2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

SUNDAY, JANUARY 27, 2002

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 30

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Education Services Collective Agreement

Act, Bill 27 (Committee Stage)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Point of Order

Hon. G.

Bruce

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27

(Committee Stage continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27

(Report and Third Reading)

Public Education Flexibility and Choice

Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice

Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage continued)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Royal Assent to Bills

Public Education Flexibility and Choice

Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice

Act, Bill 28 (Report and Third Reading)

Health and Social Services Delivery

Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Committee Stage)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. G. Collins

J. Kwan

Point of Order

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Health and Social Services Delivery

Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Committee Stage continued)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

K. Krueger

Hon. G. Hogg

Health and Social Services Delivery

Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Report and Third Reading)

Royal Assent to Bills

[ Page 937 ]

SUNDAY, JANUARY 27, 2002

The House

met at 11:04 a.m.

Prayers.

[1105]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I call committee stage on Bill 27.

EDUCATION SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 11:06 a.m.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps before we begin, the minister might actually take a moment to introduce

the staff who are with him.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I have with me the Deputy Minister of Skills Development and Labour,

Lee Doney, and the deputy minister for PSEC, Mr. Rick Connolly.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

The employer, the teachers all signed off on this

article in 1998. My question

to the minister is: why is the government now, unilaterally, imposing a new

provision that the parties had jointly agreed to for inclusion in the last

collective agreement?

[1110]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Could you be just a little bit fuller in your question? I haven't

fully understood what

article you're talking about.

J. Kwan:

collective agreement. In the previous agreement, which was agreed to in 1998,

that agreement with respect to this provision…. All the parties had actually

agreed to this provision, the employer as well as the teachers. They've all

signed off on this provision. The government now, in this piece of legislation,

has imposed new terms, new provisions, which the parties had jointly agreed to

in the last collective agreement. My question to the minister is: why are you

imposing these new terms, which the parties on both sides, the employer and the

teachers, agreed to in the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G.

Bruce: In the last round it was that the superior benefits had been

legislated, and what we're saying in this instance here is that the parties will

have to negotiate the superior benefits.

J. Kwan:

In fact, the employer and the teachers signed off on this

article in 1998. It

was not an imposed provision of the last agreement. Both parties actually signed

off on it, so it is therefore not an imposition.

This

provision removes the special provision for junior kindergarten students in

terms of the limitations for class size. Will the minister first explain to the

Legislature what the makeup of a junior kindergarten is?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Again, Mr. Chair, I'm having a little bit of difficulty hearing. That

may just be because of my age. If you would work with me, could you just be a

little clearer? You're talking about junior kindergarten. Could you just be a

little clearer on your question for me, please?

J. Kwan:

Can you hear now? Maybe I'll just speak up as well.

The

question to the minister is about junior kindergarten. Could the minister please

explain to the House what the makeup of a junior kindergarten class is?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Which

section are you referring to specifically in this act?

J. Kwan:

I'm still on

section 2(1)(a)(i), which speaks to the issues around terms,

continuation and renegotiation, within which the proposed legislation that's

being tabled addresses the junior kindergarten class size. My question, first,

to the minister is that I'd like him to explain to the House what a junior

kindergarten is.

[1115]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Just a point of clarification. We don't have "junior

kindergarten" in the act. Could you just be a little clearer? We have

"kindergarten" in the act. The government doesn't cover junior

kindergarten.

J. Kwan:

The act that is before us — Bill 27,

section 2(1)(a)(i) — is actually going

to revamp the collective agreement, impacting junior kindergarten in

article

A.1. Junior kindergarten, for the minister's information, is composed of

children who are four years entering into the school system — earlier than the

age of five. That is the makeup, I believe, of a junior kindergarten class.

Would the minister please confirm that information.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes. As I mentioned just as I was sitting down last time, the

government doesn't fund junior kindergarten. If a local district wishes to put

something like that together, it's not funded through the provincial budget.

J. Kwan:

The act that is before us, Bill 27, is actually

an act that impacts the

collective agreement impacting junior kindergarten. The act makes fundamental

changes impacting children who are in that age bracket — four years old —

who enter school in advance. There are schools in my very own riding that have

junior kindergartens, particularly the inner-city schools, actually. This act

impacts them very specifically. That's

[ Page 938 ]

why I'm asking this question. Does the minister know what the current maximum

class size is for junior kindergarten classes?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes. The class size that we have here covers K-to-12. It does not

cover junior kindergarten.

J. Kwan:

Section 2(1)(a)(

i) is to delete

article A.1, entitled "Term, Continuation

and Renegotiation." Therefore, it actually does impact junior kindergarten,

in which there are children who are four years old entering into the school

system early. That's why they're called junior kindergartens. There are at least

four schools in British Columbia that provide for junior kindergarten classes,

some of which are in my own riding, as I mentioned earlier. So it does impact

children. Perhaps the minister would like to confer with the Minister of

Education around this issue before he answers my questions.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Again, to be clear: junior kindergarten is a local decision. The

class size is determined by that local board. It's not covered under this act.

It's not covered under this jurisdiction. It's a local decision.

J. Kwan:

That's precisely the point, in that the local districts have made agreements

with the teachers on the class size for junior kindergartens. That was agreed

to. That was not imposed. Both sides agreed to it. So the question I go back to

is: why would the minister now bring in a piece of legislation that would

override a joint decision agreed to by both the teachers and the employer, by

the district? It was negotiated and agreed to by both sides.

[1120]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I understand what the member is trying to get to, so let's be clear.

This act, this bill that's before us, is dealing with K-to-12 classes in the

provincial realm. Local districts — those that choose to, and not all do —

can have a junior kindergarten program. If they have a junior kindergarten

program, they can establish the class size, as they have, of what they feel is

the best for their situation. What we're doing here does not deal with junior

kindergarten. This deals with K-to-12 and the class size in the provincial

realm.

J. Kwan:

The proposed replacement for

article A.1 removes any additional or superior

provisions from, in this case, the provincially negotiated language in the

collective agreement. For example, the existing collective agreement provides

for lower numbers in junior kindergarten than are found in this bill and in Bill

Right now

the class size for junior kindergarten is actually limited to 15. With the

changes here, what could be is that those numbers could increase by seven. The

class size for junior kindergarten could increase by seven. That's what would be

impacting the students. This section, 2(1)(a)(i), speaks to the term,

continuation and renegotiation of the collective agreement and impacts that very

specific area and that very component of the children in our school system.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear, again. This act does not include junior kindergarten.

The School Act says that a child at the age of five…. That's where it begins.

That's where we're starting: at kindergarten, K-to-12. The junior kindergarten

program is a program that districts locally can choose to arrange for. The class

size is then determined by that particular school district. I want to be very

clear that this act does not include junior kindergarten. This act deals with

K-to-12 and the class size relative to K-to-12. It does not include junior

kindergarten. Junior kindergarten is not found under the School Act.

J. Kwan:

The fact of the matter is that this act overrides the collective agreement,

the

section that has been outlined in the collective agreement — the

collective agreement that has been jointly agreed to by the teachers and by the

employer. That is a fact. It will change the numbers of the class size for

junior kindergarten, to the potential of increasing the class size by seven.

That is the actual impact.

What

provisions does the bill make for the combined primary classes? Will the

minister explain to the House what a combined primary class is?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Just a point of clarification, because I think it's important. There

may be some people watching and wanting to feel comfortable with or understand

what's going on and what we're talking about. Let's be clear. Let's not leave

anything to people's imagination when it can be clear.

That's in

respect to junior kindergarten, as you have brought up. Junior kindergarten is

not covered under this act. The student that's under the age of five is not

covered under the School Act. It's a locally negotiated issue. If a district

wishes to offer it, they may. Because it's locally negotiated — a local issue

— it's not covered under the bill that we're providing right here. They can

continue to negotiate that. They continue to provide it in the way they think is

best for their students. That's really what we're trying to do in all of this.

Whatever we're doing, we're trying to do it in the best interests of the

students of British Columbia.

Further to

your second question, in the primary classes it could be a mix of grade 1, grade

[1125]

J. Kwan:

The current collective agreement sets the maximum class size for combined

classes where there are kindergarten children enrolled at a stated maximum for

the kindergarten. That made sense to the local parties, who understood, again,

the unique needs of combined classes and the extra workload for multi-age

groupings and the challenges that the multi-age groupings in a classroom would

present to the teachers.

What does

this bill say about the maximum class size for this configuration?

Hon. G.

Bruce: To the point. They're very good questions, and I understand that, but

we have three bills before us: Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29. Bill 28 is the bill

that will specifically deal with the class sizes. For

[ Page 939 ]

some order and the ability to move the House along, I would respectfully

suggest, if I may, that we deal with the sections before us in this bill —

Bill 27. I understand that some of them will relate as time moves on. I'd be

happy to try and cover them both as we go, but the questions specifically being

asked are really being asked of Bill 28. I would think it would be easier for

all of us if we deal with the matter that's before us, and that's Bill 27.

J. Kwan: But

the act before us changes the collective agreement that is now in place. Yes, in

part it deals with class size, but it changes the terms as they are now in the

collective agreement. That's what this

section of the act does, which is why I'm

asking these questions so that we're clear about what this

section of the act

will do in terms of changing the overall impacts of the school system for the

students in the classrooms. That's why I'm asking these questions relating to

kindergarten, junior kindergarten, primary, mixed classes, split classes, etc.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Respectfully, that really is Bill 28. We're dealing here with

an act

that, through the House, puts a legislated settlement in place. That's what this

bill is about.

appreciate that there are some issues surrounding class size. Junior

kindergarten is not part of this act; I'll just re-emphasize that. I really do

believe that we will do better for everybody if we deal with Bill 27. Class size

is very specific in Bill 28, and we should deal with that particular issue when

we deal with Bill 28.

J. Kwan:

Does this

section of the act remove locally negotiated superior provisions

that both parties have agreed to?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This act is neutral on superior provisions. If you want superior

provisions, you'll have to negotiate them.

J. Kwan:

The minister is suggesting that for split classes, as an example, the local

agreements between the teacher and the employer that they have negotiated would

override and supersede this act.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Again, to be clear, we're trying to move into Bill 28. This is Bill

27, and class size is not in Bill 27; it is in Bill 28. I think, for the whole

issue of trying to move things through the House, Mr. Chair, it would be good if

we tried to keep those issues to Bill 28.

The

Chair: I must remind the members to keep the questions relevant to this

section.

[1130]

J. Kwan:

Absolutely, keeping the questions relevant to this section. My question to

the minister was: would this

section of the act…? Let me just rephrase this.

He said earlier that locally negotiated provisions would still be the provisions

that would apply in spite of this act. I'd like to get a confirmation from the

minister, once again, that locally agreed-to provisions that have been jointly

negotiated that now exist in the collective agreement will override this act,

under

section 2(1)(a)(i), with respect to provisions that are superior to what

is being proposed under this legislation.

Hon. G.

Bruce: If a local provision is in conflict with this act or the School Act,

then it's overridden.

J. Kwan:

Just so that I'm completely clear: I believe the minister actually gave two

different answers within the last ten minutes or so. Previously, when I asked

this question, he said that the locally negotiated provisions would override

this act. Just now he got up and said that this act would override the locally

agreed-to provisions. Which is it?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be very clear. Class size, as we said, is not part of this

bill. Class size is part of Bill 28. That's where you'll find it, and that is

not part of this debate here that we're having right now.

We spoke

about the superior division. You're starting to get a few of the issues muddied

and cross-referenced. I understand that there are technical details here, but

they're not one and the same. I think we've been clear and canvassed this issue.

The class size will be found in those provisions in Bill 28. That is the next

bill that we're going to be dealing with, and that is overridden.

The

superior provisions that we were talking about, where they can be negotiated

locally if that's where they are at, are neutral in Bill 27.

J. Kwan:

There are some provisions in the collective agreement that are superior to

those of this act being tabled today. My question was: would the jointly

negotiated local provisions that are superior to this act that have been jointly

agreed-to and negotiated between the two parties override this act? The minister

said yes a little while ago. The minister then got up and said no a little while

ago. So it's actually not clear to me: would the locally negotiated provisions

that are superior to this act override this act? Or would this act override

those superior provisions that were jointly agreed-to and negotiated by both

parties, regardless of the nature of those provisions?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Perhaps to draw better clarity to this, the member would like to

offer a specific example, because she's getting into a generalization of all

this.

Let's be

clear, again: Bill 27 does not deal with class size. Class size is found in Bill

28. The School Act applies, and where you have these situations you're talking

about, those that are not in conflict with or in contradiction of the School Act

or this bill can be locally negotiated. For clarity, so that we're not missing

something here and we're all doing exactly what we are intending to do, perhaps

the member could give me a specific example.

J. Kwan:

Better yet, perhaps the minister could give some examples to the House of

which provisions exist

[ Page 940 ]

now in the collective agreement that have been jointly negotiated by both

parties — the teachers and the employers — that are superior to this act and

that would not be overridden by this act. He's the Minister of Labour, after

all. He's the man who has introduced this bill in the interests of students, so

one would have assumed that he would know the details around that and would make

sure there's clear understanding with respect to these issues for all British

Columbians before this

section of the act is passed.

[1135]

Hon. G.

Bruce: There are 60 agreements. There are different examples. What we are

saying is that this bill, Bill 27, is neutral on those issues. Those issues that

are not found under the School Act and that are not found with class size can be

negotiated, but they have to be negotiated between school districts. I think

that's about as clear as you can get. If you are concerned about a specific

district issue and are asking to bring clarity to it for people who may be

impacted by that and would like to offer that example, we'll check that right

through and make sure that's not the case.

In the

intent and purpose of this bill — I think we've canvassed this now three, four

or five times — I think we're very clear on what it is we're doing.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister not know what the provisions are that are superior in our

collective agreements as they exist now, that have been jointly negotiated and

agreed to by both parties, the teachers and the employer, that would be

beneficial to the students? After all, we remember that in second reading the

minister actually said this was meant to be

an act that improves the education

environment for students. What are the provisions that are superior to this act

that will still stand after it passes that would aid the students in ensuring

that the learning environment is protected?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Again, let's be clear on these so-called superior benefits. They're

locally negotiated. They're not being handed. They'll have to be negotiated

between the two parties.

When we get

to the next act, Bill 28, which is where most of this discussion actually should

be, there is an arbitration process where there are issues that need to be

resolved. We shouldn't get into that until we've dealt with this act. I think

we've canvassed this on a number of occasions to this point. I think we've been

fairly clear on how this issue is to be resolved.

J. Kwan:

I will take from the minister's answer, then, that the superior provisions that

have been jointly negotiated by the teachers and the employer would prevail over

this act, given that the minister has been unable to give even one example of

what those provisions might be. I'm going to take from the minister's answer

that the superior provisions that exist now in the collective agreements with

many different districts throughout British Columbia would be deemed to be

superior to those of this act.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Those superior provisions that both parties are happy with that are

not in conflict with this bill and not in conflict with the School Act will

remain.

[1140]

J. Kwan:

I have to say it worries me greatly that the minister is in a big rush to bring

in this bill that was introduced on Friday, in a big rush to get through this

bill this weekend, in a big rush without consulting and informing the public so

that they could actually have time to go through the bill.

The

minister can't even give an example of what provisions would be superior. One

would have thought that the minister, whose interests are supposed to be placed

on the students in the classrooms first, would have known what provisions are

superior and what provisions are not. One would have expected that, but that is

not the case with this government. I don't think that's the intent of this act,

and that is the focus on the students. It's clear from some simple questions at

the beginning of the act that the minister is unable to identify what provisions

within the collective agreement that has been jointly agreed to by the teachers

and the employer are superior to what this act would be and how they impact the

classrooms. This causes great concern to me and ought to cause great concern for

all of us. I think it clearly outlines the intent of this government, which is

that the focus of this act had never been intended to be on the children and the

students of British Columbia.

On the

question around salary for

section 2(1)(a)(ii), how does the minister expect to

attract and retain teachers in a time of shortage, when these increases will do

nothing to bridge the gap in salaries paid to teachers in Ontario, in Alberta,

in Yukon, in provinces and areas other than British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The wage offer that has been put here in this act is 7½ percent over

three years, which is a good offer in the economic climate we're currently in. I

respect the question.

The fact of

the matter is that with this offer that every teacher in the province will

receive, it will still make our teachers some of the highest-paid in Canada, and

I'm happy to say that and proud to say it. I'm hopeful, as well, that there will

still be people who will be interested in moving back to British Columbia. As

British Columbia turns the corner, as things become better and as we get past

the difficult times that were left by the previous administration, it will be a

place that will bring people back.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yeah, it's funny, and I don't want to go down this road, so I will be

as reserved and as considered as I can.

We've been

government here for eight months. It has been a difficult time. The previous

government did a very good job of making it as difficult as they possibly

could….

Interjection.

[ Page 941 ]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I appreciate that was the intent you brought here.

The fact of

the matter is that what we're doing here in this act and what is before us is

putting in place a legislated settlement that after ten months of negotiation

was only able to resolve three issues of about 40 or 45 issues. That's clear.

Section 2 and what we're dealing with here is the settlement offer. The

settlement offer is 7½ percent over three years to every teacher in British

Columbia. It will keep our teachers proudly as some of the highest-paid in

Canada, and we're happy to do that.

J. Kwan:

The fact of the matter is that when the government took office in the new

administration, there was a surplus in the budget. In fact, if the minister

doesn't have that information, he might just want to check with the auditor

general. That information is public. It is open for all to see. The minister

might actually discover that there was, in fact, a surplus left over from the

previous government.

The

Chair: Member, I just want to remind you to stay relevant to

section

2(1)(a)(ii). We're not getting back into second reading debate here at this

point. This is Committee of the Whole. Stay relevant to the section, please.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was simply responding to the minister's question.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

No, I'm not arguing. I'm just simply responding.

On the

question around salary retention and attraction, I'd like to ask this question

of the minister. Does he know the looming shortage that is going to be faced by

British Columbians in the area of attracting educators into our system and what

the number is of the looming shortage over the next ten years in professionals

in the area of education?

[1145]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Before this salary offer goes into place, our British Columbia

teachers were the second-highest paid in Canada in both the minimum salary and

the maximum salary. That's before the additional 7½ percent, which we are happy

to be able to offer over three years. We're proud to have that.

British

Columbia is a beautiful place to live in, with a great climate. In spite of a

little bit of snow every now and then here in the lower part of Vancouver

Island, the width and breadth of the beautiful place we've got here and the

resources we have…. We'll get the economic situation turned around. We'll get

this province moving again in the right direction. I think there'll be a great

number of people who will be continually wanting to move back to this province

and to live here, including a number of teachers as well.

J. Kwan:

My question to the minister was: what is the number — does he know? — of the

looming shortage of educators in our system in British Columbia? Perhaps the

minister may want to confer with his staff to get that number so he is advised

of the looming shortage that is coming to British Columbia in the area of

teachers and educators over the next ten years.

If the

minister doesn't know the answer to that, perhaps I can refer him to Hansard .

That information was provided by the Education Committee. It is important for

the minister to actually know the challenge ahead of British Columbia in the

shortage of teachers, and it is relevant to this

section because it goes to the

question of retention and attraction. Salary is one component that deals with

attraction and retention.

The

Chair: Minister, I believe these questions are second reading debate.

They're talking about theory. We should be specific to this section, which deals

with percentage increases.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We certainly are guided by your direction.

If I could

just clarify the relevance of this section. This

section deals with the budget

that will be allocated to pay teachers. The amount applied to an individual

teacher will affect the overall budget, so it does seem — in order to

understand the actual costing and accounting of a 2½ percent wage increase, as

the government is so interested in, over at least the next three years with

their multiple accounting — that it is important to note what the pressures

will be, not only this year but next year and the year after by the government's

own multiple-year accounting. It's just the pursuit of that and understanding

whether there will be more teachers or fewer teachers putting pressure on the

wage bill.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I understand what you're talking about. I think it's instructive to

again take a look at the situation across the country. Our wage scale in this

province is not tenth. It's not eleventh, it's not seventh, it's not fifth, it's

not fourth. It's second and, in some instances, very close to the highest.

Teachers in Canada are going to look at all of that, and they're going to be

interested in part of the wage scale. They're going to be interested in the

lifestyle. They're going to be interested in the commitment made by people in a

province to education.

We've made

a very strong commitment, as a government, to education. We said we are going to

put students first. That's what we're doing. In this particular act what we're

talking about is the wage scale that you have referred to, and the fact of the

matter is: this offer is 7½ percent. What we're putting in through legislation

is 7½ percent over three years for every teacher in British Columbia. I think

that's fair. I think that deals with your question and your concerns relative to

teacher shortages or no shortages, where we are in the age group and

demographics of teachers, where they would move and live.

[1150]

Much of

that comes back to the big picture, and we're turning that big picture around,

albeit with difficulty, from what was left before us. We're going to turn that

around on an even-keel basis to make British Co-

[ Page 942 ]

lumbia again the number one province in Canada, and that will happen.

J. Kwan:

The looming shortage that's coming in the area of education professionals,

educators, is estimated to be about 13,000 over the next ten years. I worry that

the

section of this bill which speaks to a salary of 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the

next three years would jeopardize B.C.'s opportunity to attract teachers and

young people to going into the profession so that the shortage would not become

a crisis in our education system.

I wonder if

the minister knows that there are 39 school districts that have reported

shortages in key areas, and they anticipate further difficulties in attracting

and retaining teachers. I wonder if the minister can answer the question: how

does he expect that the environment that has now been set, the salary that is

being proposed and imposed by this bill, would actually address the shortages in

these 39 districts?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, Mr. Chairman, let's try this again. This offer is 7½ percent

over three years. Prior to this offer, our teachers in British Columbia received

virtually the second- highest amount in both the minimum and the highest

categories, so this is 7½ percent on top of that. I think that's good. I, and I

on behalf of the government, am proud that we are there. This is not

zero-zero-and-2 as a previous administration gave; this is 7½ percent over

three years. I appreciate that it's not 18 percent. This is 7½ percent. It's

not 18 percent, because that would be irresponsible in the situation that we are

faced with here in British Columbia, but it is 7½ percent over three years. It

will make our teachers about the highest-paid in Canada, perhaps the second —

it's arguable — but it certainly isn't last.

As the

member opposite would know, it's more than just salary conditions that bring

people into the educational field as teachers. There are other things that they

take into account and are interested in as to why they go into that. I think we

have about 1,700 graduates a year in the teaching profession. So you know, it's

not zero-zero-and-2. It's 7½ percent over three years in a situation that

economically, in this country, around the world and here in this province, is

very difficult.

I believe

it's a fair offer, and I believe it's an offer that, compared to what's

happening across the country and around the world, will help to continue to

encourage people to go into the teaching profession and, quite frankly,

encourage people from other parts who are thinking of moving from one

jurisdiction to another to consider British Columbia a good place to come back

to.

[1155]

J. Kwan:

It's true that it's not zero-zero-and-2. It's true that salary alone is not the

only thing that attracts and retains teachers in British Columbia, because it is

also the work environment. It is also, I think, the overall impression that the

employer would leave to the employee — in this case, it would happen to be

teachers — in terms of their attitude and their respect for the work of the

employee.

I would

suggest that when you look at all of these factors combined and with the passing

of this bill — especially in the latter part, which I understand to be very

important to many, many teachers, above and beyond salary — the respect that

they expect from the employer, from the government would be paramount to the

question of them staying in the education system and attracting teachers to the

education system.

Zero-zero-and-2,

as it relates to the work environment, was coupled with reduced class size, and

that was paramount to the teachers. The teachers went into the environment with

zero-zero-and-2 and with a reduced class size. One would argue that on the

question around salary, they actually took the reduction in their salary on

their backs to benefit the students in the classroom so that the class size

could actually be smaller and the learning environment for the students would be

better. Of course, the teaching environment would also be better. It was a joint

package that came together.

In this

instance, we have 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years, and then we have provisions

that actually increase class size, which I know we'll debate further under Bill

28. Those things will come together.

Of course,

that, too, combines with back in August when the minister brought in a provision

— essential services — that was supposed to bring calm to the school system,

even though people predicted otherwise. In fact, it now has quite the opposite

impact, and that is the key issue in terms of setting the environment as it

relates to the question of the attraction and retention of teachers. Salary is

one component of it, no doubt. It's not the only thing.

Does the

minister expect that the best and the brightest students will want to enter into

the profession of teaching with a starting salary of $41,000 by the end of the

agreement, when other occupations already offer substantially higher starting

salaries? I'm talking about other occupations, such as pharmacology. In fact, I

know that my brother, who is completing his PhD as well as his pharmacology

degree at the same time, has been offered a salary, bonuses, not only just….

The

Chair: Member, please stay relevant to the section.

J. Kwan:

I am.

The

Chair: I don't think it's important to bring other professions into this.

We're dealing with

section 2. We're talking about a 2½ percent increase. I'd

ask you to please stay relevant.

J. Kwan:

I am. I'm setting up an example in terms of how 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three

years for teachers would attract and retain teachers. I'm bringing in an example

of pharmacology. Other people in pharmacology would enter into a starting salary

of much higher than $41,000, even with the 2½, 2½ and 2½, and with a signing

bonus, as well — not only in British Columbia but, in fact, outside of British

Columbia. In the United

[ Page 943 ]

States, as an example, these other professions are being sought after by

other people.

[1200]

How does

the minister expect, with a salary of 2½, 2½ and 2½ and the working

conditions that are now being imposed on the classrooms after this legislation

has been passed, that this salary proposal would attract young people,

particularly with a looming shortage of over 13,000 educators that will be

needed in British Columbia? How are we going to fill those positions and attract

young people into that profession with this proposal?

Hon. G.

Bruce: You know, we as human beings are a diverse group. Some of us would

like to do other things; some of us are capable of doing other things. Some

people can pick up a hammer and a saw and make a creation out of a piece of wood

that's absolutely remarkable. It's a piece of art. Some can pick up a hammer and

smack a nail a hundred times — bang, bang, bang, bang — and they never hit

their thumb once. Now, if I grab a hammer and pick up a nail, look out.

Actually, you don't have to worry. I'm in a lot of trouble. I'll hammer my hand

a hundred times. I'd never make it as a carpenter.

Some people

are great as doctors. They go into that medical profession because they've got a

feeling. They actually have a calling.

I happen to

believe each one of us has a calling. I also happen to believe that the majority

of people aren't driven simply because of what the dollar amount is. I don't

believe that. Maybe the members opposite categorize everything as "you

wouldn't do this, because it's X number of dollars," but I think the

diversity and the wonder of a human being is the fact that they like to create

things, and they like to make things happen. They like to build things. Maybe it

is that they like to teach or they like to heal, or maybe it is that they like

to build or create art. Each one of us has our own particular skill.

I don't

think we wake up in the morning and say: "Well, I think that when I look at

the scale, this person makes $1 million a year, this person makes $500,000 a

year, this person makes $100,000 a year, this person makes $50,000 a year, this

person makes $26,000 a year, and I'm going to base my decisions on what I want

to do based on that." I don't really think that at the bottom of people's

hearts that's how they go about doing it. I think it's by what's in them, what

they've been given, the creation of what they can offer to society.

Boy, what a

calling it is if you can teach. You can see the difference between people that

can really teach and really offer. You can see the difference when they walk

into that classroom and how that class responds and how that school responds to

the talent of those individuals. It's a God-given gift, absolutely, and they

don't wake up at night and say: "Boy, I'm going to rate what I'm going to

do based on how much money I'm going to make."

The fact of

the matter is that on balance, what we're talking about here, to come back to

the specifics of what's being offered in this settlement — and I digressed;

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — is 7½ percent over three years. It keeps our

teachers as some of the highest-paid in Canada — if not the highest-paid, then

right there at the second level. We have a province here that's turned around.

It's starting to go in the right direction now, in the proper direction, after

years of going in the wrong direction. I think we're going to find we still have

people going into teaching. Like I say, it's a God-given gift.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister recall that the first act of the government was to give deputy

ministers large increases in salary? Does he remember what the percentage range

was for deputy ministers and why? How does that compare to the salary proposed

here for the teachers at 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's true, you know. The atmosphere that was built here over the past

ten years…. There were professional people that looked at British Columbia and

said, "No, thank you" — "no, thank you," for how the

public service had been treated, "no, thank you," for turning the

deputy ministers sector into a political arm, as the previous government did.

It's true.

[1205]

What we're

at here in this respect is that we're on this bill — Bill 27. We're dealing

with the wage package. What we're talking about is that this wage package that's

been offered is fair and competitive across Canada. What we had to do in respect

to the deputy ministers' scales was to make them fair and competitive across

Canada, just as we're making this one fair and competitive across Canada.

They're balanced. They're difficult decisions, but they're balanced. This is a

fair and equitable offer. It's 7½ percent over three years. It's not

zero-zero-and-2. This government has made education a high priority — its

highest priority. We are putting students first. That's what we're setting out

to do here. We do have some damage. We do have some difficult challenges ahead

of us left over by the members opposite, but we are going to get at each one of

those and get this system turned around.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that the deputy ministers' increases ranged from 18 percent to 32

percent — the first act of this government. The rationale was: "We've got

to attract and retain high-calibre professionals in government." Well, of

course, as the minister well knows, many of the deputy ministers that are now in

government are the same people that were hired under the previous

administration. So much for the notion of politicizing, because those

high-calibre deputy ministers are still here working for this new-era

administration. The argument on politicizing, quite frankly, doesn't work, with

the exception of Andrew Wilkinson, I think. We didn't hire him. He was the

president of the Liberal Party. The new-era government hired him.

The

deputies got an 18 percent to 32 percent wage increase on the first day.

Teachers are now being forced into 2½, 2½ and 2½ imposed over three years.

That is the reality. That is the reality of what this government is doing, and

their intention to attract and retain teach-

[ Page 944 ]

ers in our education system…. One would argue that teachers are very

paramount in impacting the future of young people. They spend a lot of time with

children and foster the children's growth. The salary of teachers is one

component of the attraction and retention formula, along with working and

teaching conditions and education conditions for the students.

Can the

minister name one or two districts that are now faced with shortages in the

teaching profession? How will he advise those 39 districts on how to handle the

shortages that exist now, not just future shortages coming down the pike?

Hon. G.

Bruce: There were 32 positions that were vacant after a canvass of 51

districts.

[1210]

J. Kwan:

The question was: are there any districts faced with shortages right now in our

school system? I know there are at least 39 districts that are faced with

shortages. One is Stikine. The Stikine area is faced with huge shortages. They

have a hard time right now retaining teachers. Yesterday in second reading I

mentioned some facts about that district: within a one-, two- or three-year time

span, students in schools in that district could be faced with a number of

different teachers in terms of the turnaround. That is what's happening in the

area of Stikine. With 2½, 2½ and 2½, at a $41,000 starting salary for these

districts faced with particular difficulties in attracting and retaining

teachers, how will the districts manage to attract and retain? Even now as we

speak, they are faced with that difficulty — never mind the future.

Hon. G.

Bruce: With all due respect, I'm happy to talk about this. It's a difficulty

that we're faced with in this country, in this province, in all sorts of

occupations and regions, because of the regional differences.

I have to

remember my own sister and brother-in-law. He was a teacher in his first job,

having lived here in southern Vancouver Island in this very gentle climate —

compared to much of the rest of British Columbia's climate during the winter.

Their first teaching assignment was in the little village of Kitwanga with huge

amounts of snow, bears around the trailer — the place that they were living

in.

It was a

complete change in life, obviously, from what they were accustomed to, growing

up and living here on Vancouver Island, but they went there. He's a great

teacher. They went there and started their career in the teaching profession. I

don't think he would have been driven by the money. He had studied long and hard

to become a teacher. He loves the students he deals with, and that was his first

opportunity.

Now, you

mention other regional areas that we can talk about. Yeah, those are problems.

Those are challenges for us at all times, not just in the area of teaching but

in all walks of life. There are challenges for all of us in all the professions

that we have to deal with.

This offer

— 7½ percent over three years, making our teachers nearly the highest-paid in

Canada — is a good and fair and balanced offer in respect to the situation

we're in and, like I say, in regard to the national average. It's one that we

gladly make.

J. Kwan:

The minister speaks of the national average. The fact of the matter is that if

you compare the highest-paid categories information in terms of what other

provinces are doing and how much they're paying their teachers relative to

British Columbia, there are a number of situations where other provinces are

paying a higher pay rate than that of British Columbia — Ontario and Alberta,

to name just two provinces. I know this government aspires to be just like

Ontario and Alberta. Their pay grid and their salary is actually higher than

that of British Columbia.

It's

outlined here in the bulletin. These are the facts. Of course, in Alberta they

are up for negotiations. In fact, in February there might even be a strike in

Alberta. As to the salary question, as you compare British Columbia to other

provinces, the fact is that other provinces do have higher pay scales than that

of B.C. That makes the competition for attracting and retaining teachers even

more difficult. Those are the facts. I would urge the minister to check out the

facts, because they're there. I didn't make them up. These are facts; these

numbers exist. They are published; they are public. Anybody can get this

information and check that out.

The

teachers in seven of the nine districts which will have their agreements

amalgamated under

section 4 of this act are going to lose moneys, starting in

the second year of the agreement.

The

Chair: Member, we'll get to

section 4 ultimately, but will you please stay

with

section 2. Thank you.

J. Kwan:

I am bringing up this question now, because it relates to the salary question.

The

Chair: Member, I ask you, please, to bring that question up in

section 4.

[1215]

J. Kwan:

I want to get assurance from you, then, hon. Chair, because I don't want to go

section 4 and then be advised that we can't talk salary anymore because the

salary is under

section 2. I just want to get assurances from you, then, that

when we go to

section 4 on the amalgamation question I would be able to bring up

the salary questions as they relate to amalgamated areas.

The

Chair: If the question is relevant to

section 4, we will bring it up in

section 4.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

No worries, members, because I have lots of questions. You may as well just

sit back and relax.

The

Chair: Well, then, member, I just ask you to keep them relevant.

[ Page 945 ]

J. Kwan:

I'm just informing the House that I have a list of questions, and it will

take some time for me to get through the list.

Why is

there no increase to the daily rate for teachers on call, when the services of

these teachers are already, of course, in short supply in many of the districts?

Hon. G.

Bruce: As long as the member wants to sit here and ask the questions, I'm

prepared — these are important matters — to do the best I can to answer her

questions. I'm glad that she does have lots.

reference to Alberta and Ontario, I think that particular magazine that you have

here — and your wage scales…. Alberta and Ontario have made some pretty

difficult decisions during the past years — the past ten years, in fact —

while this particular province, under your guidance as a government, basically

drove down the opposite direction that one ought to go in, virtually taking this

place apart person by person in the wrack and ruin that you were able to spread

from one end of this province to the other. People did leave, undoubtedly.

Had we not

had that ten years, that decade of decline, in fact I would say, standing here,

that our teachers would be far and away the highest-paid in Canada. We would

probably have the best health care system in the world. We probably would have a

ferry fleet that runs on time and on budget. We probably would have economic

development happening throughout this province. We probably would have people

moving into this province.

We probably

would have a very bright, shiny day here in British Columbia, but —

respectfully — your party chose a different path. Your government chose a

different path, opposite to what was necessary, unable to make the difficult

decisions, unable to represent all of the people of the province. That's why you

will see those anomalies of specific issues, but across the board, on average,

our teachers will be, right here, one of the second-highest-paid or highest-paid

in Canada.

In respect

to your grid question in regards to the casual teachers, the call-out teachers,

most districts have local agreements where, when a teacher is called out — I

believe it's two or three times; is that correct? — on average two or three

times, they would move onto the grid system.

J. Kwan:

On the question around the decline that the minister has brought up, the

fact of the matter is that when the previous government left office, the

economic growth was at 3.9 percent. It was just reported out today. I urge the

minister to go and look at those facts and understand them. If he doesn't

understand them, maybe talk to the auditor general; I'm sure that he would be

prepared to assist. I'm sure of that. I'm sure that David Bond would be prepared

to assist and explain to the minister that when you squander taxpayers' money

for the biggest tax cuts for the wealthiest of British Columbians and say that

magically the revenues will just come back, in fact they won't. I'm sure that

David Bond would explain that to the minister.

[1220]

On the

question around salaries, the fact of the matter is that if you look at just one

example…. In Ontario some of the schools, where their salary is actually

higher than that of British Columbia — higher than that of British

Columbia…. Some of the districts, some of the schools where the teachers

receive a higher salary….

I'll give

you some examples. Superior North's collective agreement in Ontario is higher in

salary than that of the teachers in British Columbia. Thunder Bay Elementary,

Thunder Bay Secondary, Toronto Elementary, Toronto Secondary, Windsor

Elementary, Windsor Secondary are just some examples. There's a whole list of

them relative to the salary as they compare British Columbia to another province

— in this instance, Ontario. There is a stark difference in terms of their

salary pay rate as they compare to that of British Columbia.

I asked the

question: why is there no increase to the daily rate for teachers on call when

the service of these teachers is in short supply in many districts? As districts

compete for this category of teacher, why is there no pay increase in the daily

rate for these teachers?

Hon. G.

Bruce: On average, teachers on call-out, if they've worked the three days,

go onto the grid system. The grid system, by this proposal here, is a 2½

percent increase per year. It's 7½ percent over the course of the next three

years.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister suggesting that the teachers who are on call would receive

the same pay rate increase?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Once that teacher moves onto the grid system, they would receive that

increase.

J. Kwan:

Can the minister explain the grid system to the House?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Every district has a grid system. It varies according to that

district. A teacher comes on and moves through the grid system according to the

years they're there. Grid systems are found in a number of different

professions.

J. Kwan:

Within the grid system, what is the range? Is it step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? What is

the range within the grid? Could the minister also explain the categories for

the evaluation for salary for teachers?

Hon. G.

Bruce: From as low as eight steps through to 13 steps.

J. Kwan:

That is for the grid system, for the categories for evaluating teachers as

they relate to salary.

Hon. G.

Bruce: With all due respect, the relevance to this is the 7½ percent over

three years that's been put in this act, which will be the settlement for the

teachers. Basically, we have a variety of grid systems, as were mentioned —

different qualifications of experience,

[ Page 946 ]

qualifications as they go through that grid system. In respect to how you

came to this question in regards to the teachers on call, on average it's three

days. That's on average, because every district's a little bit different. Then

that teacher would find themselves on the grid system. I believe that's the

relevance of what we're talking about here.

[1225]

J. Kwan:

The question is relevant in terms of salary. We're talking about increases

in teachers' salary. I'm wondering how the government, how the minister, arrived

at this salary increase and what factors he took into consideration. One would

have assumed that the issue around the categories…. The categories, for the

minister's information, are that the teachers' training and experience are taken

into consideration and form the categories within the teachers' evaluation in

terms of their salary rate.

The other

piece is the grid system, which varies from district to district as it relates

to salary, which is why I asked the question as it relates to teachers on call.

When a teacher is called into the school system to teach, the daily rate for the

teacher varies from district to district also. When a teacher first starts in

the system, where does this on-call teacher arrive within the grid, in the

category formula as it relates to salary? Then there's the question on the

salary increases and their application.

Hon. G.

Bruce: To be specific, as this bill applies, we are not making any changes

to the grid system. We are not making any changes to qualifications. What we are

doing through this act is implementing a settlement of 7½ percent over three

years to every teacher in the province.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. I didn't quite get the minister's answer. Did he respond to the

question about the on-call teachers when they first get into the system? Where

do they land within the grid and the categories? The application of the 7½

percent — the 2½, 2½ , 2½ increase. I'm sorry. I missed that answer.

Hon. G.

Bruce: They land on the grid according to their years of experience and

qualifications. As I mentioned, every teacher in the province will receive 7½

percent over the course of three years.

J. Kwan:

Can I take the minister's word that the teachers on call will receive the

increase of 2½ , 2½, 2½?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Once a teacher moves onto the grid system — experience,

qualifications — they get 7½ percent over three years.

J. Kwan:

How do they move onto the grid system?

Hon. G.

Bruce: With all due respect, we actually dealt with that about 15 minutes

ago. For one further time, the districts are somewhat different, but on average

it's after three days on call.

J. Kwan:

The question about the teachers who are on the daily rate: does the 2½, 2½, 2½

increase apply to the daily rate?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No.

J. Kwan:

Irrespective of the fact that the on-call teachers have moved onto the grid

system, the daily rate at which they are being called to work would not receive

the 2½, 2½, 2½ increase.

[1230]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's try this again, with all due respect. A teacher that moves onto

the grid system, is there for a month as a substitute and lands in their proper

position on the grid according to qualification and time, will during that

period receive the 7½ percent over the course of the three years. On a daily

rate, there is no increase.

J. Kwan:

The teachers' on-call daily rate would receive no increase for three years. Is

that correct?

Hon. G.

Bruce: If you only work one day, the answer is no.

We've

actually canvassed this thing, but it's okay. I'll stay with you. We've gone

around it, and we can go around it again however many times you wish to go

around it. That's fine. I'm quite prepared to do that with you.

J. Kwan:

How many teachers are on call?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Teachers on call would vary from district to district, but let's be

clear. I want to get this straight, because the questions come in a number of

different ways. I understand what you're trying to get across.

A teacher

going onto the grid system to teach on call has been, on average, like three

days. They would then land on the grid according to their qualifications and

time. In most instances, they would get that rate for the prior three days, as

well, if they're on their period. That is a 7½ percent increase over three

years. Now, if teachers go to work on a call-in basis — if I get this correct

— and they're there for longer than the three days, they would land on the

grid system according to their time and qualifications. While they're on that

system and working that period of time, they'll be receiving the rate that was

there, which is the 7½ percent.

J. Kwan:

Many of the assignments for the teachers who receive a daily rate and who are on

call do not receive long enough hours to actually be put on the grid, so this

legislation does not include them in terms of the pay increase. Their pay is on

the basis of a daily rate, and that's excluded. That's zero percent for three

years for teachers who are on call. They will receive a zero percent increase

over three years on the basis of this legislation, because they are on a daily

rate and because they don't get assignments for them to accumulate enough hours

to get onto the grid. Why do

[ Page 947 ]

these employees, whose daily rate is not tied to the grid, not receive an

increase in the next three years?

I'm asking the

question of the minister. Why do the teachers who are on call on a daily rate

and who are not tied to the grid not receive any increase? They're getting zero

over the next three years.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm pleased to carry on this debate on the same point. We'll go

around again.

For the

teacher that is on the very casual basis of one day, there is no increase. I've

said that. I'm very clear about that. We've said that.

MacPhail: You just said that now for the first time. Teachers out there

don't understand that.

[1235]

Hon. G.

Bruce: So here we are. We'll be clear on this. I'll try and answer every

question you have as best I possibly can.

Teachers

who go in on a call-out and are there for three days will go onto the grid

system as it applies to their qualifications and their length of service, and

they will receive that increase by virtue of being on that grid system. In most

instances, as the local agreements are, they receive that retroactively for

those three days. A teacher on a one-day assignment will not receive that

increase.

J. Kwan:

The employer offered $190 as a daily rate for the teachers on call. Why, at

least, has this minister not included that rate for those who are currently paid

less?

Hon. G.

Bruce: There were varying things; there were 45 issues on the table. We

elected on this to make sure that every teacher in this respect on the grid

system would receive 7½ percent over three years. That's what we've decided to

do. That's 2½, 2½ and 2½, and it makes our teachers here in British Columbia

amongst the highest-paid in Canada.

J. Kwan:

The question was about the teachers who are on call on a daily rate. The

minister had just said in this House that they will receive zero-zero-and-zero

for the next three years. That's what the minister said. The employer at the

negotiating table has offered $190 as a daily rate for teachers who are now on

call who receive less…

MacPhail: Under this offer.

J. Kwan:

…under this offer. The employer at the negotiating table actually offered

$190. My question is: why didn't the minister include what the employer has

already offered in negotiations?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It was a decision that we felt was important — that our full-time

teachers receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. That was our decision.

I appreciate that perhaps you don't like that decision and that maybe others

don't like the decision — very clear about it. All of the teachers that are

full-time that are on the grid system are getting 7½ percent over three years

— okay?

The

question was first asked in regards to the casual teachers on the one-day

category, whether they'd be getting an increase, and I stood up, and I said no.

That was clear. You got the answer. You asked the question; I gave you the

answer. I said no. That's clear. You understand that. Now we're talking about

this other aspect of going around again. It's 7½ percent over three years, and

that's what the increase will be.

I'm pleased

to have the members opposite here question what's in this legislation. I know it

will be long and lengthy, and that's what this House is for. I know there will

be some difficulty in getting all the answers clearly through to the members of

the opposition as well as getting everybody to understand what we're attempting

to do here. I understand that, but that's what this House is here for, and of

course, that's what you're here for: to ask those questions to make sure that

people understand it. It's also important, when we do answer the question, that,

in fact, you reiterate…

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …what it is that has been said.

Here, let's

just recap: no on the casual — zero on the casual. If you're on the grid,

that's usually after three days, in most of the districts, on a local,

negotiated contract basis. You would go onto the grid based on your time and

qualifications. Because of that grid, as a teacher you would receive that 7½

percent over the three years in that grid situation. In most instances, the way

the local contracts are, the first three days that you are there are

retroactive, and you would get that. I believe that's pretty clear.

J. Kwan:

Was $190 the last offer by the employer to the teachers on call on a daily rate?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes.

J. Kwan:

Now what will they get instead of the $190?

[1240]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I believe we've….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order.

Hon. G.

Bruce: A teacher that's a casual teacher, that goes on the grid system —

we're together on that — after three days will go on the grid system, and

according to their qualification and their time will receive that 7½ percent.

J. Kwan:

I'm asking the question to the minister for the teachers who are on call, on a

daily rate, who are

[ Page 948 ]

not, not, not — I repeat, for the third time, for clarification, for the

minister — on the grid system. What will they receive now under this

legislation?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The daily rate, if you're not on the grid…. I'll try this another

way….

J. Kwan:

Let me explain this to the minister: the teachers who are on call, on a daily

rate, who are not — and I repeat, not — on the grid, received, at the last

offer from the employer, an offer of $190 from the lowest rate. The minister

seems to be fixated on the grid; I'm talking about the group of teachers who are

not on the grid. The lowest rate — that is, for the teachers who are on call,

who are not on the grid system — is in Merritt. They are the lowest in the

province. The employer offered $190 to increase their daily rate, and they also

offered 7½ percent for those who were receiving the $190. So that we're clear,

who in the educational system will not receive the increase of 2½, 2½ and 2½

over three years?

In British

Columbia, there are over 6,000 teachers who are on call, receiving a daily rate,

right now. They will get zero, zero and zero for three years. Of those 6,000

teachers, they tend to be young, and they tend to be female. Approximately 60

percent of those 6,000 are young, female teachers in our system who will be

receiving zero, zero and zero over the next three years, even though at the

bargaining table, the employer offered 7½ percent and to top up to $190 for

those who are now receiving the lowest rate in the province. This legislation on

the 2½, 2½ and 2½ does not apply to those 6,000 teachers right now in our

province who are on call, on a daily rate, throughout British Columbia.

How does

the minister expect that those 6,000 teachers will be attracted into our system

on a long-term basis? How does the minister expect that other people who might

be looking at the education system as a profession and who might have to enter

into the system first on an on-call basis with this proposal…?

[1245]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Okay. For a teacher on the daily rate, there is no increase in the

daily rate. There is no increase for a teacher on a daily rate. If, though, that

teacher on a daily rate ends up on an assignment that's longer than one, two or

three days — and that's only an average; in some districts it's a little bit

different, but on average that's about what it is — then they land on the grid

of where their qualification time puts them. In that instance, they would

receive that higher level pay relative to the grid. That would be the 7½

percent over three years.

The member

opposite talked earlier on about teacher shortages and looming shortages. As we

know — with these numbers, within the Ministry of Education, and what you have

— there are also, in fact, at this point, 6,000 teachers on a casual basis

here in the system.

Let's just

put it all together again. You're asking me the daily rate. There is no increase

in the daily rate. A teacher that works one day, whatever that daily rate is

relative to the district they're currently in, will receive that same amount of

money. If that teacher, however, works longer than a day — depending, again,

on what that may be in the district they're in; there are 60 contracts here….

If it's a three-day qualification, and they go onto the grid system — they're

now on an assignment that's longer than the three days — they, of course,

would receive the grid level that now has encompassed in it the 7½ percent over

the three years. Those days that they first worked, the retroactive days, would

also be included in it.

J. Kwan:

There is fierce competition now between the districts and the services of

teachers on call. Those who are on a daily rate, especially in the more remote

districts…. Even the employer recognizes that fact. They have proposed in

negotiations to increase the daily rate for teachers on call to $190. They have

recognized the difficulties, especially in the remote areas, of ensuring that

they're competitive in trying to attract teachers to the table who are on call

on a daily rate. They have proposed an increase of the lowest salary to $190 and

for those who are making $190 now, to increase it by 7½ percent.

Why

wouldn't this government, this minister, accept the employer's proposal,

especially when the government suggests that they respect local district

differences and want to give them flexibility? This legislation limits the

ability of local districts, especially those in the remote areas, to attract and

compete for teachers on call who are on a daily rate.

Hon. G.

Bruce: With all due respect, I'm really trying to get to the answer this

member is looking for. We've canvassed it a number of different ways.

We chose

not to accept the employer's offer. We chose not to accept the BCTF offer. We

have brought through a proposal here in legislation. We thought it was incumbent

that every teacher receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. I'll qualify

that so that we don't have to go through this again. That would be every teacher

on the grid system. We understand that there are teachers on call. There are

about 6,000. You've mentioned that. We know that. It's been said.

[1250]

We made

that decision because we thought it was important that every teacher who's in

that category on the grid would receive a 7½ percent increase over three years.

That was our decision. That's what this legislation says, and that's what we're

doing.

J. Kwan:

I think it's unfortunate. The minister and this government claim that they

want to put students first in the classroom. They want to give flexibility to

districts to attract and retain teachers, and yet on the issue of on-call

teachers, those who are on a daily rate — of which there are some 6,000 in

British Columbia, and approximately 60 percent are young and female — would

receive a zero, zero and zero increase over the next three years, in spite of

the recommendation and the suggestions made by the employer at the negotiating

table. That is for the rate to be changed to $190 in-

[ Page 949 ]

stead of for those who are now lowest in the province — the city of Merritt

actually has the lowest rate right now in British Columbia — and for those who

are at $190 to receive a 7½ percent increase.

The

minister has chosen not to accept that and include that in this

section of the

bill — to apply the 2½, 2½, and 2½ over three years for all teachers, not

setting two classes of teachers, those who are on call and those who are not. I

think that's most unfortunate. I think the minister and the government should

recognize the recognition the employer has already made at the bargaining table

in terms of the importance of this provision as it relates to salary for

teachers on call.

I'd like to

move an amendment to

section 2(1)(b). That

section is amended to read:

[the

provisions that have been negotiated and accepted by both parties during

collective bargaining, whether or not such acceptance was conditional on

acceptance of another bargaining proposal.]

This amendment has been tabled with the Clerk. I would ask the Clerk

to please give a copy of the amendment to the minister for his information.

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Thank you for the copy of the amendment. Does this amendment add

cost?

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, speaking to the amendment.

J. Kwan:

As far as I understand, it doesn't.

The

Chair: As far as our understanding, this amendment does not add cost to

government, and it is in order. Would you like to respond to that?

[1255]

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry; I didn't hear the minister's response to the amendment. I was

wondering whether or not the minister is interested in accepting the amendment.

The amendment does not add cost. It speaks to a process question.

The

Chair: I have ruled on the acceptability of the amendment, so I'm putting

the question now.

J. Kwan:

Just to be clear, as I mentioned earlier, the amendment does not add cost to the

collective agreement. It simply speaks to changing the negotiation process and

the provisions that have been negotiated and accepted by both parties during

collective bargaining. The major change is to ensure that, whether or not such

acceptance was conditional on acceptance of another bargaining proposal. It's a

change to the process. I think it is an important component to add to the

process, so of course I would urge the government members to support this

amendment. It is not substantive in nature. It is a minor amendment in relation

to the bargaining process.

Hon. G.

Bruce: There were three items that both parties had agreed to. Those three

items are included in this bill, so this government on this side of the House

will not be supporting this amendment.

The

Chair: The question is the amendment to

section 2(1)(b).

Amendment

negatived on division.

[1300]

Section 2

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 72

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

The

Chair: We'll just give a few moments for members to go about their

duties before we proceed with

section 3.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

[1305]

section 3.

Kwan: My question to the minister…. Does he need to wait for his

staff?

Interjection.

Kwan: What is the purpose of this section?

Hon.

G. Bruce: What

section 3 does is provide for a dispute resolution

process. There were three items that the parties had agreed to. What this

does is allow that if there's any misunderstanding or misinterpretation by

[ Page 950 ]

the parties in this respect, there's a dispute resolution process in

place to deal with those three items.

Kwan: What possible purpose would this serve if there are only three

items agreed to, as the minister says? Can the minister tell us what those

three items are?

Hon.

G. Bruce: The first item is

article A.8. This states that any

legislative changes that impact the collective agreement will be reviewed by

a committee. The parties will meet to make modifications to the collective

agreement that are legally possible in order to achieve the intent of the

collective agreement. If the parties cannot agree on the necessary

modifications, it will be left up to an arbitrator to add, delete or amend

the articles affected by the legislation.

The

second is letters of intent and understanding on school district housing.

For those districts that provide housing for teachers, a committee of local

teachers and school district officials will be made to address any issues.

If the local committee cannot resolve the issues, a provincial committee of

representatives will address the issues. The provincial committee will also

prepare a report for government four months after its first meeting to

address and/or outline any issues arising from school housing. This relates

to remote communities and is a relatively small number. I believe there are

17 districts.

The

third issue of agreement was that the provincial sexual harassment language

will apply to the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association. In 1996 the

parties agreed to a provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment.

One school board, the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association, was

red-circled and not party to the provincial language. With this agreement,

the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association is no longer red-circled

and is a part of the provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment.

Kwan: The minister acknowledges that there were only three items agreed

to. One may ask: why is that? Surely the minister must agree that the

government's constant interference in the process by removing the incentive

for the employer to get to the bargaining table is a major problem in

impeding progress at the bargaining table and in the negotiation process.

Hon.

G. Bruce: I'm not sure I see the relevance, in respect to that question,

section 3. We've canvassed it in second reading. The member knows all too

well how long the negotiating process has taken to get to here and how

little movement there was by either party over the course of the life of

this process of ten months.

Kwan: Actually, the government brought in essential services legislation

back in August. At that time the minister said this was going to accelerate

negotiations, perhaps, and that it would not disrupt the negotiation

process. It would, in fact, resolve many of the issues at the table. Many

people predicted at the time that that would not happen, that it was going

to encumber the bargaining process.

[1310]

every turn, when government interferes and intervenes in the bargaining

process, it inhibits the employer's incentive to actually get the matters

resolved. Perhaps that's why we've only been able to arrive at three items

on the table — because the incentive for the employers to engage has

simply been taken away. Continuously, members of the executive council have

spoken out in public to say that they would bring in legislation to

legislate the teachers back on a collective agreement. That is perhaps the

reason why we've arrived at only three items.

there a level of complexity to any of those provisions such that the parties

wouldn't understand what they have agreed to?

Hon.

G. Bruce: This provision is what you might term a fail-safe provision. I

would hope that the parties would be able to agree as to what they've

actually agreed to already on those three items. But in the course of

bringing through a legislated settlement such as we are here, we're just

making sure there's a provision available so that if, of the three items,

there is some difficulty in remembering what it was they both had agreed to,

we have a provision that we can arbitrate that dispute. That's what this

section does.

Kwan: The parties had agreed to the wording of several other proposals,

subject only to the agreement of a larger package. Some of those items that

were nearly agreed to include mileage, tax receipts for purchase of

supplies, new teacher mentorship programs, president's leave, etc. Will the

minister include those provisions as agreed to for the purposes of this

section of the act?

Hon.

G. Bruce: These were the only three items that were presented to me as

formally signed off by both parties.

Kwan: Then that is to say that the items that were agreed to — and

there were several items that were agreed to, subject to the larger package

— would not be included for the purposes of this act?

Hon.

G. Bruce: No, they would not be.

Kwan: I'd like to move an amendment to

section 3(1) at this time.

Section 3(1) is amended by deleting the phrase "by the minister"

and adding the phrase "under the grievance and arbitration provisions

of the collective agreement," to read:

["If there is a dispute as to what provisions have been

agreed to by the parties for the purpose of

section 2(1)(b), either

party may, within 60 days from the day on which this Act comes into

force, refer the dispute to an arbitrator appointed under the grievance

and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement."]

[ Page 951 ]

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and we would ask

that a copy please be given to the minister.

The

Chair: After looking at the amendment, it seems to be in order. We will

carry on.

On the

amendment.

Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaking to the amendment.

The

purpose of the amendment, again, is not one about money but rather one

around process, so that in the process, instead of simply having the

minister appoint an arbitrator…. This is the

section that deals with the

resolution of disputes between the agreed provisions. In the name of

fairness, I think, and in the interests of independence, to ensure there is

a perception — an actual feel — of independence in the process, the

arbitrator ought to be appointed not by the minister but rather under the

grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement.

That is

what this amendment is speaking to. I would ask the minister whether or not

he agrees with the issue of independence in reality and in perception.

Hon.

G. Bruce: We believe that

section 3 as it's written is written in an

adequate way that will protect both parties, so the government will not be

supporting this amendment.

[1315]

Kwan: Will the minister explain to the House what the difference is

between the motion, as the act stands now, for the appointments to be made

by the minister versus that under the grievance and arbitration provisions

of the collective agreement?

Hon.

G. Bruce: I have made clear the position of the government. The

government will not be supporting this amendment. We believe the provisions

that are in the act as presented are sufficient to look after any of the

issues that may arise.

Kwan: I'm not asking the minister whether or not he agrees with the

amendment. I'm asking the minister whether he knows the difference between

what is in the act now versus the proposed amendment on the issue around

process. Maybe the minister can explain to the House what the process is

under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement

in this instance.

Hon.

G. Bruce: With the greatest of respect, this is your amendment. If you'd

like to explain it, go right ahead. The position of the government is that

we will not accept this amendment. The fact of the matter is that we believe

we are properly covered by

section 3, which applies to these same

circumstances.

Kwan: I know very well that this is my amendment. The question is: did

the minister understand, when he rose and said that he as a government is

satisfied by the provision as it is laid out now in the act, that there is

indeed a difference between what is being proposed — that is, for the

appointment to be made under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the

collective agreement? If the member doesn't know there is a difference and

what the difference is, then I would like to get a sense of how he arrives

at the notion that his provision that he has put into the act is the right

one. I'm trying to get an understanding from the minister on what elements

he took into consideration to arrive at that decision.

Hon.

G. Bruce: Unless I misunderstood the member opposite about five or six

minutes ago, I thought I heard a tone that there was an inquiry as to why we

even needed

section 3. At any rate, I'll be clear again. This is your

amendment. If you would like to wax eloquent on the differences between what

your amendment is and what it is that we've put before you in

section 3 of

this bill, obviously it's your opportunity to do so. The government believes

that the bill as written,

section 3, is sufficient to look after the

concerns that have been expressed. Therefore, I'll mention again that the

government will not be supporting this amendment.

[1320]

Kwan: I'll take from that answer that the minister actually doesn't know

about the difference. He simply wants to adopt a biased approach — if not

in reality, at least in perception — whereby the arbitrator would be

appointed by the minister, rather than adopting an option whereby the

grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement allow for

the parties to actually agree on an arbitrator so that there is agreement on

both sides with respect to the appointment of an arbitrator.

there were to be no agreement, if there were a dispute between the two sides

in terms of who the arbitrator ought to be, then the matter would be

referred to the head of the provincial arbitrator bureau. That process would

make certain that there was a reality and a perception of independence and

fairness to any dispute arising. In the interest of rebuilding….

I think

of the atmosphere that has been created by this government, the poisonous

atmosphere, as a result of this act. One would have thought the minister

would agree to this minor change as a hand being offered to both sides —

the employer and the teachers — in a conciliatory way, in a cooperative

manner, to ensure that there is at minimum a perception of fairness and

independence with respect to dispute resolution. That's why this process is

absolutely critical to what's happened to date in terms of the poisonous

environment this government has chosen to impose on our education system.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, please. Members, would you mind having a little order,

please.

[ Page 952 ]

[1325]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

NAYS — 72

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

Section 3

approved on division.

section 4.

Kwan: My first question to the minister is: is the minister aware that

neither party raised this matter during the negotiations for the new

collective agreement or for the previous collective agreement?

Hon.

G. Bruce:

Section 4, in our view, is a commonsense approach. We have 60

districts; we should have 60 agreements.

Kwan: Let me try this question again: is the minister aware that neither

party raised the matter during negotiations for this new collective agreement

or, for that matter, for the previous collective agreement?

Hon.

G. Bruce: The Minister of Education, through her travels — and they have

been extensive, going from district to district — found on a number of

occasions, in dealing and talking with different boards, that in the

amalgamated districts they had to manage several agreements. In fact, I

believe one district has three agreements that they have to manage. As we

said, this is a commonsense approach. There are 60 districts, and the view was

that there should be 60 agreements. That's what this act provides for.

[1330]

Kwan: I know what the act provides for. The question was that at the

bargaining table, during the negotiations between the employer and the

teachers, this issue was never brought up by either side, not only for this

collective agreement but also for the one previous. It was not an issue. Why

would the minister see a need to fix a problem that actually didn't exist? It

didn't exist for the teachers or for the employer.

Hon.

G. Bruce: We thought this was a commonsense way. There are 60 school

districts in the province. There was an amalgamation process that the previous

government put in place. They were unable at that point, for whatever reason I

don't know, to amalgamate those agreements after they amalgamated the

districts. We believe that in the commonsense application of this, if there

are to be 60 districts, there should be 60 agreements. I believe it affects

nine agreements here.

Kwan: The districts and the teachers unions chose to preserve the separate

arrangements in spite of the amalgamation of school districts. Wouldn't the

minister agree that this one-size-fits-all on all of these districts goes

against the government's mantra on the issue around flexibility and choice?

Hon.

G. Bruce: I'd just like to be clear. The districts had indicated that this

was difficult — a lot of administrative time spent dealing with two

agreements. We're very clear what's here — nothing untoward in all of this.

The fact of the matter is that rather than having that administrative time,

the cost and expense of trying to administer two different agreements, we can

best put those resources where they ought to be, and that's in putting

students first. That's what this is all about, and that's what we're doing.

Kwan: Actually, the fact of the matter is: if it was an issue for the

employer, it would have been raised at the bargaining table. It wasn't — not

this round, not the last round. The government now has only just made it into

a problem in their own heads. Otherwise, the employer would have raised this

as an issue, and it wasn't in the last round of bargaining. The problems or

concerns or whatever they are that exist in the minister's head exist only in

the minister's head. Otherwise, they would appear on the bargaining table.

The

employer didn't raise it as an issue. In fact, in the last round people wanted

to keep the separate arrangements because they recognized that between the

districts there were differences. That goes to the issue of flexibility and

choice. Perhaps the minister only sees flexibility and choice in his limited

vision of what that is, and those concerns only exist in his own head and

actually not with the employers.

[ Page 953 ]

Can the

minister assure this House that no teacher will lose money as a result of the

imposition of this bill?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Not to go back to that other discussion we had, every teacher

will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½, which is 7½ percent over three years.

Kwan: Let me repeat the question slowly this time for the minister so that

he can answer the question. The question is: can the minister assure this

House that no teacher will lose money as a result of the imposition of this

bill, as it relates to

section 4, through amalgamation?

Hon.

G. Bruce: To be clear and respectful, as I understand it, all teachers in

this situation will receive the same salary and the increases.

[1335]

Kwan: I know the minister is having difficulties in understanding the

question. The question is: will any teachers lose money, lose their income or

have a reduction in their income as a result of this bill and

section 4 under

the amalgamation scheme?

MacPhail: Just say no.

Hon.

G. Bruce: I tried "no" one other time on an issue, and we spent

15 minutes on it. I thought this time I would try a different thing, and maybe

we could move along.

MacPhail: If you're not answering any questions, just say no.

Hon.

G. Bruce: Well, if you would like "no," I'll give you

"no."

Kwan: Where in the bill do we find that assurance?

Hon.

G. Bruce: The intent in this provision of

section 4 is that teachers

coming across on the grids will not receive less money and will receive the 2½,

2½ and 2½.

Kwan: In fact, we know that seven teacher groups set out in the table in

this

section will face a reduction in salary, starting with the second year of

the imposed agreement. The communities or districts where teachers will lose

salary as a result of amalgamation are Kimberley, Golden, Princeton, Lake

Cowichan, Kitimat, Armstrong and Burns Lake. Will the minister confirm that

this is, in fact, not the case?

The

information I've received indicates that the teachers at category 5, at

maximum, will lose $1,800 in their salary. The teachers at category 6 in

Kimberley will lose $2,505. The teachers in Golden at category 5, at maximum,

will lose $300. The teachers in Princeton at category 6, at maximum, will lose

$160. The teachers at Lake Cowichan at category 5, at maximum, will lose $640.

The teachers in Kitimat at category 5, at maximum, will lose $370. In Kitimat,

again, teachers at category 6, at maximum, will lose $670. Teachers in

Armstrong at category 5, at maximum, will lose $100. The teachers at Burns

Lake at category 5-plus, at maximum, will lose $5,000, and teachers at

category 6, at maximum, will lose $1,300.

Hon.

G. Bruce: Be very clear, as it's stated here, that for the districts that

have more than one agreement, we are amalgamating the agreements. We are not

amalgamating the grid. By not amalgamating the grid, we're ensuring that every

teacher does not lose any money and will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the

course of the three years.

Kwan: The issue in terms of the loss in salary for the teachers in the

districts that are being amalgamated….

Interjections.

Kwan: I'm sorry. Perhaps the minister is not interested, and perhaps the

members of this House are not interested.

Earlier

we discovered that some 6,000 teachers across British Columbia who are on call

on the daily rate would not receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ in salary increase

over the next three years. They will in fact receive zero, zero and zero for

three years, in spite of the fact that the minister, outside of the House and

in the House, has said that all teachers will receive 2½, 2½ and 2½ over

three years. That information was, in fact, incorrect, as we discovered in

this House as we were debating

section 2 of this act.

[1340]

Now we

have arrived at

section 4 of this act on the issues around amalgamation as

they impact teachers in terms of their salaries, particularly for the areas

where they are amalgamated together — even though the employer did not raise

this as an issue and the teachers didn't raise this as an issue. It was an

issue that somehow existed in the minister's head.

We now

find these concerns being imposed in this legislation. I want to be certain

that there is no misunderstanding, no misinformation like that suggested by

the Minister of Education that all teachers will receive the 7½ over three

years when, in fact, 6,000 teachers across British Columbia would not. I want

to make sure that facts are actually tabled here in this House, debated in

this House and clarified in this House so that there is no misunderstanding or

misinformation.

On the

question around amalgamation as it relates to teachers. The information, as I

mentioned, for the teachers under the different categories in seven areas,

actually, as we understand the way in which the act is written, has an impact

on their salary. It is actually a salary reduction — in some cases very,

very significant. In the case of Burns Lake, we're looking at a $5,000

reduction. It's not a small amount of money. It's a large amount of money in

Burns Lake, especially in these areas where it is difficult to attract and

retain teachers.

[ Page 954 ]

I want to

make sure that there is no misunderstanding. I want to make sure that the

minister explains clearly in this House what the protections are for these

teachers, what protections are not in place for them and what they stand to

lose.

Hon.

G. Bruce: Under

section 4, the amalgamation of the district agreements,

there are nine extra district agreements, and we are amalgamating them so that

there will be just one. We are not amalgamating the grids, and by so doing, it

ensures that every teacher on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½

and will not lose any money.

Kwan: The minister says he's not amalgamating the grids, but the grids are

part of the agreements that are now void. The collective agreements through

this act, if it is passed in this House, when it is passed in this House, are

no longer in place. They will now be void. Is the minister suggesting that

there would be different grids that would apply in one district in one

agreement?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Over the course of this agreement, yes.

Kwan: I wonder, then, if the minister can point out in the legislation

where it spells that out clearly — that there would be two grids and one

agreement, that the salaries of the teachers would exist under two different

grids and that the salaries of the teachers would not be reduced when they go

through the amalgamation through this agreement.

Hon.

G. Bruce:

Section 4, "Amalgamation," with respect to the grids

and teachers. The grids will remain in regards to those districts. Teachers

will not be reduced in any salaried categories. They will receive the 2½, 2½

and 2½ percent increase. That is what we are attempting to do here under

section 4.

Kwan: Is the grid part of the agreement or not?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Yes, it is.

[1345]

Kwan: If the minister suggests that through the amalgamation there would

be two grids, as it applies in one agreement…. Quite honestly, I don't see

that it actually says that under

section 4. I don't see it at all. Maybe the

minister can point me to the line and the words that actually say that so that

I will know and so the teachers who are impacted will know that there is

absolute protection. Although I suppose that, even if it was written in the

act, it could be overwritten, because this government promises they will tear

up agreements just because they feel like it.

Nonetheless,

I want to go through the process to make sure that at least in this agreement

that we're now talking about, in this legislation, it is actually written in

here in black and white.

Hon.

G. Bruce: The intent of this was to bring some common sense to the aspect

of having two agreements in one district. That's what we're doing: bringing

one agreement to the district. We want it to be very clear that no teachers

would receive any less money because of the two agreements coming together. By

policy, we've said that would be the case and that at the end of the three

years, the parties, in dealing with the actual grids, can work out how those

grids ought to happen. What we're trying to do here is to have 60 agreements,

60 districts and none of the teachers on the grids to lose any money and all

to receive 2½, 2½ and 2½.

Kwan: Then I would ask that the minister stand down this

section and write

in the clarification to ensure that the teachers who are impacted by this

amalgamation will in fact not lose salary and that there would be two grids in

one agreement so that it is clear that there is no misunderstanding. The

minister could easily do that: stand down this

section —

section 4, on

amalgamation — to make sure it is clear and that there would be no dispute

afterwards.

Hon.

G. Bruce: I think we've been clear, and I've stated it. I'll state it

again, if you need me to state it. We've made it through policy. The reason

why we're doing this is to have the two agreements come together in regards to

the district. What we're talking about is the fact that this will run for the

three years. No teacher will receive any less money because of the

amalgamation. Every teacher that's on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½

and 2½. That's what we're attempting to achieve here, and I believe that's

what we'll do.

MacPhail: I think, for the benefit of all government members, that they

might listen to the counsel of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant,

because what the government is now doing is creating a brand-new type of

agreement that's never existed before. They're doing it through silence in

legislation. There will now apparently be — is it nine or ten? —

agreements that will have, for the very first time in their history, two

grids. That's never existed before, and all of a sudden, teachers — covered

by districts of members who sit here in the Legislature — will have to take

it on the word of the Minister of Labour that there will be an agreement, for

the very first time, with two grids.

I expect

that there would be thousands of teachers affected by this who would like

assurances beyond just the word of the Minister of Labour that there is a new

type of agreement being created. I fail to understand what the difficulty is.

Of course, we could walk away from this chamber, and teachers would be left

with the word of the minister with no substance behind it, assuming that they

have one agreement, two grids. But they have no protection to turn toward, Mr.

Chair. I assume that the Minister of Labour speaks from his heart and speaks

factually and has the support of his cabinet that there will now be two grids.

Therefore, I don't understand what the harm is in a technical amendment

clarifying that.

[1350]

The

downside of not clarifying that is to leave teachers at risk that their

agreement in columns B and

[ Page 955 ]

C is void, including the grid which is now part of that agreement. It's

very, very risky business to leave this unspecified in legislation.

Hon.

G. Bruce: I've been very clear, and I'll state it again. The purpose of

this act is to bring the two agreements together. We have districts that have

combined multi-agreements. The purpose is so that we can deal with one

agreement per district. Also, we wanted to make sure that all teachers that

were on the grid system didn't lose any money by the amalgamation of the

agreements and that they would receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. We've made that

clear, and we're hopeful that with the negotiating process at the end of this

contract the parties can find a way to bring the grids together as would best

suit their districts.

Kwan: Let me help the minister out, then. I have an amendment to table.

I'd like to move an amendment to

section 4 by adding

section 4.1 as follows:

[

(4.1) Notwithstanding

section 4, where the agreements referred

to in column C contain salary provisions which are superior to those

contained in the corresponding agreement referred to in column A, the

superior provisions of the column A agreement shall remain part of the

collective agreement constituted under

section 2(1) of this Act.]

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I

would ask that the Clerk give the minister a copy.

I would

trust that the minister would not have a problem with this amendment, because

that's what he said. He said that where there are two different rates in

different districts now amalgamated into one and where there are two different

grids as they apply in terms of the rates, the teachers' salaries would be

protected. That's what this amendment speaks to, and that is the intent as I

understand it from the minister, so he ought not to have a problem with this

amendment.

The

Chair: Thank you, member. I've had a chance to look at the amendment, and

I find it out of order. It's a direct negative to

section 4.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I understand your capacity here to rule. Perhaps,

then, the minister could say if this is out of order, even though it reflects

exactly the comments made by the minister. Not to deal with your remarks, Mr.

Chair….

I'm a bit

taken aback, because this amendment reflects exactly what the minister himself

has said. The government is trying to bring stability to the education system,

and after today it is going to take all of our energies to bring stability to

the education system.

In ten

different, direct districts at least there will be teachers who will wake up

tomorrow morning in a state of absolute confusion about what they're being

paid. All this amendment was doing was reflecting the comments of the minister

himself. Therefore, it comes as a surprise to us that this in any way would be

contrary to the intent of the legislation, seeing as how it reflects merely

his own words.

[1355]

I do

understand that many would like to believe that the word of this Minister of

Labour is enough. But I also expect, given the passing of time and the

changing of personalities and representatives, that teachers who are showing

up each and every day to work in the Rocky Mountain area, in Kimberley,

Golden, Princeton, Cowichan or the Coast Mountains just want to know what

salary grid they're on. That's all this amendment does. I don't know. Maybe

the minister could read into the record that he supports the content of the

amendment so at least teachers have words of legal language upon which to

rely.

Hon.

G. Bruce: To be clear, again, it's the position of this government that we

are amalgamating the multiple agreements that are found in nine districts

throughout the province. It is the government's intent that all parties…. No

teachers will receive less money in regards to moving across in those

agreements. They will also receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the course of the

three years, in the agreement as it applies, and I will give this House an

undertaking that I'll write to both parties to ensure that is the policy they

understand to be the case.

Kwan: All we have right now is that the Chair has ruled this amendment,

which simply clarifies the differential in pay grids through the amalgamation

and that the superior pay grids would supersede and would still be retained in

this legislation…. The intent of this amendment has been ruled by the Chair

to be out of order, contrary to your own words, hon. minister, where you said

that is exactly the intent of this amendment. Now the Chair has ruled that

it's against your intent.

[1400]

I'm

getting the sense from you that it is, in fact, your intent that those

amalgamated districts where they have salary grids superior to those they are

amalgamated to would have a lower grid supersede. I want to make sure that

that is in place, so that it's not your word, but rather that it is actually

in place. I'm simply asking the minister; maybe he can just say yes. That's

all I need in Hansard . My question is: will the minister accept the

following?

[That, notwithstanding

section 4, where the agreements referred

to in column C contain salary provisions which are superior to those

contained in the corresponding agreement referred to in column A, the

superior provisions of the column A agreement shall remain part of the

collective agreement constituted under

section 2(1) of this act.]

Just a simple yes or no.

Hon.

G. Bruce: I'll reiterate what I said before: I would give this House an

undertaking that I will write both parties to ensure that they understand the

policy of this government in regards to the amalgamation of the contracts —

the agreements that were there through the nine districts that had multiple

contracts — and that, with the amalgamation of those contracts, no teacher

on the grid system would lose any money.

[ Page 956 ]

All teachers on the grid system would receive that 2½ percent increase.

MacPhail: We have a ruling from the Chair saying that this amendment is

against the intent of the legislation. Now, I accept the goodwill of the

Minister of Labour that he will write a letter, but when one goes in to

examine legislation, Hansard debate is what rules. We have legislation

that is completely contrary to the words of the minister. In fact, the Chair

has said that. The Chair has said that the legislation is contrary to this

amendment, or this amendment is contrary…. Well, it works both ways,

actually, but I agree. I'll clarify my words: the amendment is contrary to the

intent of the minister's legislation.

My gosh,

if you're a teacher in Creston, Kaslo or Princeton or North

Okanagan–Shuswap, you'd want that confusion to be straightened out. I would

expect that you, in good faith, would want to clarify a ruling of the Chair

that says such an amendment is contrary to your legislation — not with a

letter but with your own amendment. The government should bring in its own

amendment, then, to clarify. You're talking about thousands of teachers who

have no idea what they're going to be paid tomorrow.

Hon.

G. Bruce: I've been very clear on this. I've made the political commitment

on behalf of government on what this explanation is in regards to

section 4

— how it will affect teachers. I'll just reiterate that where the districts

that have multiple agreements are amalgamating, by virtue of this piece of

legislation, the grid, as it applies in respect to teachers that are on the

grid system…. Nobody will lose any money, and all of those teachers that are

on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½.

MacPhail: Well, with this state of absolute confusion around this issue,

we'll just have to wait and see what teachers say tomorrow about the lack of

legislative protection. This is an imposition of the government itself. This

is being imposed by the government. The government's own imposition has

created a state of confusion for teachers — I expect hundreds, if not

thousands, of teachers — throughout this province.

[1405]

I expect

tomorrow teachers will say: "I have no idea. I can only assume I'm taking

a pay cut." Regardless of the personal intent of the minister, some

teachers may doubt the veracity of his word. That's all I'm saying. Tomorrow

there will be hundreds of teachers who will wake up and say: "I'm not

reassured by the individual commitment of one minister, when the legislation

says exactly the opposite."

Let me

see whether I can clarify another example about what teachers should think

about what they're being paid tomorrow morning as a result of the government

imposing an amalgamation of agreements. Let's talk about the daily rates of

agreements under the amalgamation. Let's just talk about the daily rates.

Now, what

we know about the daily rate for teachers, the 6,000 teachers who often are

given assignments where they're paid only the daily rate…. The daily rate in

the Princeton agreement is more than $190 per day. That Princeton agreement,

to quote the legislation, is being made "void and cease to have any

effect." We know the people on daily rate are getting zero, zero and zero

over the course of the next three years. We know now, because of the

government's refusal to amend the legislation, that the Princeton agreement is

null, void and ceases to have any effect and will go under the Merritt

agreement.

The daily

rate in the Merritt agreement is $117 per day. What will be the daily rate for

teachers who are now being paid $190 under the Princeton agreement?

[1410]

Hon.

G. Bruce: To be clear on this, there are the nine districts we talked

about that have multiple agreements. The way some of those agreements are

being amalgamated, as I'm sure you're aware, depends on which agreement is the

larger with respect to membership. Some agreements will go up, and some will

go down.

With the

daily call-out rates, those that are going to an amalgamated area where the

daily rate is higher will go up, and those that are going to an amalgamated

area where the daily rate is lower will go down, but they will go to the grid

when they work their one day or their three days. They will go to the grid,

and after they're there the three days, they will get whatever that grid

actually reflects on it. That's the process of what

section 4 is all about.

Kwan: This is very, very disappointing. Just to be clear, with this

legislation that we're debating right now, teachers will, in fact, receive a

reduction in salary — not just as when we discussed earlier the 6,000

teachers who would receive zero, zero and zero for three years. Now we

discover that teachers will actually receive a reduction in their salary.

The

teachers in Princeton, where their daily rate now is $190 or over, would

actually receive a lower rate, because they're being amalgamated to a district

with a lower salary, of $117. They're being amalgamated to the lowest rate in

the province — Merritt — which is $117 on a daily rate. To be clear,

teachers now under this legislation imposed by this government…. Not only

will 6,000 teachers receive zero, zero and zero over three years, teachers

will actually also receive a reduction in their salary.

[1415]

Hon.

G. Bruce: Let's be clear. We're talking about the teacher in this instance

that doesn't go onto the grid system — that is, the daily call-out teacher.

That's what we're talking about. In some instances, that daily call-out will

go up. In some instances, that daily call-out will go down. Much of the time,

the teacher goes onto the grid system beyond the three days or whatever the

average is across the province relative to the agreements they have. Where

that is, all those teachers will receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. That's 7½ over the

three years of this collective agreement.

[ Page 957 ]

Kwan: Just to be clear. The salaries of the teachers in the Princeton

agreement in the district here — those who teach in Princeton on an on-call

basis, who receive a daily rate, which is $190 now — will be reduced to the

lowest rate in the province — $117. Is that right?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Only if that teacher is on an assignment that is less than three

days.

Kwan: As was mentioned earlier, in fact, teachers are often called on for

assignments that are fewer than three days. They often are. The daily rate

right now for teachers in Princeton is $190. Through this legislation that has

been tabled by this government — imposed by this government — their daily

rate would actually be reduced to the lowest rate in the province, the same

rate that the teachers in Merritt are getting — $117. They will actually

receive a reduction in their salaries. Will the minister confirm the figures

for the Princeton teachers who are on a daily rate on-call? Are they receiving

$190 right now? Will their salaries be reduced to $117 for a daily rate after

this legislation passes?

Hon.

G. Bruce: This agreement was very much aimed at the aspect of full-time

teachers, to make sure that full-time teachers receive 2½, 2½ and 2½ which

is 7½ over three years under the collective agreement. We've been very clear

on this aspect of these two multiple agreements that we have with regard to

the nine districts of how we're merging them together at the end of the three

years. The parties can work out the grid system so that they can amalgamate

those grid systems in a way that would be best for them. That is a direction

we're taking in

section 4.

Kwan: Is the minister aware that the Merritt school district wrote to the

B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about

the low rate for the daily rate of on-call teachers?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Again I will reiterate the policy of what

section 4 says. We're

very focused on the aspect of our full-time teachers. We want to make sure

that all of our full-time teachers receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ — the 7½

percent increase in total over three years. That's what we're attempting to do

here. We have nine districts with multiple agreements. We're bringing those

agreements together. At the end of the three years, with the process of

negotiation, they can work out the differences on the grid.

[1420]

Kwan: The Merritt school district actually wrote to the B.C. Public School

Employers Association and asked them to do something about the low rate,

because Merritt has the lowest daily rate for on-call teachers in the entire

province. They could not get teachers to go there, because they have the

lowest rate in the province. The Merritt school district wrote to the B.C.

Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about it.

At the bargaining table the employer, the B.C. Public School Employers

Association, tabled to increase the daily rate for on-call teachers to $190

for Merritt so that the school district could try and get some on-call

teachers there.

This

legislation, this government, this minister have chosen now to ignore the need

of the students in Merritt, where on-call teachers are necessary to fill in

for teachers who might be sick, to fill in for teachers because of the teacher

shortage, because of the troubles and difficulties on the question around

retention. Now Princeton is going to be faced with the same problems that the

Merritt school district is faced with.

Is this

the net result that this minister wants to bring to our education system in

British Columbia? Does the minister think that this is in the best interest of

the students and that it would enhance the students' learning environment?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, please.

[1425]

Hon.

G. Bruce: Where a new teacher comes on as a TOC in that area that they're

at, they will go up or go down according to what that agreement is. In the

accepted practice in the districts, most of those teachers that are TOCs would

be red-circled. As I mentioned in respect to the grid system, if they go onto

the grid system, they would receive their 2½, 2½ and 2½ as they apply to

that grid system.

Kwan: Where does it say in the legislation that those teachers are

red-circled? Can the minister please identify specifically where in the act it

says that?

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please.

Hon.

G. Bruce: In respect to

section 4 here, we're very clear. What we were

trying to do in respect to that was to take the areas, the districts, that had

more than one certification, more than one agreement, and amalgamate them into

one. We were very focused on the fact that we had full-time teachers there. We

were looking to make sure that they would get a 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent

increase — 7½ over the course of the three years. That's what our focus has

been placed on here.

respect to the call-out — the teachers on call that you're talking about

here — as it goes across the province, there are differences. Some will go

up; some will go down. That's the point; that's what will happen when

agreements are amalgamated. The reason for us leaving it over that course of

the three years was so that districts with the bargaining unit could work out

a grid system they were in agreement with. That's what we're looking to

achieve.

The point

of this amalgamation of these agreements was to bring some common purpose in

regard to their agreements relative to that district. That's what we're

attempting to achieve.

[ Page 958 ]

Kwan: My question to the minister is: can he define

"red-circled" and how it would apply?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to come back to the point of what this

section

is about. We're talking about the fact that we have nine districts — okay?

We have an amalgamation of agreements that are….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. If you want to address, address through the Chair,

please.

[1430]

Kwan: Actually, my question was not to the answer the minister gave, but

rather my question is around red-circling, which he brought up a little while

ago. I'm asking the minister to define "red-circled" and how it

would apply. He said that those teachers whose salaries are higher would be

red-circled, so I'm asking the minister to define red-circling and how it

applies in this act.

Hon.

G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to come back to the principle of this act,

section 4, and the districts that have multiple agreements. The purpose of

this was to bring them into one agreement. We wanted to make sure that our

permanent, full-time teachers did not receive less. We've made sure of that.

We're looking for them to achieve a 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase over the

course of three years. Teachers who are on call in some districts will go up.

The new teachers coming on will be at the rate that's there. In regards to the

issue during the course of the three years, we're hopeful that the two parties

can work out a grid system that works for them in that system.

Kwan: Is the minister now suggesting that his earlier statements, where he

said those teachers' salaries would be red-circled, do not apply — that he

was actually wrong, and it was just simply a slip of the tongue?

Hon.

G. Bruce: Some districts, by policy, will red-circle, and that's what

they're intending to do.

MacPhail: Well, here we are, in a

section that affects hundreds of

teachers and thousands of students, and we're doing legislation by slip of the

tongue. That's what we're doing. Then, because the legislation is being

drafted by slip of the tongue, the minister is promising that he'll write a

letter to the various parties. In that letter, we now have that he will say to

the districts: "Trust me; your salary's not going to go down." Then

we heard that he'll say, "You'll be red-circled