2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Avalanche risk and back-country recreation

B. Bennett

Art of Johnson Su-sing Chow

J. Kwan

Pacific Assistance Dogs Society

J. Thornthwaite

Ridge Meadows Hospice Society

M. Sather

Richard Wruth and Vanderhoof Children's Theatre

J. Rustad

Fish and wildlife compensation program

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Agreement on naming rights for B.C. Place

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

M. Karagianis

Hon. P. Bell

Vancouver floatplane terminal contract

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

B.C. Place business plan

S. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

Log export policy and timber export advisory committee decisions

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

Release of media correspondence with government to Eminata Group

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act (continued)

M. Farnworth

J. Horgan

J. Brar

S. Hammell

K. Corrigan

S. Simpson

Hon. G. Abbott

G. Coons

B. Simpson

R. Austin

B. Ralston

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

M. Elmore

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

H. Bains

K. Conroy

G. Gentner

[ Page 10171 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: Joining us in the members' gallery this afternoon is the Ambassador of Finland to Canada, His Excellency Risto Piipponen, who is here today on an official visit to Victoria and, I believe, Mr. Speaker, had lunch with yourself and several members of the House at noon today. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Marjatta Piipponen. I would like to invite the House to make them feel very welcome.

S. Fraser: Visiting today is a good friend of the family, Haida Bolton. Haida lived in Ottawa during her high school years, during which time she felt her second home was the Parliament Buildings. This is because Haida's father was Lyle Kristiansen, the MP for Kootenay West from 1980-1984 and re-elected in 1988-1993 for Kootenay West–Revelstoke.

Today Haida is visiting us in the gallery in the Legislature. She hasn't been here since she was eight years old. Along with Haida is her friend Margie Parikh, who is also from Nelson, actually which is where Haida was originally born. She's currently a resident of Oak Bay. Along with them are friends Lonn Friese, Amisha Parikh-Friese and Liam Orme. Will the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Visiting us today from the great constituency of Langley are Dick Moes, Elsina Moes, Harry Moes, Martha Moes, Bert Moes and Wieke Moes. Accompanying them all the way from the Netherlands are Harold Moes, Ella Moes, Jan Houweling and Olga Houweling. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Today joining us in the gallery are two gentlemen that I had the opportunity to meet with earlier. They are with Air Liquide and contribute greatly to the economic well-being of our province, particularly in the northeastern part. Joining us are Laurent Rimano, who is the energy manager of large industries for Air Liquide, as well as Pierre Drolet, who is the vice-president of large industry for Air Liquide. Will the House please help me welcome them.

L. Popham: Joining us in the Legislature today is a delegation from Langley, some constituents of the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. This group is here to discuss the serious issues facing their community. We have members from the local community associations, local advocacy groups, as well as representation from members of Langley's founding farming families.

Following an invitation I had to visit Langley and meet with this group about their serious issues, they came over for lunch today in the continuation of highlighting the issues that are present in their community — protecting their community and farmland, which is clearly under attack.

The guests that I have in the House today are Hank Der, Megan Dykeman, Dave Stark, Connie Blundy, Frank Cox, David Davis, Earl Mufford, Nicholas Mufford, Peter Pretorius, Ilona Pretorius and Petrina Arnason. Welcome to the House.

D. Barnett: I am honoured today to have a constituent of mine in the House: Nancy Gale. She is in her 13th year of being the CEO of the Williams Lake Child Development Centre. She is a rotarian. She is a member of the Downtown Business Improvement Association, and she also teaches — early childhood education program. Her daughter Shirley-Pat Gale will be receiving from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the Queen's Jubilee Medal later this month.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, Members, please welcome a very honourable lady from my constituency, Nancy Gale.

L. Reid: It is my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from Mexico. Joining us in the gallery this afternoon are Rene Arcila, Auditor General, supreme audit office of the state of Yucatan; Louis Medicna, director of performance audit; and Francisco Mijares, special performance auditor of the state of Mexico audit office.

Over the lunch hour the delegation had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with members of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and are pleased to be part of this exchange. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

P. Pimm: I have a couple of constituents in the precinct today. I have the mayor of Hudson Hope, Karen Anderson, and the CAO of Hudson Hope, John Locher, with us today. Would you please help me make them welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Also joining us in the gallery today is a good friend of mine and a good friend of this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Roger Harris, who was formerly the MLA for Skeena and presently serves as our

[ Page 10172 ]

forest safety ombudsman. Will the House please welcome Roger.

M. Coell: Our former Clerk of the House, George MacMinn, is in the precinct today, and he has guests in the gallery: Dr. William Davis and Mrs. Davis. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — MOTION PICTURE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to introduce amendments in the Motion Picture Amendment Act for 2012. Under the Motion Picture Act, all theatres, distributors and businesses selling or renting motion pictures are licensed. The act also requires the classification of all motion pictures before exhibition in theatres and the classification of adult movies for sale and rental.

Amendments will update

definitions and introduce terms to reflect the modern digital age of the motion picture industry. The amendments will complete delegation to Consumer Protection B.C., the agency tasked since 2007 with administration of this act.

Also, the amendments will modernize the act's enforcement provisions. An updated progressive enforcement regime will introduce compliance orders, undertakings and administrative penalties. These enforcement tools from the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act give Consumer Protection B.C. the same tools used for the other sectors it regulates.

In addition, the amendments will align the statute with the Criminal Code's definition for obscenity. The definition for adult motion picture is updated, and the director will now only be able to approve or refuse to approve adult material in line with the Criminal Code standards. All other motion pictures for exhibition in theatres will be classified.

Together these amendments continue the protections currently in place for consumers, including laws on how adult and restricted movies are sold, displayed and exhibited. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

AVALANCHE RISK AND

BACK-COUNTRY RECREATION

B. Bennett: I'm speaking today about the extreme avalanche risk in the B.C. back country, hoping that we in the House might be able to raise the profile of the extraordinary dangers that are facing recreationalists right now in British Columbia.

Recently the Kimberley Search and Rescue made a dramatic rescue of a back-country skier from Hellroaring Creek, which is an area just southwest of Cranbrook. This is a spectacular mountain range in the Purcells that I've hiked in, in the summertime with my wife, but I can hardly imagine going there in the winter where these skiers were.

The search and rescue team evacuated the skier who had a fractured leg, dislocated shoulder, lacerations to the face and head, but he was still alive. The injured skier and his courageous female companion were highly experienced, and they did have transceivers, which is probably why he survived. Nonetheless, it took 15 search and rescue volunteers, two snowmobiles and a snowcat and many, many hours to rescue the injured man.

That same weekend in February a skier in the Meadow Mountain area of the West Kootenay, near Kaslo, was not so lucky. He didn't make it. Then a week ago a 33-year-old Alberta snowmobiler was buried and died in an avalanche just east of Sparwood. Ironically, that accident happened just a couple of hours after the Canadian Avalanche Centre issued its second warning to recreational users.

I'm told that avalanches this year are likely to be much bigger than usual and that this year they can be triggered from the bottom of the slope or even from a distance, given the extremely unstable nature of this winter's snowpack. Even less steep slopes and even in the trees where avalanches don't normally happen, the snow is highly unstable, complex with many weak layers, and fatally dangerous.

In the past seven years there have been 25 avalanche fatalities in B.C., 20 of which came from the sport of snowmobiling. So going into one of the most dangerous periods of the winter, right now over the next two or three weeks, I ask that all snowmobilers take the time to have the right equipment and perhaps consider taking a couple of weeks off.

[ Page 10173 ]

ART OF JOHNSON SU-SING CHOW

J. Kwan: Imagine an unfinished Chinese ink painting sitting on a table. A curious boy walks by and sees the unfinished painting. Filled with intrigue, he picked up the ink paintbrush next to the painting and began to paint. His mother saw what the boy was doing and scolded him for ruining his father's unfinished work.

When the boy's father, a scholar and an artist, returned home that evening and saw the painting, the boy was afraid that he was in trouble. However, instead of a reprimand, his father was delighted that his boy had an interest in art. He brought the painting to show others, and all agreed that the boy had talent.

That was a story that Prof. Su-sing Chow shared with Gabriel Yiu and me over lunch. That boy in the story is Professor Chow when he was nine years old. On February 21 Professor Chow celebrated his 90th birthday, and he's still running strong.

[1345]

The opening of the "Johnson Su-sing Chow at 90" art exhibition took place this past weekend at International Arts Gallery. Professor Chow, a world-renowned artist, has held more than 179 solo art exhibitions. To celebrate his love for art, to promote cultural exchange, he has generously donated his work to numerous museums.

Today museums internationally, including the National Gallery of Canada, hold collections of his work. Several cultural institutes have over 100 of his paintings as part of their permanent collection, and a selection of his calligraphy has been carved on a stone tablet and included in the Contemporary Scholars of Forest of Steles in Henan province, China. Professor Chow has published 36 volumes of his work and received over 150 arts awards and honours over the years.

As the founding president of the Chinese Canadian Artist Federation in Vancouver, Professor Chow works tirelessly to nurture local artists. He has generously donated his paintings to support local charities, and since 2006 in celebration of the lunar new year, Professor Chow penned a beautiful calligraphy poster that the official opposition has shared with members of the community. Professor Chow is a jewel of Chinese culture.

PACIFIC ASSISTANCE DOGS SOCIETY

J. Thornthwaite: Many British Columbians do not fully appreciate the challenges that people with disabilities experience day to day. Yet today there is a variety of dedicated people and organizations working across our province to mitigate these challenges.

It's my pleasure to commend the efforts of one such organization, called the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society, or PADS. PADS helps provide people with a physical disability or who are deaf or hard of hearing with an increased level of independence and, more importantly, an elevated quality of life. PADS' mission is to breed, raise, train and place assistance dogs with people across western Canada, as well as to provide long-term support to these client-dog teams for the duration of the dog's working life.

I encountered one of my constituents, a PADS volunteer named Karen Tregillas, in Park Royal mall this weekend. She was training her PADS dog, Riley II, a beautiful eight-month-old black Lab. PADS dogs make a real difference in their human companions' lives and serve a variety of functions based on individual needs.

Another constituent of mine, Monica Craver, told me:

"I used to have a PADS hearing dog many moons ago. She was a Pembroke Corgi named Minnie, a wonderful dog who helped me raise my then three young children during her 12 years of service. Minnie would lead me to any of my kids calling for mama from any room of the house. Otherwise, I would never know where they were or if they were in trouble. Minnie was a real peace of mind for me back then. Thanks, PADS."

This story only scratches the surface of the real difference that assistance dogs make in the lives of many British Columbians. On the North Shore we have seven puppies in training, five active volunteers involved in training puppies and dogs, and four working client-canine teams. I encourage every British Columbian to visit pads.ca to learn more about these amazing animal companions and how we can contribute to this most worthy cause.

RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPICE SOCIETY

M. Sather: In 1980 a former public health nurse, Edna Trethewey, recognized the need for emotional support to dying patients and their exhausted families as death draws near, as well as the need to provide support during the grieving process. Edna was the founder and first volunteer of hospice in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The Ridge Meadows Hospice Society was incorporated in 1987 and has grown to include nine staff members and 120 volunteers.

The decision to volunteer for the hospice society is a big commitment, as training to become a visiting volunteer takes 30 hours over three months. However, the course itself can bring deeply rewarding life changes by teaching active listening, being in the moment, non-judgment and acceptance. After the course volunteers are ready to visit the bedsides of patients at McKenney Creek or private homes. Their presence is a comfort to both patients and families.

Volunteers can further their training with the one-on-one bereavement support and group facilitation programs. Another option is to specialize in children's bereavement support, accompanied by support of the parent or guardian. The society also offers a weekly relaxation circle, where professionally trained instructors invoke deep relaxation to decrease depression and anx-

[ Page 10174 ]

iety, improve quality of life and quiet the mind and body.

[1350]

Finally, there is the Ridge Meadows Hospice Society Thrift Store, which uses the profits from donated goods to augment their funding. Currently 55 volunteers spend time at the thrift store, including people with developmental disabilities. As Executive Director Laura Cherrille delicately points out, the hospice society is an organization that every individual may benefit from at some point in their life. Death is not something that we like to contemplate, but it helps to know that the hospice society is there to make it easier.

RICHARD WRUTH AND

VANDERHOOF CHILDREN'S THEATRE

J. Rustad: Theatre has always been important in my life, and it's through theatre that I met my wife. Today I rise to speak about a person who found his passion right in his hometown of Vanderhoof. For the past 12 years Richard Wruth has been the volunteer director and producer of the non-profit Vanderhoof Children's Theatre.

Managing a group of dedicated, enthusiastic kids is no easy feat. There are usually 30 to 40 young actors of all ages to work with at once.

After auditions, rehearsals, costume fittings and long hours of painting sets, Richard manages to put on two incredible shows a year — all of this on top of running his own clothing story, California Dreamin'. The hard work is always well worth it in the end for Richard. His love for theatre and youth contributes to not only the success of the productions but to the personal growth of the kids as well.

In this inclusive environment kids gain important experience in public speaking, teamwork and leadership. Being part of a team that works so closely together under a driven role model like Richard Wruth builds work ethics, team spirit and, most importantly, self-esteem.

After putting some elbow grease into fundraising, these energetic performers will get to travel around the region and showcase their hard work to school groups and the general public. Playhouses always sell out, and the crowd is always impressed.

The success story of the Vanderhoof Children's Theatre would not have been realized if it weren't for the efforts of volunteers like Richard Wruth. It really does take an entire community to support the arts, and we're lucky in British Columbia to have such supportive community leaders.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMPENSATION PROGRAM

M. Mungall: In just nine days the people who staff B.C. Hydro's fish and wildlife compensation program will be leaving 333 Victoria Street, otherwise known as the Pink Building, in Nelson. Some of them have worked there for nearly three decades. Their work, mandated by the licences B.C. Hydro holds to operate multiple dams within the Kootenays, was essential to protecting fish and wildlife in the region.

Generating 50 percent of the province's electricity doesn't come without a price tag to our natural world. So the fish and wildlife compensation program was diligent in its efforts to mitigate any negative impacts.

The kokanee salmon in Meadow Creek spawning channels have benefited from this program. So have the endangered northern leopard frogs in the Creston Valley wildlife management area, and bighorn sheep and caribou too. Critters, large and small, with lungs and gills, have all benefited, and so have we.

On Kootenay Lake alone the fish and wildlife compensation program staff has conducted an angler survey, as well as one of the largest lake restoration projects in the world. They have worked with First Nations, community groups and local experts, forging strong relationships that give us the opportunities to work together for our region.

Now, without a plan or a new model for conducting this legally mandated work and with no public consultation, the knowledge of the fish and wildlife compensation program is moving on, and we will most certainly lose out.

Too many times have the Kootenays been blindsided by distant decisions on the electrical generation capacity of our region. Too many times has our natural environment been the casualty. The loss of seven staff in a valuable program that has picked up the pieces of those decisions rings too close to negative experiences of the past.

The fish, the wildlife, the people of the Kootenays deserve better. We deserve the expertise of the fish and wildlife compensation program.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members that these are two-minute statements.

Oral Questions

AGREEMENT ON NAMING RIGHTS

FOR B.C. PLACE

J. Horgan: Well, the long-negotiated TELUS naming rights at B.C. Place fiasco ended in spectacular fashion. But who would have thought that the excuses for that fiasco would have been even more spectacular?

[1355]

Just to recap for those who are scoring at home, initially the Premier said it was a bad deal for taxpayers. Then we heard from the minister responsible for big stuff that they wanted to keep the name B.C. Place. Then he changed his mind and said: "No. Actually, the signs were

[ Page 10175 ]

too big." Lastly, we heard that the Minister of Finance involved himself in the expenditure of public moneys, which is a useful thing, and he got in the middle and killed the deal.

My question to the Premier. My question to the Premier, on her year anniversary. After 12 months we've got higher ferry…. We've got….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Sadly, the anniversary present for the public isn't quite what it should have been. Twelve months later — higher ferry fares, higher hydro rates, higher MSP premiums, more stays in criminal proceedings, continued budget deficits, more raw log exports offshore, failures in the forest, a thousand jobs lost at B.C. Hydro.

I could go on, but let's just focus on the 40 million bucks you left on the table with TELUS. Will the Premier stand in her place and take responsibility for blowing 40 million bucks of taxpayer money?

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for acknowledging this date. I should say it has been an honour to serve British Columbians in the role as Premier for this last year.

Let me say this about the TELUS deal on B.C. Place. It's the same thing that I said last week, and it's the same thing that I've said since then, which is that it wasn't the right deal for taxpayers. We needed to make sure taxpayers had a better deal than that.

But you know, there are bumps in the road in any relationship. We do have a great relationship with TELUS, and I'll tell you why. We have a billion-dollar partnership that we've forged with TELUS since my government took over, and that billion-dollar partnership is going to save taxpayers a whole whack of money.

It's a great deal. Not every deal is a great deal, but this one is. It's going to save taxpayers about $400 million over its ten-year term.

I'm proud to say it's a partnership with a company headquartered here in British Columbia that supplies thousands and thousands of jobs. And if there's one thing that we're about on this side of the House, it's about enabling and protecting and creating jobs all across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: So many opportunities. It's difficult to pick one. I don't know how accountants budget a whole whack, but I do know what they do with $40 million. They're going to have to take it out of taxpayers' pockets.

We had a private sector company prepared to put up 40 million bucks. Two years ago the minister for big stuff said that $20 million "might not be too much to the member opposite, but to some of us in the world it would be a substantial amount of money." Before, the minister for big stuff said $20 million was a lot. Now $40 million isn't enough.

It may not be a big whack to the Premier, but how does she justify walking away in a time of deficit budgets? In a time when we've got a fire sale of public assets, how do you walk away from 40 million bucks?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, the contract with TELUS that we have is going to save taxpayers $400 million over a ten-year term. That's evidence of the relationship that we have with a great B.C.-based company.

I will say this. I know the NDP…. It's interesting to hear the member talk about where he thinks that $40 million will come from. For so many days in this Legislature I've been standing up and asking them where they think….

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: It is interesting to hear the member talk about where he thinks money will come from, because of course we have been standing…. Of course, the media has been regularly asking the Leader of the Opposition where he thinks all of the money that will go to fund the teachers' contract and other items for government would come from.

Finally, now the House Leader has come clean and said he knows where money comes from. It comes from taxpayers' pockets. Thanks for that admission.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Since the Premier arrived a year ago, she has been here sporadically. During that time $30 million….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

J. Horgan: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

J. Horgan: So $30 million for Boss Power, $6 million for the Basi-Virk trial, and now $40 million left on the table. I don't know where the Premier thinks this money will come from. We're selling assets on one side, and we're not taking money off the table from private sector companies.

I want to go back to the relationship, hon. Speaker, because the Premier said she had a good relationship with

[ Page 10176 ]

TELUS. So through you to her: have you ever sat down with Darren Entwistle and explained to him why you yanked the rug out from them after they went through all the trouble of wiring the building, buying the sign and getting ready to sponsor TELUS Park? Did you ever talk to Darren Entwistle? How's that relationship?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member likes to talk about what's happened in the last year. I'm happy to do that, because we should be talking about some of the things that have occurred in the last year — like, for example, 39,900 net new jobs, 9,000 of them in just this last month.

We also have seen progress on the Huckleberry mine, the Quinsam mine, New Afton, Red Chris, Bonanza Ridge, Mount Milligan. We see them clearing land for the first of the three LNG lines that will be up and running. We've seen Shell buy the property that they would potentially put an LNG terminal on. We've seen Mitsubishi commit $2.9 billion to EnCana to support LNG.

We've seen Alcan make one of the largest private sector investments that's ever been made in the history of the province. We have seen Western Forest Products demonstrate its confidence in the economy by investing $200 million in its operations on Vancouver Island, and we have landed an $8 billion shipbuilding contract that will put 4,000 people to work on Vancouver Island and in North Vancouver. Not bad for a year.

M. Karagianis: The Premier left off the list the biggest of them all: the HST fiasco that the people of British Columbia voted out. We didn't hear about that.

But on this TELUS story…. The B.C. Liberal government promised us, when we went $563 million into the hole for the B.C. Place roof and renovations…. They told us this was going to pay for itself. They had all kinds of deals set aside to have it pay for itself. But of course, we've seen every one of those deals fall through.

The casino deal disappeared. The TELUS deal — gone. What do we hear? Every single day it's a new excuse for the mismanagement of the B.C. Liberals.

"The signs are too big." "The deal is good." "The deal is bad." "They did it." "It's somebody else's fault." The finger-pointing goes everywhere but to the B.C. Liberal government — one lame excuse after the other. So it would seem to me that there's not a lot of great leadership going on over on the other side of the House on this or other issues.

[1405]

So on this anniversary that the Premier is celebrating…. She's had a year in office to get this job under her belt. I would like to know. The Premier has had a year to get this job under her belt. Let's see her stand up and take responsibility and sort out this mess she's made with B.C. Place.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite talks about leadership. Last fall, last November, the largest-ever trade mission in the history of the province of British Columbia, led by this Premier, to China, to India. Over 60 deals signed.

We're building one of the most exciting mining sectors that's ever happened in the province of British Columbia, with new mines across this province, significant investments in Tumbler Ridge, in Prince George, in Fort St. James, in Burns Lake, in Houston — right across this province. That's leadership.

Just last month — in forestry, fishing, mining and gas — an additional 1,400 jobs; in manufacturing, an additional 3,300 jobs; in trade, an additional 12,000 jobs. This province is building an economy that won't be stopped, and it's because of the leadership of this Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's talk about the companion list here — $40 million for the naming rights of B.C. Place gone, $30 million to Boss Power to pay off an action that this government admitted was illegal, $6 million to pay off convicted criminals in the B.C. Liberal corruption trial.

Let's just talk about the corruption trial itself. Biggest scandal in the history of this province — B.C. Rail sell-off. Millions of dollars wasted. Shredded HST brochures. All kinds of Liberal propaganda shredded.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: Hundreds of thousands of dollars gone down the drain. So how can the Premier stand here and expect that anyone would take this government seriously after blunder upon blunder upon blunder? And now the botched B.C. Place–TELUS deal.

Hon. P. Bell: We are at a time when it is very challenging globally. In fact, we're in very stormy economic times. It takes strong leadership through that stormy period that we're facing in this province. So this government has led the most aggressive strategy at increasing international investment ever in the history of any subnational government.

In fact, since 2007 we've grown lumber sales to China from under $100 million to $1.1 billion per year. But you know, those benefits expand across the province, and it's because of the leadership of this government and this Premier that we've seen an additional 4,800 jobs on Vancouver Island just in the last month.

This province is building. We're a powerhouse, and we're going to make sure that we continue to grow the economy.

[ Page 10177 ]

VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE

TERMINAL CONTRACT

S. Chandra Herbert: The Liberals' extreme mismanagement extends beyond B.C. Place. While overseeing the massively over-budget convention centre, the Liberals struck a deal with the Clarke Group to build a $21 million floatplane terminal. The deal was rejected by Harbour Air, B.C.'s largest floatplane company, because of high user fees that would gouge passengers $20 each trip.

The new Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre now sits largely empty. The company now says it plans on suing the provincial government for breaking its contract. So can the Premier tell us today how she plans to fix her Liberal government's mess?

[1410]

Hon. P. Bell: As the member opposite knows, we've had a mediator involved in this dispute between two private parties for over a year. He is a distinguished individual, Dan Doyle. I know members opposite know of him and his reputation, and I'm sure all of them would agree that he's a highly qualified individual.

I also know that the first priority of PavCo and of this government is to make sure that we have a safe facility. That is our top priority, and because of the potential risks associated with us going to court, I won't be commenting past that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister has had a mediator for over a year, and nothing has happened. Coal Harbour residents are unhappy. Floatplane passengers stand to get gouged. Floatplane operators refuse to use the docks. The terminal sits empty, and the company, as the minister has acknowledged, is planning to sue his government.

It's been almost a year without a deal. We've raised this issue in the House before. Will the minister tell this House his plans to fix this situation his government created?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think that the member opposite would suggest that we should require occupancy of that facility until it is safe. In fact, I'm almost certain that's the case. So if the member does believe that the facility should be occupied before it is safe, I would certainly encourage him to say that.

B.C. PLACE BUSINESS PLAN

S. Simpson: Liberal mismanagement of PavCo has become quite stunning. First, we have the multi-million-dollar cost overruns on the convention centre. Now we have the flight centre mess and B.C. Place, with almost a $600 million roof, with no plan on how to pay for it.

We started with a half-baked casino scheme that went in the ditch, followed by a $40 million sponsorship deal that was killed with TELUS. At the end of the day, tens of millions of dollars of debt will rest with B.C. taxpayers.

Will the minister tell us: where is the plan for how to pay for B.C. Place and the roof?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member's question is timely, in the sense that there was just an economic report released late last week on the 99th Grey Cup. The 99th Grey Cup, according to this independent report — I know members don't like to hear this — generated $118 million worth of economic activity.

The fact that this investment was made has enabled the Vancouver Whitecaps to move up from the previous division that they played in the United Soccer League's first division to the major soccer league division in British Columbia. That's taken them from only being able to have about 5,000 spectators per game to about 20,000 spectators per game — another major tenant in B.C. Place that's going to continue to drive economic value.

This has been a good investment. It's going to last for 40 years. It's something we should all be proud of in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The Whitecaps and the B.C. Lions might be having a good year, but taxpayers are getting hosed by this government's incompetence. How do British Columbians have any confidence in this Premier and in this minister and in this government?

First, the government kills the $40 million deal to presumably protect the B.C. Place name. But when that argument doesn't wash, then it's about, "The signs are too big," and then it's about: "The deal is not quite right."

Peter Brown didn't buy it. He resigned from the PavCo board. David Podmore, the CEO, didn't buy it. He said: "Where's the $40 million that the government is going to have to provide PavCo to relieve this?"

The reality is this. Most importantly, British Columbians, who ultimately have to pay for this, don't buy the minister's argument or the Premier's argument or the Liberal argument. Where is the plan to pay for that stadium and pay for that nearly $600 million roof?

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: It's a little bit rich sitting on this side of the House, listening to that member preach about economic prudence, for a government that drove the economy of the province of British Columbia into the ground — No. 1 to No. 10 through the 1990s. Conversely, this is the government that has been able to get consecutive upgrades in its credit rating to triple-A credit ratings.

[ Page 10178 ]

There are investors around the world. Mitsubishi is putting $3 billion into this province. They don't do it because they don't have confidence in the management team of this province. They do it because they do have the confidence in that management team.

LOG EXPORT POLICY AND TIMBER EXPORT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECISIONS

N. Macdonald: Well, we just heard from the former Minister of Forests, who lost 17,000 jobs on his watch. That's his record. Let's go to the current minister.

Yesterday the minister admitted that he has been routinely overriding the decisions made by the timber export advisory committee. He has given up 103,000 cubic metres of our logs — logs that could have created jobs here in British Columbia. That's unprecedented. He has overruled his own committee 86 times. Those are the unchallenged facts.

So the question is…. Yesterday the minister could not explain why he had overruled the committee once. Today can the minister explain why he has overruled it 86 times?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's be clear. Yesterday we confirmed that this TEAC committee is an advisory committee to our process. They're advisory. They provide us with advice in assessing whether applications for us to not approve export applications are fair. When we receive those applications, that's the test that we apply to it.

Let's be clear. What happened here was that TEAC changed the process and the criteria on which they assess applications. This ministry did not change their criteria. We continue to administer the criteria on the basis that had been consistently done previously. We are continuing to work and reviewing this policy with TEAC. We've committed to get back to them, and that's what we'll do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister knows for a fact that the principles that the export advisory committee uses have not changed at all. They have not changed. The minister met with this committee last week, and that's what they told him. They made the case. Instead, what we have is the minister choosing to override…. It's not advice; it's expert advice.

What are the consequences? Members should know what the consequences of that sort of activity are. We learned today that Teal-Jones in Surrey intends to shut down shifts today. Those are hundreds of workers who are not going to be receiving a paycheque today.

It's because they cannot get logs. There were 86 opportunities for them to get logs. Each and every time, this minister stepped in and robbed them of that opportunity. Why? That's the question. You still have not stood up in this House and given a good explanation for why you choose to rob B.C. workers of jobs.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite is wrong. The TEAC committee did change their direction and did change their policy. This is not about doing things exactly the way they were doing them before. They changed their policy and their recommendations and the process around the criteria with which they assess it.

The ministry did not change its criteria. We've continued to administer it consistently with the way that we had before.

Let's just be clear that the ability to export logs in British Columbia is one that provides the balance and provides for economic activity across the coast, in coastal communities. It's a policy that is keeping jobs in mills on the coast and across British Columbia. We will continue to administer policy to ensure that we have the balance there that provides for that economic activity across the province.

[1420]

B. Routley: I know — I've talked to members on that committee — that they haven't changed their principles whatsoever. They've always sent logs to a local market. They determined the local market, and they made a recommendation 86 times to this minister. Because of the actions of this minister, ignoring the recommendation of his own committee, now B.C. forest workers and their families are sitting at home.

You explain why….

Mr. Speaker: Member, Member.

Member, just take your chair for a second.

I want to remind all members that they go through the Chair.

Continue, Member.

B. Routley: The question is, through the Chair: why? Why are logs being exported from British Columbia at the expense of B.C. workers' jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: We continue to hear the continued rhetoric from that side of the House on the value of log exports to British Columbia. When we're working hard to balance the budget, creating and sustaining jobs here in British Columbia, this opposition continues to just simply provide misinformation to the public.

Here's what we know. Log exports are keeping people employed in British Columbia. That is the case, and those are the facts.

For example, if you want to look at the people involved in the industry who talk about the policy. "If log exports were banned today, we might as well close the doors and throw away the keys. Every contractor would immediately be shut down and…their employees laid off."

[ Page 10179 ]

This would affect workers across British Columbia, affect workers in Terrace, affect workers on the north coast.

Log exports are part of the balance of the equation that keeps people employed here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: Only a small percentage of logs in British Columbia are ever blocked, a very small percentage. Here's the story. Teal-Jones is an independent, family-run company. They don't want any kind of special treatment. But workers in Surrey, this coming weekend, are losing their jobs, and this minister still hasn't explained why.

Why are logs leaving British Columbia? Why has he chosen exporting raw logs over the jobs of British Columbian forest workers? Just why?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said clearly, during this process the TEAC committee, the advisory committee, changed their criteria under which they assess applications. We've been consistent in how we manage those applications. That includes two tests. One is whether they're needed for domestic purposes. There also was a test of whether it is a fair-market offer for those export applications. Those are the tests that are applied to the applications to ensure that there is fair market value being applied.

As I said, I've met with TEAC. I've committed to meet with them again. We're going to continue to do that and continue to review the policy on which most of the criteria of the surplus test is applied and the fair market price is applied.

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE

WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

M. Mungall: On Monday the minister told this House she did not share an e-mail from a Province newspaper reporter with Eminata Group. The e-mail concerned a story the reporter was writing about the private post-secondary conglomerate, and it ended up in the hands of Eminata's CEO, Randy Cox. The minister subsequently told the Province reporter that she has asked her staff to look into the matter.

[1425]

It is Wednesday. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell us today how an e-mail for her eyes ended up in the hands of Eminata's CEO?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I mentioned to the member opposite on Monday, there has been no e-mail sent by myself, from my office or ministry staff to the organization that the member opposite is referring to. With respect to, I believe, this Province article, I am looking into the matter. That's what I pledged to do on Monday. I still continue to pledge to do that today.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we'll continue debate on Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, in committee. And in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will continue with the estimates debate of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. Should that complete, we would then move to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the committee on Bill 22 will come to order. We'll be returning to consideration of the amendment to

section 6.

On the amendment (continued) .

[1430]

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment on

section 6 on Bill 22. My colleague the Minister of Health indicated moments ago to me that this was his favourite section…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Favourite critic.

…and given some persuasive arguments, he may well be there. So I will attempt to give him some persuasive arguments on the amendment. Just to refresh the Chair, and members of this House and those watching on the legislative channel who may not be familiar with the amendment, it is as follows:

Then it goes on to subsection (2). "The terms of reference for the mediator are as follows…(

c) the new collect-

[ Page 10180 ]

ive agreement is to" — underlined; this is what's added — " include any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning" — again underlined — " including but not limited to (

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

This is an important amendment, because what we're saying is: let's put in place an independent mediator, one who has the ability to deal, in the way the current legislation is structured, with many of the non-monetary issues in a way that can help bring a resolution to the dispute that we have seen.

As we noticed earlier in question period today, the government itself has admitted that they have a mediator, an independent mediator, in place in the disputes around the new floatplane flight service centre in Coal Harbour. That, to me, is an example the government may want to consider.

I see my learned colleague from the North Coast nodding in agreement with that suggestion. He himself as a former teacher understands the benefit that an independent mediator could bring to the dispute. That's why this amendment is so important. I point out, in speaking to the amendment, the position that the government has taken in another area, in another dispute, where an independent mediator is at work and attempting to bring resolution to some of the challenges that face the government.

Now, in terms of the kinds of areas that could be addressed by an independent mediator, in terms of the non-cost items, there are a considerable number, and I just want to go through some of them. Some of them are particularly pertinent to my own particular community as to why I think this amendment is eminently supportable and, I suspect, would be particularly important to my colleague the Minister of Health.

For example, these non-monetary items can include layoff and recall, qualifications, educational change, job-sharing, seniority, evaluation, temporary teachers' rights, supervision, transfers, professional autonomy, new-school planning and staff committee, just to name a few.

I'd like to address one of these, and that's the area of new-school planning. You know, we are a fast-growing province with significant areas experiencing rapid and dramatic population growth. Our own school district 43 is one of those — my own community of Port Coquitlam, for example. I think it's important that when we're looking at placing new schools, not only do we take into account the kinds of demographic changes that are happening in our communities but also we look at the particular needs that arise in the school system, the education system, in some of the fast-growing parts of British Columbia.

[1435]

Who better, in terms of school planning, to understand the impact that this has on the classroom and on the school than teachers themselves who have to deal with these issues, you know, on a day-to-day basis.

Therefore, when it comes to the planning of new schools, I think it's important that teachers are involved so that they can provide their insight, their experience, their wisdom into how we can make a new school as effective and as positive a learning environment as possible. I think that that's something that all of us in this House would want to see.

I know that the changes that were….

The Chair: Member, the Chair would encourage the member to seek an original line of inquiry, discussion, as it pertains to the amendment.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I think that the issue of school planning — and I take the Chair's words — is an original line of…. In speaking to the amendment, this is, I think, an original line of questioning. I know the Minister of Education disagrees, but I bet you right now I'm the first person in this chamber to mention the arrival of ethnic Nepali Bhutanese into the Tri-Cities and the impact that that would have on our school system.

The Chair: And could you respond with respect to how it pertains to the amendment.

M. Farnworth: Yes, that is the point of my argument, and I am talking to the amendment. You see, the amendment is important because what the amendment does is allow the appointment of an independent mediator who can address these kinds of issues. I think that's why it's so important that this amendment pass, because an independent mediator is able to sit down and weigh the concerns at the table, work with the parties to address these particular types of non-monetary issues.

That's why I'm saying, from the teachers that I talk to in my particular school district of district 43, I think school planning is particularly important because of the high growth rate that we have in our communities. That's why this amendment is important.

It's not an attempt to say, "Let's delay," because, as I know the Chair is aware, under Standing Order 83, re-

[ Page 10181 ]

petitiveness is an attempt to stall a vote. That is not the case, hon. Chair. The point I'm doing, in speaking to the amendment, is to draw the attention to the opportunities that an independent mediator would have to address some of the outstanding non-monetary issues. I'm trying to do it from the perspective as in my own particular school district.

So as I said, school planning. Again, I think that in terms of the programs that are offered in many schools, particularly in some of the ones where the issues are around programs dealing with the environment, we have a very rich and varied environment in our community. As such, in planning for new schools we are able to take into account — in terms of the siting and, again, the types of programs that are there — specific types of teachers that would work well in delivering those kinds of programs. That's why I think new school planning is an appropriate area to be looking at.

I'd also like to look at one of the issues that have been raised, and that is around layoff and recall. Different school districts have different ways of dealing with seniority, for example. So I think one of the things that, probably, an independent mediator would be able to do is to sit down and work and look at all the different models that exist. Burnaby is different, I believe, than the Coquitlam school district, which is school district 43. That particular school district is made up of Coquitlam and Port Moody, Anmore, Belcarra, and of course, my own riding of Port Coquitlam.

Again, non-monetary items being able to be dealt with, I think, by the appointment of an independent mediator will go a long way to resolving or helping to resolve the impasse that the government finds itself in at this current point in its dispute with the teachers of British Columbia. I think that's the job of a responsible opposition, to be able to put forward these opportunities for the government to consider and for members to speak to it from the perspective of their own particular constituencies and from their own particular school districts.

[1440]

One of the things that I have learned — and one of the great things about being an MLA and why I'm speaking to this particular amendment — is that you really, truly, when you travel around this great province of ours, appreciate the diversity that exists not just in terms of the landscape and the geography and the topography but the people.

Port Coquitlam is quite different than Hazelton. It is quite different than Hazelton. Shuswap is a beautiful part of the province, but again, it's different than Port Hardy or Cranbrook. There are different concerns.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And as the minister says, even Salmon Arm. That's absolutely true. I'll give an example. Educational programs. Teachers, I know, in my community and in Salmon Arm, often, come Thanksgiving, when the salmon are returning to the Shuswap….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Then I will be happy to enlighten the minister. Programs that take kids out of the classroom to see the return of salmon up salmon-spawning creeks — Adams River run — are important in his particular area and in our community. It is important, but in some parts of the province where the streams have been paved over, like in parts of Vancouver, kids don't have that opportunity.

I think what we're doing is illustrating some of the diversity within the province. But I don't want the minister to lead me astray and have me digress too far from the amendment, so in speaking to the amendment I want to bring it back. I don't want the minister or myself to run afoul of the Chair. That would not do.

To speak to the minister…. The ability to provide an independent mediator under

section 74 is something the government needs to seriously consider because it has — I think, and as other members of the House have said — the potential to show a road map of how we can end this dispute.

The amendments. I've said why, but just specifically how, mechanically, it would do this is it would expand the scope of bargaining. It would expand the scope of bargaining by permitting the mediator to look at any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning. Again, that is something that I think all of us in this House can support.

Certainly, from what I've heard from comments by the minister, those are policies that the government wants to pursue. I know from this side of the House those are policies that our expert and learned Education critic, the member for Skeena, has certainly advocated. It's certainly what I hear from teachers in the many, many hundreds of letters that they have delivered both to my office and to my e-mail account — they have said. And it is certainly something that parents and students have said in a loud way that they would like to see take place.

Hon. Speaker, I notice the light is turning green, and I know that signals my time is almost up. So I would just like to make one final pitch to my colleague the Minister of Health. I know the Minister of Education has been listening attentively, and the Minister of Health, no doubt, is as well.

This is a unique opportunity, and I think parents and teachers and students across this province would be more than appreciative if this government seized the opportunity presented to it by this amendment and was able to support this amendment. Then we, I think, will be going on many, many steps to being able to end this dispute.

With that, I wind up my comments on this particu-

[ Page 10182 ]

lar amendment. It has been a pleasure to speak, to share some views representative of my district, and I look forward to hearing what colleagues from both sides of the House have to say. With that, I take my seat.

The Chair: Members, I'll take this opportunity to refresh the House's understanding of Standing Order 43:

"…the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that Member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct that Member to discontinue speaking."

[1445]

I trust everyone has taken that to heart.

J. Horgan: I wanted to just add a bit, perhaps, to your ruling on Standing Order 43. Following the standing order as it's presented in MacMinn's, it's followed by: "The purpose of this rule is to safeguard the right of the House to reach a decision and to avoid ineffective use of the time of the House." I would submit that we will be reaching a decision on this bill based on the time allocation motion that was moved by the Government House Leader yesterday.

Further, Beauchesne's , paragraph 459, says…. On the question of repetition and irrelevance, it goes as follows: "Relevancy is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be given the benefit of the doubt," although the Speaker has frequently admonished members who strayed in debate. And that's fair comment, of course. The presiding officers are directed by — in this case, standing orders from the House of Commons — Standing Order 11-2 to call to order members who indulge in persistent repetition. "The rule against repetition is difficult to enforce as the various stages of a bill's progress give ample opportunity and even encouragement for repetition."

My submission, hon. Chair, is that as we know this bill will reach a conclusion tomorrow at five o'clock, all members on this side of the House individually wish to speak with some thought to this amendment that was proposed by the member for Skeena. Our objective is not to delay the bill. Our objective is not to waste the time of the House but instead to ensure that the representatives assembled here on this side of the House and those on the other side of the House, if they wish to, can make submissions on behalf of this amendment, which we believe is an important one and will materially improve the bill.

The Chair: Thank you for your submission. The member who has just spoken will know that the Chair has listened carefully to all submissions over the previous three hours. Again, I would encourage all members to seek an original line of enquiry or discussion as it pertains to the amendment.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand in my place and speak in favour of the amendment presented by the member for Skeena regarding Bill 22, committee stage. It's always a real honour to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the people of my constituency, Surrey-Fleetwood, and the people of Surrey.

I continue to receive letters, e-mails and phone calls from the people of Surrey regarding this Bill 22. They have very serious concerns about the bill, and that's why I support the amendment presented by the member for Skeena. I really appreciate the member for Skeena proposing a very creative, positive and future-looking amendment to deal with this very complex issue.

What happens…. Usually we hear that the opposition only opposes, never proposes, but this is an opportunity that the member for Skeena has given to us, to have a second look at Bill 22, particularly as it pertains to

section 6. I appreciate the member for Skeena proposing this amendment, and I urge every member of this House to look very carefully at what is being proposed under this amendment.

[1450]

Basically, there is a clear distinction between this amendment and what is being proposed under the legislation, Bill 22. I think a fair question to ask is: how is this proposed amendment an improvement to the existing

section 6 of Bill 22?

To make it very simple, the member for Skeena is proposing that an independent mediator should be appointed by the Labour Relations Board — that's proposal No. 1 —

whereas under Bill 22, the Minister of Education actually appoints a mediator. So that's the difference.

In one scenario, which is Bill 22, the Minister of Education appoints a mediator. Under the proposed amendment, that mediator will be independent, appointed by the Labour Relations Board. So that's the difference.

I support this proposal by the member for Skeena because I think that this will allow the mediation process to be fair, independent and objective. That is very important when we have the mediation process. That process must be independent and fair, acceptable to both the parties, and this amendment will allow that.

[ Page 10183 ]

This will also remove any perceived bias in the mediation process, which is there at this point in time because of the long-pending conflict between this government and the B.C. teachers. I think it is important for us to remove that bias from this mediation process. This mediation, under the amendment, will allow that.

It is also that we respect the teachers. We show respect to the teachers, the respect they deserve, because the teachers are basically teaching our next generation, making them able to compete in the global workforce. That's very important, and this amendment actually offers the respect people expect from the process.

That's why I think the amendment proposed by the member to appoint an independent mediator is very important. It is only through independent mediators that a respectful conclusion can be reached by both the parties. That's the first part of the amendment.

The member also proposes the second amendment to Bill 22. That is about the scope of the bill. At this point in time Bill 22,

section 6(2)(c), states: "the new collective agreement is to enable high-quality teaching and learning through…." And there are three different objectives indicated under the proposed legislation.

The first one is: "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." Now, if you read this line, it's very, very vague. It certainly doesn't make what it means very clear.

The second line under this proposed legislation, under

section 6(2)(c), is: "alignment of professional development with teaching needs." The third one is: "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

So there are these three very narrow, vague objectives expected out of this mediation process. That makes it very difficult for both parties to negotiate the agreement in good faith, because there are a lot of other things which are non-monetary which are left out of this process.

I don't know, when this legislation was adopted, who was consulted. Certainly, it is very clear from these three different objectives that teachers were not part of the consultation process.

[1455]

The member for Skeena is proposing, instead of these three very specific, very vague and very limited objectives, as indicated in the bill…. The member basically makes an effort to give teachers the opportunity to talk about other very important issues they feel should be part of the negotiation.

The member for Skeena proposes that under section (6)(c), the new collective agreement is to include any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning, including but not limited to those three objectives, as indicated in the proposed piece of legislation.

Basically, what the member for Skeena is saying is that it should be open to all other non-monetary issues that are important to the teachers as well as to the classroom. That should be part of the negotiation, and there's a long list of those issues, which I believe are very, very important to reach a respectable agreement by both the parties.

That's why I support this amendment. If this bill goes through without any amendment, this bill will hit the hardest when it comes to the Surrey school district, the biggest school district in the province. Almost 10 percent of students right now are receiving education through portables, with almost 25 percent students in some classes with special needs and with a number of students in every class with ESL needs because of the growing population of new immigrants and particularly some refugees coming from refugee camps.

The nature of the class and the number of students in the class…. It's, of course, overcrowded. As well, it's a very complex makeup of students, which is very hard to handle by the teacher.

Therefore, teachers must have a say in this process so they can actually contribute to an agreement which is respectable — not only for the government but also for the teachers and for the students in that situation — so that we can have a classroom that is manageable by the teachers.

There are a number of non-monetary things, issues, which can be included in this negotiation process, such as layoffs and recalls, qualifications. I think it's very important for us that we hire teachers who are fully qualified to teach our next generation. That's very, very important.

Today's workplace or workforce is global, and our children have to compete in the global market. Therefore, it's very important that our teachers have the qualifications they need to train and teach our next generation so that they can compete in the global community. That's very important.

It also includes educational change. It's a very vague term, and I think the teachers need to sit around the table and talk about what it means when we talk about educational change. I think that term needs to be defined, in consultation with the teachers. If we accept this amendment, that will allow it to happen.

[1500]

Similarly, there is an issue of job-sharing and seniority, for example. Evaluation. One of the issues is how we evaluate our educational system as a whole. Part of that is the evaluation of teachers. If we accept the amendment, this system will allow evaluation to be part of the negotiations as well. The list goes on. It also includes temporary teachers' rights, supervision, transfer and professional autonomy.

New school planning. When it comes to new school planning, the member who spoke before me, the member from Port Coquitlam, has made a case about the changing demographic in Port Coquitlam. But Surrey is the place when we talk about the changing demographic, which is happening big-time in the city of Surrey. Students and teachers, particularly in this case, must be

[ Page 10184 ]

part of new school planning.

Surrey is the only district with fastest-growing student enrolments, and therefore, it is important for us to give teachers the opportunity to participate in the negotiation process, where they can talk about new school planning.

In Surrey, as I said earlier, the students in the classroom…. It's not only the overcrowded classrooms. There are students with complex needs, such as ESL and special needs. That's why I think we, the members of this House, need to think very carefully about this proposed amendment.

I don't know how much time I have, but I would like to summarize my presentation. I support the amendment because the amendment talks about appointing an independent mediator that will allow the teachers to discuss and talk about the issues they need to when it comes to the education system.

This will also allow a lot of non-monetary issues teachers want to discuss in this negotiation process. I think every member of this House should support this amendment, and I support this amendment. Every member should support this amendment.

S. Hammell: I am very pleased to rise and join the debate on the amendment to Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, moved by my colleague the member for Skeena.

The amendment to subsection 6(1) centres around the imposition of a mediator chosen by the Minister of Education to settle the dispute or to work with the teachers and try to come up with a settlement to the current dispute. Instead of imposing a mediator — again, chosen by the Minister of Education — the amendment suggests that a preferred option be an independent mediator, one appointed in accordance with the Labour Relations Code.

There are further details in the amendment that has been presented in this

section around the terms of reference, but I will speak to that in a moment. I first want to concentrate my comments, and my reasons for supporting the amendment, on the appointment of an independent mediator rather than one appointed by the minister.

The value of an independent mediator would be that the person would be arm's-length from the two parties in dispute. As soon as you have someone who is arm's-length, you have the perception of fairness, that that person is neither tied to one party or the other. The person is not a surrogate of one of the parties in the conflict but a person who is separated from both.

[1505]

It would not be seen as an extension of the ministry or an extension of the minister or an extension of that particular point of view, not his go person or his chum-chum. It would be seen as someone above the dispute, above the fray, someone who has not got a vested interest in one party or the other but someone who could bring to the dispute a separate set of eyes, a different perspective, some different ideas on how to move through the dispute. Most of all, the notion of fairness would be embedded if the House would embrace the amendment.

This amendment suggests a different path out of the impasse with the educators of our province. The amendment would provide a path of leadership that honours consensus-building, so we would get away from: "My way or no way." We would find another path that wants to talk and build consensus.

This amendment would provide a path of leadership that builds that consensus with the person he or she leads. This amendment would provide a path of leadership that puts out trust and gives confidence to the people who are involved in the dispute. Most important, this amendment would provide a path of leadership that we — all of us — would want our children to emulate.

This is about a school system. This is about kids. This is about the behaviour of adults. This is about consensus-building. It's about respect. For the minister to choose the mediator, sets aside those issues. It is, and will be seen as, heavy-handed and autocratic.

This amendment is there to soften and to engage the other parties in this conflict. The amendment would signal that the minister understands the current

section that we are trying to amend. We are attempting to amend that the current section, as it stands now, is certainly not consistent with the culture of our schools.

Our schools have a unique culture. This is not the normal workplace, in the sense of the industrial model or some of the other workplaces. Our school system has a unique culture that requires cooperation and goodwill amongst the stakeholders.

It is absolutely necessary that the stakeholders — and there are many of them in a school system — cooperate with each other to make that system effective. There is no school where there is just one autocratic driver of the moment. It is a place where consensus is built, not only between administrators and teachers, but support staff, students and the parents that are involved.

This amendment, where we ask for an independent mediator, is in the spirit and support of how great schools work. I've worked as a teacher at numerous schools, and the very best schools out there are those where power is shared. Power is not abdicated, but it is shared. Great schools are where there is respect amongst all of those who have a stake in that school being successful — successful on behalf of the children that are in that school.

[ Page 10185 ]

[1510]

Great schools are where the administration, the teachers, the support staff, the parents and the students are pulling together, because they are in it together. Every administrator and every parent and every teacher and every support staff person in those schools wants those students to be as good as they can possibly be. They have the students' best interests at heart, and they know that if they are going to have a great school, all of them have to be in sync. All of them have to have a common vision, and all of them have to play a strong role in making those kids successful.

This amendment is a metaphor for how our schools should be working and how great schools do work. The administration in a school administers, but it also supports and develops the vision through which that school functions. The administrator is an educator for a reason. They not only administer, but they provide the leadership through which a vision is created for that school, and the teachers who hear and experience the voices and the abilities of their students provide input and have part ownership of the vision that drives that school.

But it does not stop there. When you have great schools, you have the students involved and you have the parents involved. The support staff is involved, and they have a supportive school district.

I think the players who are the furthest away from the classroom, the ministry…. This is the furthest place that you can get away from the classroom. They should not be deciding how the whole system is to be run. They are a part of the system, but they are not the deciders. They are not the people who have the end-game in mind.

In every circumstance that I've been involved with, whenever there is a group of people and whenever there is anything that is trying to be achieved, everybody in the part has some power in the play. There is no one person or one party or one stakeholder in the education system that can tell everyone how to do it and how they must do it. Everybody has power and responsibility to play out in terms of the education system. You can come down heavy-handed on the educators of our province, but there is a price to pay for that. There is an absolute price to pay for the turmoil that is in our classrooms.

Great leaders harness power. They bring it together through respect, inclusion, discussion and mutual decision-making. There's an old cliché around that says that to get power, you give power. And to get good schools, you have to give out to the people who are on the ground in the schools the ability to do their job and to be participants in the decisions that affect them.

I just think that the ministry and the minister are not close enough to the classrooms to really understand the impact of the heavy-handedness of being the only person who has a decision or input into who the mediator will be and how and what that mediator will decide. In any good system, people who are impacted by decisions have some say in what those decisions will be.

[1515]

I have to say it probably is extremely disappointing to the educators of this province, because the minister attended one of the assemblies and was warmly greeted and, in fact, given a standing ovation. I've heard that from teachers.

That was a showing of respect and hope from the teachers assembled that things would be different, that there would be mutual respect because this minister, new to the portfolio of Education, would value and respect their role in the education system and value their input.

This amendment does just that. It opens up, moves away from an authoritative push to put one particular person in charge of who that mediator will be. It moves it back to an independent mediator, where there's a perception of fairness, where people can come to the table without believing that they're hooped to begin with, that the game is on — the end-game is being played out — and they really are tokens and have no input into any of the decisions.

It's rather hard to believe that we're at the place where we are now and that the government would actually believe that imposing a mediator would be a good solution. I submit that the solution where one group wins and everyone else loses just won't work in the school system. This is not the military, and it's not the good old days.

The parties whose deep commitment to the system is needed to make the system work are being marginalized, sidelined. The heavy hand of one player, the government, is dictating the end-game through the appointment of this mediator.

Sometimes you do have the euphoria of winning — you've got in there; you've won — but in the end you've actually lost. Examination over time will find that what you won was way less important than everything else you lost. In this situation the loss of respect on both sides, the loss of inclusion and the loss of other voices and ideas at the table that are trying to solve the problem are deeply regrettable.

K. Corrigan: I too am rising to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Skeena. I've actually risen to speak, originally, on Bill 22 second reading. I was also very happy to rise to speak on the reasoned amendment. I've been pleased to have taken

part in questions to the minister in the committee stage, and now I am pleased to support the proposed amendment to

section 6 of the bill, which does two things.

First of all, it deletes the requirement that the Minister of Education appoint a mediator and replaces it with wording that requires that the Labour Relations Board appoint an independent mediator.

The second thing that this amendment does is it widens the terms of reference for the mediator to include discussion about "any measures which may enable high-

[ Page 10186 ]

quality teaching and learning." In other words, it is going to widen the terms of reference for the mediator to talking about "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers…(ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs." All of those terms which, I might note, teachers of this province, who are one of the parties to these negotiations and this coming mediation, have looked at skeptically and have believed that all of these three areas of discussion could, in fact, represent clawbacks to their collective agreement.

So one of the things that I think is important about the second part of the amendment is that in fact what is happening is that this amendment, if approved by both sides of the House, would allow the scope of mediation to widen in a way that perhaps would take away some of the concerns of the teachers — one of the parties, as I said, to the mediation.

[1520]

Every member comes to this House with a unique set of experiences, and my set of experiences, related to this amendment and to public education generally, is that, as many people in this House know, I was a parent volunteer for many, many years. I was a school trustee for nine years in Burnaby.

Something that many people probably don't know is that while I was the chair of the Burnaby school board, Susan Lambert, who is now the president of the BCTF and leading the teachers in their fight for a fair collective agreement, was in fact the president of the Burnaby Teachers Association for that time. And I know that the BCTF…. I certainly know that Susan Lambert is a strong, capable individual. She can be tough.

Teachers can be tough, but we always managed to solve our problems when I was the chair of the Burnaby school board. We solved our problems sometimes with frank discussions, but we did it in a respectful manner. So I think that whether Susan Lambert is the chair of the Burnaby Teachers Association or whether or not she is the president of the BCTF, she and all other teachers and the teacher organization need to be treated with respect, and the relationship has to be one of respect.

How does that relate to this amendment? Well, I think it is important to talk about that relationship, because I do believe that we are at something of a crossroads when it comes to public education and the relationships of the parties that are negotiating the agreements that govern the working conditions, the salaries, and so on, of teachers.

We're at a crossroads, and I do believe that going one way, imposing, being high-handed, saying, "This is the way we're going to do things; take it or leave it," is one way that we can go and one way that will perpetuate what is clearly a dysfunctional relationship. Or we can try to repair the relationship, and I would prefer to try to repair the relationship.

I believe that this amendment, as the previous reasoned amendment that was proposed by my colleagues…. Those two propositions, those two proposed amendments, would be steps — not necessarily big steps, but a step — in the right direction that would signal to the teachers of this province that we don't want to be at war with you. We want to work with you. We want to work together for the betterment of education. We want to have a healthy relationship.

Public education is, in no small part, dependent on the goodwill of teachers. Public education is dependent on us having a professional group of workers in this province who say: "I understand that I don't have hours of work. I understand that I am a professional. I understand that I'm going to work far longer than the nine o'clock in the morning to the three o'clock or so in the afternoon that I am in the school."

We rely on the professionalism and the goodwill and the hard work of teachers throughout this province. If we don't have that goodwill, then we will not have our teachers being willing to do as much work. They are absolutely dedicated, and I'm sure, throughout this and other struggles that they have, that they will continue to be professional. But, you know, we're driving some of them away.

I've said this before, and I think it's relative to this amendment as well. It's very clear that what is lacking in this relationship is trust. I do think that this amendment — that says government will not impose a mediator, but instead an independent mediator will be appointed under the Labour Relations Code — is a step to bringing back trust in the relationship.

I noticed that the minister had — I believe a couple of times or at least once — said that his appointment of a mediator would allow there to be a mediator who was specialized, who perhaps was uniquely experienced, in terms of who that person would be.

[1525]

But I think the minister misses the point. That misses the point. The point is that when a relationship is in trouble, if any relationship is in trouble and needs to be fixed, the parties have to appear to be neutral and fair if they want to make progress.

When there is a lack of trust, as there is, the question is not primarily whether the minister or the present bill is neutral or fair in terms of its approach to mediation but whether the parties to the negotiations believe that the process is fair or neutral. I don't believe that the teachers…. I don't believe personally that the process is fair and neutral, and we have to bring fairness and neutrality back into the equation or we are going to continue to have this dysfunctional relationship.

I think the government would be wise, if government really wants to have a settlement, to position itself in the middle between the two parties, between BCPSEA and the teachers, to be seen to be a neutral party — understanding, of course, that there are some obligations that

[ Page 10187 ]

are attached to the collective agreement. I believe accepting the proposed amendment would do just that.

I want to just note…. I've talked about my community. I want to say that independent mediation is something which the parties to the agreement and other stakeholders have said they want. The BCSTA and the B.C. School Trustees Association have said that they want independent mediation. The teachers have certainly said it, and BCPSEA, which is the bargaining agent for the employers, has said that it wants independent mediation.

The will is certainly there on all sides. I certainly don't understand why it is that government would oppose the will of teachers, parents, school trustees and the employer organization, which all want to have independent mediation.

I want to just do a little local plug and recognize the efforts of some of the people in my community of Burnaby who are supportive of mediation as well. Yesterday the Burnaby school board passed a motion at their public meeting on March 13, 2012. The following motion was passed unanimously as an item of new business by the Burnaby board of education.

Here is the motion that was passed last night. "That the Burnaby board of education send a letter to Education Minister George Abbott…." Oh, excuse me; I was quoting. So: "…to the Education Minister and the Premier expressing…." The Premier is named, but I guess I can't quote it.

I'm going to start again, just so it's all there. "The Burnaby board of education sent a letter to the Education Minister and to the Premier expressing our strong insistence that the provincial government delay the passage of Bill 22 and immediately appoint a mediator with no restrictions on their mandate to work towards resolving the current labour dispute with teachers."

I appreciate that unanimous motion passed by the Burnaby board of education last night. In addition, the public board meeting, the board report, the chair's report last night said:

"Over the next couple of days the Liberal government has plans on ramming through legislation that will severely limit the right for our teachers to negotiate a new collective agreement. Along with a number of specific contentious issues, the Education Improvement Act is seen by many as a direct attack on some of the most basic democratic principles of our Canadian society.

"As it currently stands, Bill 22 significantly limits the ability of a mediator to enable the constructive bargaining discussions required to conclude a fairly negotiated collective agreement."

The report goes on and expresses great concern about the government's position. I won't read the rest of it, but I do appreciate the comments of Larry Hayes, who is the chair of the Burnaby school board and a past colleague of mine, and the comments and the concerns that the Burnaby school board has. Certainly, the Burnaby school board is supportive through its motion and would be fully supportive of the amendment that we are proposing today.

[1530]

In addition, in Burnaby there are many teachers who have expressed concern in my community. Carol Topalian is a teacher…. I'm pretty sure she's a teacher in Burnaby because she sent this e-mail to me and to my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. She talks about her students. She says: "My students are adults completing high school diplomas. On average they are at least 30 years old. Many of them come from China, eastern Europe, South America and all over the world."

Carol is concerned about the impression that her students — new immigrants to Canada who are learning a new language, finishing their high school — are having about Canada and about the education as a result of this strike. They are concerned, and they are supportive of the teachers. They do not understand why the government is not working closely with the teachers in order to allow the teachers to continue to do the work that they can in the best way possible.

She says: "Teachers have cooperated and bargained with flexible positions. We cooperated with the fact-finder appointed by the government. We asked for an independent mediator, and we reduced our proposals, even when the employer refused to compromise." Those are the thoughts of Carol Topalian, and I wanted to bring those in today.

Madam Chair, I won't talk about the second part of the amendment, which I support as well. Many of my colleagues have talked about that.

I want to summarize by saying that I am supporting this amendment. I think this amendment is very important. I think this is another chance for this government to step away, to pull itself back, to support teachers, to find consensus, to re-establish trust and to move education forward in a positive way where we all work together for the betterment of the students in this country.

With that, I will take my seat.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I have heard that a division call has been made. We are currently operating under the time allocation motion adopted on Monday. However, I understand that there is agreement that a standing division may proceed on the amendment. I will now call the members to the House.

[1535]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

James

S. Simpson

Corrigan

Horgan

Farnworth

Ralston

Kwan

Lali

Austin

Conroy

Brar

D. Routley

Huntington

Hammell

Trevena

Elmore

Bains

Mungall

Karagianis

Chandra Herbert

Krog

[ Page 10188 ]

Simons

Chouhan

Popham

Fraser

B. Routley

Macdonald

Coons

Black

Gentner

Sather

NAYS — 45

Rustad

McIntyre

Thomson

Lekstrom

Bloy

Yamamoto

McNeil

Chong

MacDiarmid

McRae

Yap

Letnick

Barnett

Lee

Sultan

Dalton

Hawes

Coell

Krueger

Heed

Cadieux

Polak

Bell

Coleman

Clark

Falcon

Bond

de Jong

Abbott

Hansen

Les

Stilwell

Hayer

Cantelon

Bennett

Pimm

Hogg

Howard

Thornthwaite

Stewart

Foster

van Dongen

B. Simpson

Horne

Slater

The Chair: The amendment fails. We'll now return to consideration of

section 6.

[1540]

Hon. Members, the committee on Bill 22 resumes with the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Getting back to

section 6, I'm looking to focus some of my questions on the issues that relate to matters that get referenced primarily in section (2)(

d) around local versus provincial responsibilities and what the mediator may be putting forward.

For people who may be watching this, what

section 6(2)(

d) says is: "…the new collective agreement is to include additional matters that may be locally negotiated between the BCTF and a board of education if those matters (

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

There has always been much debate about whether we want to have a two-tiered system of some sort versus exclusively a provincial or a local bargaining system. I think this, probably more than most sections, would be something where the devil truly is in the details as to what lands at what place in terms of which responsibility.

Could the minister maybe give us his view, generally, what pieces he sees broadly, not in the details…? Broadly, what lands as a provincial responsibility? What might fall into that category of local responsibility?

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may wish to canvass the Blues or the Hansard of yesterday, because there was an extensive discussion of this section. Just for clarity, what issues should be dealt with at the local or district bargaining level versus at the provincial level has been a considerable issue at the bargaining table over the past 12 months. Some of the issues are resolved through

an act known as PELRA, the Public Education Labour Relations Act, which directs cost issues to the provincial level, but that leaves in the residual many non-cost issues to be resolved.

I think it is clear from the discussion at the bargaining table over the year that the view of the B.C. Teachers Federation is that all of those non-cost issues should be directed to the local level. I understand that for BCPSEA, the employer, they would see a different mix of those issues being resolved at the local or provincial level.

The opportunity which the mediator will have is to look at those respective perspectives which BCPSEA and BCTF have on the appropriate distribution of non-cost local-provincial issues and bring recommendations.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer. It seems to me that I understand the role of BCPSEA in terms of the collective bargaining side.

The question I guess I would have at this point…. This is a bigger issue than BCPSEA. This comes down to the local boards. At the point where you start pushing bargaining down to the local level, you're talking about local boards, local chairs and local superintendents and the relationship they will have with, presumably, BCPSEA restructuring somehow to be able to provide support to individual boards as they proceed in whatever local bargaining there is.

My next question is: has the ministry…? In writing the bill and crafting this

section and contemplating going back to a local bargaining structure or a two-tiered structure of some kind, has there been a discussion with the BCSTA about this matter in terms of their views of this structure?

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: To begin, note that there already is two-tiered bargaining in place in British Columbia. There has been that two-tiered bargaining in place since 1994, when the Public Education Labour Relations Act was adopted by government. So there has been that acknowledged split of provincial and local issues since 1994.

In 1995, I am advised, the parties agreed on what they considered at that point in time to be an appropriate provincial-local split on the issues. The current disposition of the Teachers Federation is that they would like more issues to be resolved at the local level versus the provincial level, which I gather is still, though, consistent with PELRA.

The question which a mediator might consider is: what's the appropriate balance between provincial and local? Of course, I'm sure that as representatives of what

[ Page 10189 ]

hopes to be a future government in British Columbia, members opposite have some views on this. Obviously, they did in 1994 and 1995, as I'm sure, in a difficult circumstance, government tried to move through this always compelling and difficult issue of what the right balance is between local and provincial issues.

In terms of any deliberation, consultation, with respect to what the appropriate balance is, that would occur between BCPSEA and the B.C. School Trustees Association. The B.C. School Trustees Association is the parent organization to BCPSEA. BCPSEA is essentially an agency of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

S. Simpson: Well, I'm sure, again, that it will be in the details. Each of the boards may have a different view, based on a number of issues, as to what they think is appropriate for them. The size of the board may make a difference. There's maybe a whole array of reasons why different districts might look at things slightly differently.

In point 6(2)(d)(

i) it talks about "do not affect any other school district." Could the minister tell us: does he contemplate here that this structure could allow for some aspects of local bargaining to occur in some districts yet not necessarily occur in other districts?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll begin by noting for the member's edification that there was an extensive discussion of 6(2)(d)(ii) yesterday in committee. One can reference that, I presume, either through the Education critic or through Hansard .

Again, to repeat what was said in much more expansive terms yesterday, the point of sub (d)(i), "do not affect any other school district," is that there should be no provision that is adopted in a contract in school district A which will have the impact of binding similar matters in school districts B through Z. I don't want to go through the full debate we had on this yesterday. The member can see that in Hansard .

S. Simpson: I appreciate that comment, and I'll go look at that. I'll get back to what the question that I asked was, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. The question I'm asking is: does the minister contemplate…?

We know that ultimately these are matters that may not be all agreed to. Of course, if we go and look at 6(4)(b), it talks about making recommendations around the dispute. Presumably those are recommendations that will come back to the minister, and the minister will ultimately have to make some decisions on what the recommendations from the mediator are there. These could be the kinds of issues that end up coming back to the minister's desk.

I'm trying to get some sense of the minister's view here. The question comes back again to: is it the minister's view or the view of the government that you could have a situation where an envelope of local items is different from district to district, and districts are negotiating a different package of local items in Vancouver than they are in Quesnel? Or will it be uniform across the board in terms of what's at the local table?

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is yes. It could be different, and, indeed, under the present arrangements in PELRA, it could be different as well. I'm advised that there are two appendices, one listing provincial matters and a second, appendix 2, listing local matters, and districts are able to draw down as appropriate from that list of local matters.

For example, there is a provision in the Peace River districts with respect to parking and plug-ins, and, again, that is probably not going to be something that is of interest, indeed, in more southern, more rural districts.

S. Simpson: I would note for the minister that I'm certainly not averse to the notion that this is what we're going to do — have some kind of two-tiered system that, as the minister said, may work. It, again, will depend on what the details are as to how successfully I believe it will work, and I think that what's going on here. This process that the minister is engaged in, in Bill 22, as it plays out, may well take us to the place where we have more clarity. Whether people like the end results or not, we'll have more clarity about what this looks like. I'm trying to get a sense here from the minister

I just want to go back to a comment that the minister made when I asked the question about the school trustees association. The minister at that time said that BCPSEA answers to the BCSTA — essentially was, I believe, the minister's comment, that the employers association answers to the school trustees association on these matters.

If the minister could, then, clarify: the Public School Employers Association, then, will take its direction from the B.C. School Trustees Association on matters related to this in terms of how they engage with the mediator? Or will the Public School Employers Association also be engaged in discussions with the ministry around thoughts from the ministry and where the ministry is at?

[D. Black in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of the Environment.

Minister of Education. Sorry, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I felt a sense of relief for a moment, and now you've dashed my dreams. How cruel.

The member summarized my comments inappropriately, perhaps, and I know that he didn't do it with ill intent. But just to be clear, BCPSEA is not, in a formal sense, responsible to the B.C. School Trustees Association. It is responsible directly to school boards through its board

[ Page 10190 ]

of directors structure. Obviously, there are linkages there, but a mediator in this case….

Again, just to put a fine point on it, the mediator would be consulting with BCPSEA. BCPSEA, in turn, would be consulting appropriately with their school boards — again, either directly or through their board of directors structure.

[1605]

S. Simpson: If that's the case — and I appreciate the clarification; I appreciate the minister correcting my view on that — I guess that brings me back a little bit to that other question.

We have here a situation where the School Trustees Association will play, presumably, some kind of coordinating role in terms of its members — I assume in some conversation about this — in terms of if they have a collective response to the question of what should happen in any adjustments to the local versus provincial bargaining structure that this particular process of mediation, under this section, might bring us to.

I'm assuming that they're going to want to have a conversation, and ideally…. They may not be able to find a common position among all the districts, but maybe they can find a consensus on some positions. They're going to have to have a conversation about this, I assume, through whatever avenues that they have available to them in the structure of the association.

So it brings me back, again, to asking the question: has the minister contemplated the time that will be allowed even for that conversation to go on among districts, as to where they might find common ground, what they might agree on and to how the conversation with the school trustees association may go so that, presumably, it allows BCPSEA to come to the table with a clearer position about what its mandate actually is, to be able to negotiate around this or to be able to be part of a mediation process?

What allowances has the minister made for that conversation to go on? Is the ministry playing any role in enabling that?

Hon. G. Abbott: BCPSEA is the association for labour relations matters of the B.C. School Trustees Association. What expressions of interest or what discussions might go on between those two respective organizations would be up to them, but BCPSEA is acknowledged to be their association for the purposes of labour relations of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

[1610]

In terms of the mediator's report and is there sufficient time for discussions in this area, this bill would see the mediator reporting out, at latest, June 30. This is also, I should note, not a new issue.

BCPSEA has been discussing this with their members since, I'm advised, January of 2011. So they've certainly been canvassing their members with views in this regard, and I expect that the mediator will hear the well-articulated position of BCPSEA in these matters.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I know that this is a live discussion among trustees all the time, because they're being pushed and pulled in different ways depending on views.

Now, it's my understanding, and I could be corrected here…. The board of BCPSEA is, I believe, nine trustees from different districts and then four government representatives — is the composition of the board. The minister is acknowledging those numbers are correct. I see pretty quickly how those nine boards that have a trustee who's been fortunate enough to be elected to the BCPSEA board have a direct route in, and they have part of that conversation right now.

I see how the government gets to make sure that its message is delivered, because they have four representatives who will, presumably, bring the views that are discussed within the ministry, as to the objectives of the government. I see how that gets there. But we have a large number of districts, and it's not entirely clear how they become part of that conversation.

I don't want to dwell on that so much. But I guess at the end of the day, if you look at things like (d)(i): "do not affect any other school district…." Well, the minister referenced what would be considered to be, maybe, more direct impacts; i.e., you do something in district A, and it has a very direct impact on the neighbouring district, and that has a financial implication or another implication.

There are also all kinds of things that could be considered indirect impacts of local bargaining as well, and I'm sure those are going on today. Under this, I imagine there are boards that will say: "We will feel affected."

Again, the question is: how do those boards that don't have that place…? How do you get confidence, as the minister, that they're being talked to in this? You don't want them coming back to you later, saying: "We weren't part of the conversation, and we weren't part of what's going on." How do you have confidence that they had a satisfactory role to play in that BCPSEA decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: The important distinction is this: BCPSEA is an association of boards, and 60 boards…. Every board in the province is a member of BCPSEA. BCPSEA has well-defined and regularized mechanisms — including meetings, conference calls and so on — to make sure that all 60 members are aware of important positions that they will be taking.

S. Simpson: I'm absolutely sure that every board is aware of Bill 22. I don't have any question about that, and I'm sure most of those trustees have probably read the legislation. They've probably read it. I'm not suggesting for a minute that there is somebody out there saying: "So

[ Page 10191 ]

what's that all about?"

Could the minister, then, tell us when…? How will…? Maybe the better question is: who will define under (d)(

i) what constitutes an effect on a school district? Who's going to make that definition?

[1615]

Is it going to be the mediator? Is it going to be BCPSEA? Is it going to be the ministry? Who is going to make that determination about whether there is a real effect on another district — so, as a consequence, something should or shouldn't be considered a local matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it should be noted that sub (2)(d)(

i) is a term of reference for the mediator. The mediator will hear representations from both parties, BCPSEA and BCTF, with respect to their views about whether there would be any effect on a change. The mediator would weigh those submissions and make a recommendation in respect of it.

S. Simpson: It says here, of course, under (d)(ii) that those matters "would, in the opinion of the mediator, be more effectively negotiated as local matters." I'm assuming, then — whatever those opinions of the mediator, which they will put in their report that they'll submit to the minister, will say — that they'll recommend that matters X, Y and Z should be added to the list of local bargaining, or subtracted from the list — whatever the mediator decides is appropriate under that section.

But if I look…. It talks about how, then, it will make those recommendations consistent. Under 6(4)(

b) it says it will "make recommendations, consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2), on any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties."

That being the case — and I'm just going to speculate for a minute that there might not be entire agreement on this in this mediation process — if there's not resolve, how does the minister foresee going back and having a conversation once the file is back on his desk after the mediator reports out?

If the mediator doesn't find total resolution on these matters of what's local versus provincial, how does the minister envision being able to consult, to satisfy himself around the mediation, with those parties, like the school boards or the teachers, on matters of what should be local and provincial?

[1620]

Hon. G. Abbott: In the, I'm sure, incredibly dangerous hypothetical situation which the member raises, there will be matters, hypothetically at least, where the parties reach agreement on a set of issues. In those cases, obviously, the outcome is fairly straightforward. They would be changed to reflect the common disposition of the parties, to make a shift one way or another in terms of local or provincial.

In a case where there was partial or no agreement, we would have to first of all look at the mediator's recommendation in respect of that partial or no agreement and then consider the specifics of the issue. It's very difficult to say much more beyond that.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify here, is the minister saying that any matters in this mediation where the mediator is engaged, any matters where the parties reach an agreement…? That's assuming, of course, that that's an agreement that the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers Council deems not to increase costs under

section 6(5), where it's deemed here whether the "recommendations of the mediator comply with subsection 2(b)" — which talks about not increasing annual costs of the collective agreement.

On any other matters where the parties reach agreement that doesn't run into trouble with the CEO of the Public Sector Employer Council's

interpretation, will the minister accept those decisions as they're put forward?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

S. Simpson: I've only got about one or two more questions here, and then I'll be done.

I know the minister is now saying that local districts, and that, will have their own method of conversation or discussion, and they'll have to sort that out presumably with BCPSEA in terms of that, because there's clearly not a direction here that lays out how that might occur.

I'm assuming, then, that it will be the view that the BCTF will also play the same role in terms of local school districts and teachers associations, that that will all be driven through the BCTF. Or is it the intention here that the mediator may be having conversations with individual teachers associations in districts? Or will they stay directly dealing with the BCTF as a body, much in the same way that we talked about districts versus BCPSEA?

[1625]

Hon. G. Abbott: General guidance with respect to how this discussion would be managed can be found in PELRA, which does set out the BCTF as the official bargaining agent with respect to the issues that would be engaged here. How the BCTF chooses to engage its local associations in that process will be up to the BCTF to determine. It is BCPSEA and the BCTF who are the bodies with authority in respect of the local-provincial split.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I know that in more conventional bargaining, that's all pretty clear as to who's talking to who when it comes to collective bargaining. Clearly, though, we have a unique situation here where we have the minister appointing a mediator who has some particular authorities and directions provided by

[ Page 10192 ]

the minister as to what they're doing.

The question here really is — I'm just trying to clarify — whether this mediator may be taking a different or a more unique route to get to the resolve of their work, to be able to do their job and get back to the minister. I didn't quite get what I thought was a clear answer here, so maybe I'll just check with the minister again — through you, hon. Chair.

Under the Public Education Labour Relations Act, it's very clear that a mediator would largely be talking to the B.C. Teachers Federation and talking to the Public School Employers Association as the two bodies at the table and trying to figure out where the ground was for whatever they could do.

This is a little unique because of the nature of this, so the question again is: as it relates to what's local and what's provincial, is there any contemplation that the mediator will go and choose to talk to local teachers' associations separate from the B.C. Teachers Federation as a federation — meet with or talk to them or contemplate subpoenaing them?

I know we've got subpoena. I believe you have the ability to subpoena in here as well, and the powers of hearing commission as well. Is that going to happen, or is the direction going to stay with the major bodies, the TF as an entity and BCPSEA as an entity?

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott: My previous comments would still apply, which is that the BCTF on the employee side is the bargaining agent. Any additional discussion that occurred with local associations would be as a product of a discussion between the mediator and BCTF. This act does not change the bargaining structure established in PELRA or the responsibility of the parties under that act.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for being here and going through this.

I've got some questions about

section 6. There are major concerns representing school district 49, the Bella Coola Valley; school district 50, which is Haida Gwaii; and school district 52, which is Prince Rupert. I'm talking to parents, teachers, school boards, trustees, constituents who have questions about the new contract and how it's going to impact their schools and the students in the regions. And especially, they're concerned with the minister having the power to appoint the mediator when there are many options available.

The fear that I'm hearing from many of my ex-colleagues…. I taught for many years and was a president of a teachers union and bargained some contracts. The concern is how the contracts are going to be melded into this new contract, the new collective agreement. It's a real concern, especially with the mediation process.

I'm just wondering: how does the minister envision the new collective agreement and how it may impact the 60 other negotiated agreements with school districts throughout the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question.

The first important point for the member to note is that there is no new contract here. What this bill does is extend the existing contract through a cooling-off period. It also puts in place a mediator to work with the parties through the period ending June 30 — hopefully, concluding with a mediated settlement between the parties which would reflect a resolution of the issues that have been discussed but not resolved at the bargaining table to date.

G. Coons: I guess my question that I asked was: once the mediator comes to some recommendations, how will that impact, or will it impact, any of the 60 negotiated agreements that the school districts have with their teachers unions and associations?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: We think we understand the member's question. With the processes that are engaged in this bill, there will be a mediator appointed. The mediator will have until June 30 to work with the parties.

It may be that the parties can reach agreement on the substantive matters, which would lead to a mediated settlement. Or it is possible that the parties are not able to reach agreement. They may reach agreement on some matters, not others, but overall, not reach a full agreement. It is there that the mediator will make recommendations on those issues that have not been the subject of agreement between the parties.

From the period at which the mediation ends, on June 30, through to August 30 — which is the end of the cooling-off period — government will consider the recommendations that may be made by the mediator and may look at what would be appropriate in terms of constituting an agreement that would continue through to July 1 of 2013.

G. Coons: Thank you, I guess, Minister.

Yesterday we spent considerable time looking at

section 6 and bumping forward to

section 13, talking about replacing

section 27, where it's "repealed and the following substituted." Again, I was here yesterday, trying to follow along, and I guess my questions are sort of going back to the conversation or debate yesterday.

In 13 — I guess I'll call it 27(3) — it says: "There must not be included in a teachers' collective agreement any provision (

a) regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act." So when this becomes a bill, if and when this becomes a bill, does that mean that the selection and appointment of teachers in every teachers collective agreement — local — that has been negotiated will not exist in there and will somehow transfer to the provincial agreement or the new collective agreement?

[ Page 10193 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, if I may seek your guidance with respect to this. Yesterday, as part of the process of understanding

section 6, on mediation, both the Chair and certainly the minister and staff were very liberal — if we may use that term — in terms of referencing both the new

section 27 and its relationship to 6. I think this question is one that we had better address when we actually get to the new

section 27. The new

section 13, I should say — the old

section 27. But I seek your guidance on how to deal with that.

The Chair: Your point is well taken, Minister.

Could we continue on

section 6, please?

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

My question — I just have a couple more before I pass it on to another colleague. I guess the question I've got is about the powers of the hearing commission in section (3). I'm just wondering what…. That's under the Public Inquiry Act. I'm not quite too sure of the mandate of the hearing commissioner under the Public Inquiry Act, so could you explain that, please?

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: What this

section does is align this bill with the power given to a special mediator under the Labour Code sections 144 and 145. So that engages the provisions 22 and 23 of the Public Inquiry Act, which includes: "may serve a summons" to require persons to attend a meeting, to give evidence, to produce information; "may apply to the court" for an order directing a person to comply with attending a meeting or providing information, etc. So that's the alignment.

G. Coons: Yesterday there was talk about teachers' professional autonomy and going towards whether or not this

section is going to replace language, and the minister said: "…this is not an attempt to replace language. That is not prohibited by the act. That's not the intention." So I take it that yes, language can be replaced. It's not the intention, supposedly, of the minister, but that could happen.

I'm wondering, especially when the minister talked about professional autonomy…. It's recognized in the provincial agreement, but also, 95 percent of teacher collective agreements contain clauses that define the limits of a teacher's professional autonomy.

An example might be: "While it is recognized that the board has the responsibility to exercise instructional leadership through its administrative officers in order to promote effective educational practice, teachers shall, within the bounds of the prescribed and locally developed curriculum and consistent with effective educational practice, have individual professional autonomy in determining the methods of instruction, evaluation and the planning and presentation of course materials in the classes of pupils to which they are assigned."

That comes from an example from a teachers' contract, and 95 percent of teachers' contracts, locally negotiated contracts, have

definitions and agreements on professional autonomy, where under the provincial contract, basically….

It's under "Teacher professional rights" — 6.11. This is

article 6 in the provincial contract that says: "Within the bounds of effective educational practice and prescribed provincial and locally developed curricula, teachers shall have individual professional autonomy and responsibility in the planning and presentation of course materials in the classes to which they are assigned."

Coming from a background of understanding the process over the last 20 or 30 years of working at trying to negotiate with your local school board — you know, many clauses dealing with due process, discipline, dismissal, seniority, post and fill and professional autonomy — it's a real concern that even though the minister says that it's not an attempt to replace language…. But the minister has said that there are 60 districts with, perhaps, 50 or 60 different language clauses, or clauses that are not consistent.

Is there a possibility that with this legislation, professional autonomy will be defined another way in the…? I'm going to say "new" provincial agreement because that is what it says in

section 6.

[1645]

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to, I'm sure, make the member's current understanding of this complex issue an even more complex one, the provincial contract in a variety of areas, including professional autonomy, is an amalgam of what has been concluded in 60 districts in the province. There will be some districts that have identical language, but there will be up to 60 expressions of professional autonomy listed in the provincial contract, because it is an amalgam of 60 district contracts.

[1650]

So I would note that there is nothing in the terms of reference here in

section 6, nor anywhere else in the legislation, that requests or directs the mediator to look at the issue of professional autonomy. There's nothing that says