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher."

That appears — at least to my eye, and I don't think I would be alone in this suggestion — to merge with or overlap with the evaluation of teachers. Presumably there's a correlation between selection and appointment and evaluation, and the professional methods or techniques employed by a teacher might also involve the effective feedback and evaluation of teachers.

So professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher and effective feedback and evaluation of the teacher to promote improvement — it seems to me that those two, at least in part, might very well overlap. I'm wondering how the mediator is going to be asked to stay away from the prohibited areas yet carry out her mandate set out in subsection 6(2)(c)(i).

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a couple of points which I should make. Again, this all goes to the complexity of these matters, I appreciate. It is important to note the example raised by the member for Surrey-Whalley, and it's an important question.

In terms of the new subsection 27(3), articles (a), (

b) and (c), these are all provisions which predate Bill 28. They have been in effect in the School Act since, we believe, 1988. They were not impacted by the decision by Justice Griffin. They have been put back in only for clarity, but they've never been challenged.

B. Ralston: Just so that I follow the minister's thoughts there, neither (

a) nor (

b) nor (

c) are entitled to be included in the collective agreement, yet the mediation, this

section 6 that we're dealing with, says that the new collective agreement is "to enable high-quality teaching and learning through (

i) effective feedback and evaluation."

I suppose the conundrum I'm pointing to…. I confess I don't quite understand that. I'm sure the minister will enlighten me. It appears to be a flat contradiction. On the one hand, you can't include this in a teachers' collective agreement, and on the other hand, the new collective agreement — and this is part of the terms of reference of the mediator — is to include elements which, in my mind, overlap.

Is the legislation contradictory, inconsistent? I don't understand how that is reconciled. I don't think the fact that it wasn't part of the legislation struck down by the court really assists the minister, at least as I see it. I'm wondering if he could answer that.

I might further say while I'm up that subsection 6(2)(c)(iii) also refers to "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs," yet subsection (3)(

a) refers to, again, a prohibited topic: "regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act...."

Scheduling a selection of teachers suited to student needs is required and a topic of concern directed to the mediator, yet subsection 27(3) says a collective agreement can't contain any provision regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this act. That again appears to me to be contradictory.

I'm wondering if the minister could elucidate.

[1520]

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope my answer can provide some clarity to the member opposite, who I know is a friend of the court, a lawyer. I am not, but nevertheless, I'll do my best here to express this in a way that….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yeah, I know. It's so often a compliment, isn't it?

Further to my previous answer — about these sections pre-existing Bill 28 and probably going back as far as 1988 — around the new 27(3)(a), (

b) and (

c) there has, I'm advised, been a variety of arbitrations, a variety of jurisprudence, which has established the limits to the validity of these things. There's long experience with them. The advice I'm receiving is that there is no contradiction, that it would not inhibit the opportunity for a mediator to undertake those issues which are noted in

section 6 of Bill 22.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for his answer, but can he explain to me, then, how in subsection 6(2)(c)(i) "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers" differs from the sections that I've pointed out previously, "the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher" or, further, the previous phrase, "regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act"?

To my ear and to my eye, they at least potentially overlap. The "selection and appointment" would appear to involve some measure of "feedback and evaluation," so I'm curious as to how the decision might be made without that — since, presumably, one isn't always hiring teachers de novo , or with no previous experience. But typically,

[ Page 10107 ]

and often, teachers are being hired to teach in one board, having gained experience in another.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain how that phrase in

section 6 that we're dealing with doesn't offend the prohibition that's set out fairly clearly in the new proposed sub (3)(a)?

[1525]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that existing collective agreements contain valid provisions with respect to post and fill, teacher evaluation. The range of those provisions varies across 60 school districts. We want the mediator to look at those provisions and to bring recommendations to us with respect to which might be the most effective.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister has given in his answer some, I would describe, specialist terms or jargon, maybe, that I don't expect everyone is familiar with. Can he first define "post and fill" so that I understand it?

Secondly, in a teachers' collective agreement…. The proposed 27(3)(

a) will prohibit that. Is that, then, provisions that are not in the collective agreement but are part of the policy and procedures of the individual board of education? Of the ministry? Or is that how this division is drawn, at least in the way that the scheme is described here? I'm not clear from the minister's answer how that works.

[1530]

Hon. G. Abbott: Post and fill. For the edification of the member, post and fill would be the processes by which education jobs are posted for the consideration of those who might have an interest in them and the processes by which they are filled. I am advised further — and I'm certain this is a fascinating area of the law — that arbitrators have made a distinction between post and fill and selection and appointment.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps the minister could then further clarify that. Post and fill is a procedure to hire someone, that is, to select them — I would assume the selection and appointment of teachers. Is the minister, then, just saying that the arbitration cases draw the distinction between selection and appointment? Presumably, one selects the winning candidate and then appoints them.

I don't understand how that process can be prohibited under the collective agreement by proposed

section 27(3), yet the mediator is charged with making recommendations to include in a new collective agreement feedback and evaluation of teachers and scheduling and selection of teachers. It appears to me to be completely inconsistent.

Is the minister saying that there is a predetermined…? Maybe he's not, but it seems to me one

interpretation might be — and I'd ask this for his comment — that there is a certain contractual language that may be in collective agreements now that

section 27(3)(

a) would prohibit.

It's proposed to replace that with wording developed by the mediator for a new collective agreement — in other words, for language in collective agreements that is not favoured by the minister or the bargaining agent for the employer, substituting language that's going to be recommended by the mediator and, through this legislative mechanism, imposing it in a collective agreement.

Is that the process we're engaged in here?

[1535]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm grateful for learning more about these matters than I ever dreamed might be possible.

To answer the member's first question: no, this is not an attempt to replace language. That is not prohibited by the act. That's not the intention.

Further, I'm advised that there's an additional section, which we'd like the member to refer to, which may be helpful in assisting us in understanding the answer to the member's very good questions in this area, and that is that subsection (3) — 27(3)(a), (b), (c) — should be read in the context of sub (4), which reads: "Subsection (3) does not prevent a teachers' collective agreement from containing a provision respecting hiring preferences for teachers who have previously been employed by the board."

I'm advised this is attempting to give expression to the convergence of arbitrations, jurisprudence, etc., around this complex issue.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for his response. Just to respond briefly to the reference to subsection (4), by "the board," I presume that's internal to one board of education. I'm wondering, then, how that impacts hiring preferences for teachers who choose to apply, as they often do, holding a position in one board and then applying for a position in another board. I presume that that then becomes a prohibited practice under subsection (3).

That's the first question. Perhaps I should just sit down and let the minister answer that, and then I'll continue with a further question.

[1540]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member was getting very close to the accurate expression of the challenge here in his latter statements, that what we have are 60 different versions of post-and-fill language across the 60 agreements. As an example, there might be different language in North Okanagan–Shuswap versus Vernon or between Surrey and New West or between New West and Vancouver, and that limits the opportunities of teachers to move between districts.

One of the concerns that we're attempting to address here is that issue. What we would like, ideally, is consistency of both principle and language with respect to that, but if not language, at least, then, consistency of

[ Page 10108 ]

principle in this area. We believe that the albeit complex language here provides that.

B. Ralston: Two questions, then, arising. Can the minister then explain how that objective is to be reconciled with

section 6(d), which talks about locally negotiated matters that "(

i) do not affect any other school district, and (ii) would, in the opinion of the mediator, be more effectively negotiated as local matters"?

Given that the minister has made reference to local provisions, has a predetermination been made by this choice of language and the minister's comments that that kind of language should be not negotiated locally and not left to local choice but should be included in the provincial agreement — if I understand what the minister is saying? That's a question that I think arises out of the minister's comments and begs an explanation.

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of sub (

d) is to provide a balanced mandate to the mediator. We know that the B.C. Teachers Federation believes that all matters other than financial matters should be negotiated locally. That is their view. This provision is put in the mediator's mandate so that he or she can give thoughtful guidance and recommendations with respect to what the appropriate division is between provincial and local matters.

B. Ralston: Just to summarize, then, is the minister saying that he expects, since we've chosen this example, that the mediator will make recommendations on selection of teachers in the manner that it might be done — whether it be local or provincial? Is he expecting the mediator to do that?

Secondly, I do have just a question of clarification on subsection (4), since the application of that to

section 6 is what we are talking about. The provision refers to a provision respecting "hiring preferences for teachers who have previously been employed by the board."

Is that referring to teachers who were employed, have severed their employment relationship, seek to come back and seek employment with the same board? Or does it refer to teachers who are in one position and are seeking…? Say, if you're at Queen Elizabeth Secondary School in Surrey and you're seeking to move to Fleetwood Secondary as a teacher, there wouldn't be a prohibition containing a provision governing hiring preferences in a teachers collective agreement.

Those are two specific questions. I know I've put them together, but I'd appreciate the minister's comments on both.

Hon. G. Abbott: To the question of what under sub (4) was a previous employee. It apparently refers to those currently in the employ of a board, so it's the current employee.

Secondly, the expectation is that we will receive from the mediator guidance in the form of recommendations on (

a) through (e), but again, the mediator would not be precluded from exploring other areas and bringing recommendations to the minister.

[1550]

B. Ralston: Well, if I just may be permitted to comment parenthetically, subsection (4) in the proposed

section 27 seems to me to be…. It doesn't capture what the minister said. Teachers "who have previously been employed by the board" would imply that they are no longer employed, but if it means actually employed, then it should say so. Maybe the minister might want to flag that for an amendment, if that's what's meant.

Just to return to a question that I asked earlier about the prohibited areas and the areas set out in

section 6(1)(3). Sub (3)(

a) refers to, as a prohibited area, "the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher." That can't be in a collective agreement. Yet

section 6(2)(c)(ii) refers to the "alignment of professional development with teaching needs."

Maybe there's some Delphic or ambiguous distinction that's drawn here, but frankly, I don't see how one separates "the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher" with the "alignment of professional development with teaching needs." Surely, they both speak to teachers' skill and development of skill and technique as it applies to the profession of teaching.

So again, I don't see how this legislation reconciles prohibition of that, on one side, yet the requirement of a new collective agreement to contain what I would see as the very same thing.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll attempt to again provide some clarity around the new 27(3)(a), (

b) and (c) — again, to try to explain why, from the perspective of, I'm certain, a battery of labour lawyers, this is structured the way it is.

[1555]

The clause has been in the law since, we believe, at least 1988. There have been many arbitrations, I'm advised, as well as jurisprudence around these points, hence the way they are structured in this bill.

Now, that all having been said, to the member's latter important question: professional autonomy is recognized in the provincial agreement. It provides teachers with professional autonomy, and there is no intention of taking that away from them.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise in committee stage on Bill 22 and speak to the issues arising out of

section 6. I have a few questions for the minister, and I would appreciate the opportunity to do that.

With respect to

section 6(2)(b), it makes reference that "subject to subsection (5), the new collective agreement must not create new costs that would result in a net in-

[ Page 10109 ]

crease in the total annual cost of the collective agreement." I am just wondering how that

section makes sense when you look at the plain wording of it — "must not create new costs that would result in a net increase." In other words, if it's not a new cost that results in a net increase in the total annual cost, then somehow that falls within the section?

I just don't understand what this

section actually drives at. It says it "must not create new costs that would result in a net increase in the total annual cost." Does that mean, in fact, that you can create new costs, but that can't increase the net annual increase and total cost?

Hon. G. Abbott: Sub (2)(

b) is an expression of net zero and basically says that one can have an increase in one area, but there would have to be offsetting savings in other areas. So an example of that would have been, I think, the most recent HEU contract, wherein there were changes made to the benefit package that were able to be passed along to the licensed practical nurses that the HEU represent, in the form of a wage increase for them.

L. Krog: When we're talking about the annual cost of the collective agreement, can the minister perhaps explain to the House how that total annual cost is determined?

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that they are determined by looking at the annualized cost of each provision of a collective agreement and then aggregating those costs to provide the figure you requested.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering. Perhaps the minister can tell the House what the actual annual cost is of the collective agreement.

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe we could provide that cost to the member in fairly short order, but rather than hold up the proceedings, if we could move on to another question. Then I'll provide it to him when it's available.

L. Krog: I would have thought the minister, being the sharp fellow he is with his incredible mind and abilities in this chamber, might have had that number at his fingertips. I'm almost surprised. I wouldn't wish to give the Minister of Education, after all, a fail in this chamber. That would be far beyond my abilities, to be so judgmental.

Having said that, I just want to understand…. We're talking about the total annual cost of the collective agreement. The minister seemed to indicate that that was arrived at — and we're talking about methodology now — by looking at the various costs. Clearly, we have a number of employers who are involved as members of the BCPSEA, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association.

I'm just wondering. When we're talking about the annual cost, is it possible, in fact, for one district to see a decrease in costs that would free up money that might enable another district, a member of the employers association, to in fact receive some benefit? For instance, if you take away from school district 68, Nanaimo, is it possible to give a benefit, for instance, to school district 69 in Qualicum Beach?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that it is possible, and it is possible because the funding formula that drives the funding of those 60 school districts is very sensitive to shifts in student population. If, for example, Nanaimo school district's population grew and others declined, there would be a shift that would see some change there.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand that then, if Nanaimo, for instance, has 1,000 students designated to receive special services because of whatever educational issues they may have and that number decreases and frees up 100 designated students, so to speak, in terms of the money coming from the ministry, then if Surrey, for instance, sees an increase of 100, Nanaimo loses the 100, so to speak, and Surrey gets the benefit of it.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not quite sure where the member is going with this, but just to introduce some new issues into his world.

[1605]

By designated students, I'm presuming that the member is referencing level 1, 2 or 3 special needs designations and the funding that would be derived as a consequence of those designations, which would then be passed along to the school districts.

The formula in that area is sensitive to the numbers, and this will shift marginally year over year — the number of designated students at level 1, level 2, level 3. The funding that will go to those districts will reflect the numbers that are provided to the Ministry of Education, so that'll go up and down from year to year.

Generally, the quantum is around $866 million for that purpose. So appreciate, depending on the number that is in the aggregate across the 60 districts identified, that that number may go up a little bit or may go down a little bit. It doesn't have anything to do with a shift, in that case, between districts. That may be just an unfortunate example that the member used, because that's not an area where you would see a shift.

Where the overall number of students went up or down, then there might be, because there may be less teachers employed. I suppose arguably there could be a shift there, but not on the special needs end.

[ Page 10110 ]

L. Krog: So I can understand this — and we'll use the example of designated students again — if the ministry's budget this year for designated students is $866 million and that is spread across the province, if we have 1,100 designated students this year as opposed to 1,200 last year, will that budget decrease? Will they be lifted up, or if in fact there are more students, will we see a decrease in the per-capita funding? How does that work?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member has a genuine fascination with this area of public policy, it might be good for us to spend some time together going through it, because there have been recent changes in terms of how funding is developed and distributed.

It's fair to say that a level 1 student with a disability…. Generally, that attracts $36,000 in funding, $18,000, level 2; and I think $9,000, level 3. Generally, within the block there's an aggregate from those numbers, so it'll vary every year a little bit across school districts. There is some consistency in what is normally expected in level 1, 2 and 3 funding, but it will vary slightly from year to year.

We don't think there's a linkage between where the member is going on net zero and that piece. I guess that's all we are saying. Maybe there's an example that the member could use that might illustrate the point better.

L. Krog: Generally speaking, the designated students would attract funding for educational assistance. They might attract the assistance of a special needs teacher. They might attract the necessity of equipment, technology, some devices that might assist the student in their educational performance. It might be textbooks. It might be a range of things.

Some districts may be further ahead of the game in having skilled people available. Others will not. Some school districts may have appropriate programs in place that are different. I'm just trying to understand how this — on the face of it, what the minister I think believes is a fairly simple formula — is in fact going to work in practice.

It says that "the new collective agreement must not create new costs that would result in a net increase in the total annual cost of the collective agreement."

[1610]

So the total annual cost of the collective agreement, which is a number the minister is presently endeavouring to obtain, with the assistance of his able staff, comprises a multitude of expenses — some of the things I've just enumerated and all the other things that go into budget of the Ministry of Education.

I'm just wondering how the minister realistically expects that this new collective agreement — working within the straitjacket, with great respect, of

section 6 — can possibly take into account the myriad of costs that go into arriving at the total annual cost and how the minister can expect the parties to mediate, with the assistance of a mediator, any kind of collective agreement that might make sense.

My guess is that if you engage in this process the way it's structured, if I understand it correctly, the students are going to be the losers at the end of this. Because the mediator, if he or she can achieve an agreement, has to do it within a total amount across a range of school districts, separate out "local issues," which are presumably all non-cost — although that's, I think, always questionable when it comes to education — and keep it within a cost structure that is supposed to actually benefit students. After all, this is the Education Improvement Act, so I presume there's supposed to be some improvement for education.

If we're sticking to the net zero in costs…. I'm not talking now about — although I'm sure the minister would like to go there — the possibility of giving teachers an increase in wages. I'm just talking about the cost of delivering educational services to students in districts across this province. How does the minister see the mediator being able to work within this structure and be fair?

My fear is that there will be some money left on the table, so to speak. We already know that the government has said: "This is it. This is what you're getting for money. We don't care what the costs will be, as long as they're within this number. We don't care what the needs of the students will be. This is what you have to agree to."

My concern is that in keeping within that structure, given the complexity and range of employers, the students ultimately will be the ones who will suffer at the end of this process. In order for the mediator to successfully conclude their work — whether that results in a negotiated settlement or, alternatively, the recommendations as set out in

section 6(4)(b), whatever happens — in fact, the students will suffer. Because in order to stay within that framework, they're going to have to be extremely careful.

Surely, I wouldn't expect that the minister wants to stand up in this House and tell the House that he wants to see students suffer any reduction in the moneys that are made available to educate them.

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we're dipping the toe in the complex area of funding formulas and the like, so this will sound like a simplistic expression, but it is consistent with what is a pretty complex funding model, reflecting the fact that we have 60 school districts, some as small as Stikine, which I think at the latest count was 204 students, 16 teachers and four schools scattered across the area of half of France. So it's one end of the continuum.

At the other end of the continuum is a very large urban district like Surrey, now with about 70,000 students. So there's a great range, and there are considerable complexities in the formula as a consequence of trying to deal fairly with the range of issues that one encounters in education funding.

[ Page 10111 ]

However, to say to the member's question…. The funding is based on the students, not on the costs that are generated. We look at each student, the level of the disability that they encounter, and try to provide appropriate support to the district.

On the issue, though, of what the mediator can do…. I'm really grateful for the member asking this question. It is really central to what we're attempting to do here. The member referenced Canadian Union of Public Employees, who represent the great majority of education assistants or special education assistants in the province.

We now have 69 agreements with CUPE BC — either agreements in principle or ratified agreements, but 69 of them — virtually the entire province. I believe Fort Nelson has BCGEU-represented education assistants, but apart from that, CUPE has signed on to 69 agreements premised on net zero.

How were they able to do that? They were able to do that because their leadership and the educational assistants and the support workers who they represent were prepared to explore opportunities which the learning improvement fund of $165 million held out to them. For example, there is the opportunity for an increase in contact hours between education assistants and the students that they serve, generally students with a special need in the classroom.

I know that they are also enormously excited by the opportunities to look at how the skill set of the educational assistant can be improved. Can we generate training, skills-training modules, perhaps, with colleges, university colleges or universities that would see their skill set enhanced around, for example, understanding and managing autism spectrum disorder?

That would be an example of how we could work with CUPE to do that. They've been very excited by these possibilities, and I am very much looking forward to re-engagement — very soon, I hope — with CUPE around building that model. Of course, this bill is based around the B.C. Teachers Federation, not around CUPE BC and education assistants.

[1620]

In the case of the BCTF, despite it being raised, I gather, at the bargaining table a number of times over the one year that the parties spent together in the 78 face-to-face sessions that the BCTF, BCPSEA and government representatives had at the bargaining table, at no point was there a discussion about how the 60 different benefit packages of the B.C. Teachers Federation might be consolidated and the benefits of that passed on in whatever way the BCTF thought was appropriate.

They didn't believe that they wanted to have that discussion, so any initiatives on the part of BCPSEA in that area were rebuffed. But I still think there's value there that could potentially be recovered for the benefit of the B.C. Teachers Federation membership. I think that's a possibility.

Again, could a mediator open that door or build some discussion in that area? Perhaps. I'd like to think that they could. There's no guarantee that the mediator could. Again, any progress here is going to be a function of the disposition of the parties to try to secure agreement or secure gains in different areas.

I appreciate how emotionally charged the debate around the Bills 27 and 28 decision by Justice Griffin has been, and I appreciate, as a consequence of that, how emotional the discussion around the learning improvement fund has been. But we were able on Bill 29 to reach agreement with both the HEU and the BCNU on a remedial package related to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29.

Here there has been no exploration. There has been no engagement around how BCTF members might benefit from the learning improvement fund. It has been rejected as wholly inadequate. I guess the parties are always free to suggest that any quantum is wholly inadequate, and therefore no substantive discussion around how it might improve the system or improve the working life of a teacher might be engaged.

Fair enough. But just as CUPE has found that there is some great opportunity for their membership within the learning improvement fund, I think there is also great opportunity for the B.C. Teachers Federation and their membership in the learning improvement fund. Again, that's a subject I hope we see engagement on. If the mediator can get the parties to a fruitful discussion of that, I think that would be a huge step ahead.

That's where I think we can go with respect to net zero. I know I've heard a variety of expressions from the opposition about net zero and whether there should be a net zero. I haven't actually heard from the opposition that there shouldn't be a net zero. One only hears indirectly expressions that indicate that the opposition doesn't believe there should be a net zero, and no one ever wants to tell me, apparently, what the view of the opposition really is on that. I know that this member is very thoughtful, forceful and direct in his thoughts on this matter, so I'm certain that I'll get some clarity on the point now.

But only to say that our government does believe that net zero is necessary at this point in time. We believe that with the province in deficit, with the federal government even more deeply in deficit, with economic challenges in North America, Europe and the world still very much in evidence, we don't believe it is appropriate public policy to have wage increases, which may prove in the very near term to be unsustainable.

If the members opposite have a different view, I'd love to hear that, and perhaps to the extent that the Chair would permit it, we could, I'm certain, have a very thoughtful, meaningful debate on that point. But we have made that decision on net zero. I believe there are very good things, again, within LIF; within, potentially, benefit packages; and within, perhaps, other areas that haven't

[ Page 10112 ]

been explored, where a mediator can do very good things for the participants, even under net zero.

[1625]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's soliloquy. I notice, given that it's B.C. Francophonie Day, he even managed to slip in France in comparison to Stikine in his remarks. I thought that was a very touching reference, and the member for Chilliwack, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, who was waxing eloquently about that earlier today, I'm sure will be thrilled to read that tiny snippet in Hansard .

I am delighted to hear the minister wish to engage in the debate around management of B.C.'s economy, because, after all, this government has been in power for 11 years. I don't know how many deficits we've had and how we got into this mess, but I would suggest it might be this government's responsibility and not someone else's. But that is, in fairness, a debate for the other day, and I know the Chair would be quite correctly shutting me down if I continued along that vein, and I see no useful purpose in continuing there.

Perhaps I can ask a simple question. Given that the minister can't tell me today what the total annual cost of the collective agreement is, although that information will be forthcoming, I'm sure, can he tell me how the total annual cost of the last collective agreement was arrived at?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question — and I don't know what…. Perhaps he has an informant over on this side of the House. But fortuitously, that number has just arrived on my desk. It is $2.9 billion per year. That may excite further questions from the member, now that he has that important figure in hand.

L. Krog: If the minister could answer the question I just asked, which was: how's that number arrived at? What comprises that number? You've talked about $2.9 billion, so what constitutes the makeup of that number?

Hon. G. Abbott: It encompasses all the wages and benefits of all of those employed in the system. It, again, is determined by the annualized costs of each of the provisions within the collective agreement and then aggregating those costs and arriving at that figure, $2.9 billion.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. The minister has talked about the varying ranges of benefits within the school district. So in fact there are differences in the benefit package, the cost of it, in potentially Nanaimo and Stikine and all of those places. I'm clear on that, so I understand.

That being the case, then in order for any of the good things to happen, as the minister sees it, it would require one school district to essentially say to its dedicated teachers — who may be hard to retain, given that it's an isolated area, given that the climate isn't as salubrious as beautiful Victoria…. That would require them to say to their teachers: "Well, we're going to cut your benefit package so that the teachers in Surrey, for instance, can see a benefit." Is that what I understand the effect of this would be?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. The member is incorrect in that supposition. That would only occur if it was the wish, for example, of the Teachers Federation to consolidate the 60 collective benefit packages and do it in a different way that attracted greater efficiency or return.

K. Corrigan: I had to go to a meeting for a while. I had asked a question, and I heard a quick answer. I'd like to pursue a question that I was asking earlier, before I left. From where I left off, I had asked a question about whether or not under

section 6 the mediator was precluded from discussing the matters that are going to be in the new

section 27 of the School Act.

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott: We just spent approximately the last hour or more on that question precisely.

K. Corrigan: I apologize for that. I did have to go to another meeting.

What I will ask, then, is: did the minister talk about the manner and consequences

section in relation to that as well, which is the

section 6(2)(e) — the fact that certain provisions referred to in 28(1)(

a) and (

b) can be discussed? Did the minister go over that as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: To summarize, in (

d) to (j), which is around class size and composition, class size and composition is not negotiable in the current round. It will return to collective bargaining effective July 1, 2013. In the interim and for the purposes of this negotiation, manner and consequence of class size and composition is negotiable.

K. Corrigan: I'm just wondering on that. This will be, probably, my last question on this, but I do have some other questions.

Does the minister agree, in terms of that mandate, that it is restricted because of the decision of Madam Justice Griffin, and does he agree with the statement in her decision that says: "I conclude that the preserved ability to bargain over 'manner and consequences' was, for practical purposes, insignificant with respect to 'manner' and

[ Page 10113 ]

limited with respect to 'consequences,' given the broad scope of

section 27(3)(d), (f), (

g) and (i)"? Is that the way this provision in this bill should be interpreted — as either insignificant or limited?

Hon. G. Abbott: The bill does not respond necessarily to any given paragraph or

section of Justice Griffin's decision. We have read Justice Griffin's decision as a whole and have attempted to honour it in all of the structure of this bill.

In terms of the issue around class size and composition, again, the act restores the right to bargain class size and composition effective July 2013, and in the interim, the act recognizes that manner and consequence remain negotiable elements in the current collective agreement.

[1635]

K. Corrigan: I guess we can't prejudge how the mediator is going to interpret, but I would assume that the minister was foreseeing that the mediator would interpret his or her job or the way they're going to apply it within the terms of the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence in this case says that the ability to bargain under that

section is essentially insignificant and limited. I guess I'll just make that comment.

I wanted to ask — I was not here, but I did try to listen to it in my office between meetings — a little bit on

section 6(2)(

c) about the terms of reference for the mediator, which include those three subsections: "(

i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement, (ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

I don't think I heard this question, and I apologize if it has already been asked. Is the minister expecting that these areas will be covered — that in the new collective agreement those three areas should be covered?

Hon. G. Abbott: What this

section would do, 6(c), is it would require the mediator to report out on the issues contained therein and to make recommendations on the matters.

K. Corrigan: The mediator is going to report out. But is it expected that the mandate of the mediator would demand that there is discussion in canvassing of those issues — that the mediator would be expected to address those issues in the mediation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, it is the expectation that the mediator would solicit the opinions of both the employers and the union leadership in respect of these matters and report out on them and bring recommendations.

K. Corrigan: Is the ministry going to have any kind of input or guidance provided into the process about what the ministry means by these very general terms, "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement," and so on? They're very wide terms, but they could mean a lot in the collective bargaining context.

I'm wondering if the ministry is going to have any input, or whether the minister could provide guidance as to what the minister means by these three terms.

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: The aim of the bill is not to dictate how the mediator may wish to do his or her job. Our expectation, obviously, would be that there would be soliciting of the opinions of the employer and the employed. Beyond that, the mediator may wish to reach out to others to get a fulsome understanding of what might be appropriate in this area. That would be up to him or her to do that.

It is important to note, as well, that a government representative has attended the bargaining table. We believe that there is a general understanding among government, BCPSEA and the B.C. Teachers Federation about what all of the terms contained in this

section mean.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could share briefly what is the minister's understanding of each of those three terms. What is the minister's understanding of those three terms?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to briefly, for the member, run through sub 6(2)(c). First, "(

i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." Here we are looking for or hoping for a greater consistency across the language in 60 school districts in respect of evaluation and feedback.

There is some considerable variation across districts, and we believe that it is in the interests of the education system to have consistent language that promotes improvement among all who are participants in the system. I'd say, further, that there are some districts that already have that effective language, and again, rather than having the current patchwork quilt, we would like to see consistency across districts that reflects that comparable effective language.

On point (ii), "alignment of professional development with teaching needs," the aim is to ensure that the content of professional development days effectively addresses the needs of teachers.

[1645]

That is, if that evaluation, for example, pointed to a larger challenge around certain types of special needs, we might want to work with all educational partners to have the opportunity for professional days that tried to address those kinds of issues.

On the third point. We had a considerable discussion in the last hour and a half on that. This is about the processes of posting and filling positions. The aim here is

[ Page 10114 ]

to…. There are districts with existing appropriate language, but the object of (iii) would be to have an appropriate balance between seniority, which is important, but counterbalanced by the need for the post to be filled by a candidate who had the requisite skills, training and education to effectively fill that.

The example I like to use…. Because my deficiency in the area of math has already been referenced by members across the way, it would be a tragedy, a travesty, were I, simply on the basis of seniority, to be able to bid into a math instruction position, when my training is all in the area of political science and history. I might be a great history and political science teacher, but one can be pretty darned sure that I wouldn't be a good math teacher. Again, this is just a matter of finding appropriate balance within the system for that.

K. Corrigan: Well, one of the questions I was asking earlier was about how the ministry feeds into this, and the minister said that there is representation at the table, I believe, or that ministry staff sit in. Would ministry staff be making recommendations — having input into the negotiations — on these and other provisions as that information was being gathered? In other words, would the ministry be making suggestions as to what the ministry thinks would be reasonable in terms of "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs"?

Hon. G. Abbott: The B.C. Public School Employers Association will be the body which will consult with the mediator in respect of the issues of government and the school district employers.

K. Corrigan: But would the ministry have input, then, to BCPSEA in this process and make recommendations and say: "This is what, from the ministry perspective, we think would be preferable"?

[1650]

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, as part of BCPSEA, as was canvassed in the early stages of this debate.

K. Corrigan: With respect to (c)(ii), "alignment of professional development with teaching needs" — and I apologize if this has been canvassed earlier — is the minister talking about who would control professional development? Is this something that would be within the mandate — whether or not teachers have control of professional development or boards have control of it or the ministry has control of professional development?

Hon. G. Abbott: There may be a range of views around that point. It will be up to the mediator to weigh those respective views and to bring a recommendation to government.

K. Corrigan: In that subsection, the word "alignment" is used. Alignment, to me, indicates that there's some management, that there's organization of it and that there's some centralization of professional development. Somebody has to do the aligning, and, of course, it's government that has brought this bill to the House. What was government foreseeing when talking about "alignment of professional development with teaching needs"?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are looking for professional development that aligns with the needs of the teaching profession. Again, as I said in an earlier answer, that might be better understanding of the characteristics of certain types of special needs or certain types of physical impairment. These are the kinds of things that might come into play.

K. Corrigan: Well, would the minister, then…? Let's ask it in a slightly different way. The minister is looking for alignment of professional development with teaching needs. Is the minister of the opinion that professional development at present is not aligned with teaching needs?

I'm wondering what possible lack or what ill there is in professional development, as it now stands, in the province. Does there need to be a change that this bill is addressing?

[1655]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think if there is a challenge here, and we think there is, it is that there's considerable variation across the 60 school districts in terms of the effective utilization of professional development days. Overall, these represent a cost of $11 million a day, and there are six of them annually, so it's a significant investment.

We think some districts make much better use of professional development days than others. The participation rates in professional development days certainly vary considerably across the 60 school districts. Again, it's not that there's a master plan here that we think needs to be identified and articulated; it is that this is an area where I think there needs to be participation by all of the educational partners to ensure that, again, we can get the greatest alignment to the needs of teachers in the system.

K. Corrigan: Unless there's a follow-up from the answer that I receive, this will probably be the last question that I ask — for a while, anyways.

I guess it's probably talking about the two sections together, but since we're talking about the mandate of the mediator, I'm just wondering: has the minister satis-

[ Page 10115 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we do enjoy that confidence in the content of this bill. There has been a comprehensive evaluation, as you can imagine, by a range of legal advisers on the content of the bill. We believe it speaks to the issues raised by Madam Justice Griffin. Further, we believe that not only the content aligns with the decision of Madam Justice Griffin; we also believe the processes which have been engaged leading up to this bill have also been appropriate and aligned with her decision.

[1700]

The Chair: The member for Nelson-Creston seeks leave to make an introduction?

M. Mungall: Yes, I do.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: The first time I introduced this gentleman in the House we were not yet even engaged, and now I rise to introduce him as my husband. May the House please make Zak Matieschyn welcome. Wow, you can see why I may not have changed my last name. Please make Zak welcome.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: Well, I thank the minister for the answer, but I'm sure — at least I would have hoped — that last time when there was a challenge to the bill, Bills 27 and 28 and, in Health, Bill 29…. I would have assumed that the ministers, the government, would have done all of the surveying and all of the analysis before it came to the conclusion that it was going to bring in some acts that ultimately ended up being found unconstitutional, or provisions thereof. It doesn't give me much comfort that government has once again looked at it and said that this particular act is unassailable.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could just provide a little more information about why it is that government believes that this

section — which, to me, is a very crucial

section — and this act generally are okay, when the provisions that are imposed or the inability to deal with provisions that are imposed are almost identical to the ones that were in Bill 28.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: Though the question is an important one, without a doubt, we do believe that government has learned from the decisions of Justice Griffin and the B.C. Supreme Court with respect to the provisions of Bills 27 and 28, which were struck down. The bills in total were not struck down, but some provisions of those were struck down, and we have endeavoured to understand the reasons why that occurred.

We are also mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29, and we've attempted to learn lessons from that as well. I had the opportunity to be the Health Minister at the time in which we undertook a process and undertook a remedial package with the B.C. Nurses Union and with the Hospital Employees Union in respect of Bill 29.

In the case of Bill 29, the remedial package that was prepared as government's response to Bill 29 was also a consensual package, a collaborative package, which enjoyed the support of both government and the unions involved — and HEABC at the time, as well.

In 27 and 28, while, again for reasons which I won't enumerate at this point in time, the processes which mirrored the processes of 29…. We did not enjoy the same success in dealing with the B.C. Teachers Federation on our response to Bills 27 and 28 that we enjoyed with the BCNU and the HEU on Bill 29.

[1705]

So this bill doesn't, as the bill in the case of Bill 29 enjoyed, enjoy that consensual support. That having been said, I can tell the member that from the perspective of consultation, we are entirely comfortable that appropriate consultation has been extended here. Further, we have been mindful of, I guess, the potential judicial challenge around every provision in this bill and have mindfully constructed it in that way.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then. Is the minister saying that because negotiations this time around have not gone well, suggesting that the teachers have not participated in negotiations around either the decision or contract negotiations — and I'm interested in which the minister is talking about — the obligation of government to consult and the other obligations that were imposed by this court decision have been met?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be clear, we're not referring to the labour negotiation side in this — only to the response to Bills 27 and 28. Again, I want the member to fully understand my words here. At the Health table we were able to reach an agreement with the HEU and with the BCNU.

That has not been possible at the Education table. There may be points later in the bill where we'll want to explore further the reasons for that. We've had a little bit

[ Page 10116 ]

of exchange on that earlier with the member for Nanaimo, but I'm certain that the issue will be raised again. I welcome that.

Despite not being able to reach a collaborative and consensual agreement with the B.C. Teachers Federation on Bill 22, that does not relieve us of the obligation, which was imposed by Madam Justice Griffin, to provide a legislated response to her decision by April 13, 2012. What year are we in now — 2012? Yes, it gets so confusing. Yes, by 2012, exactly. The decision was in 2011, and this is 2012. April 13, 2012 is looming.

This is our response. I would have loved that this was, as with Bill 29, a consensual and collaborative bill. I'm certain it would have circumscribed the interest of the opposition in it, but that having been said, it's not, and we nevertheless feel that the obligations set out in Justice Griffin's decision have been met here.

B. Routley: Normally in mediation processes the parties come in with a clean slate, and the m