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)

Monday, March 12, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

World Plumbing Day

K. Conroy

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Criminal Asset Management Act

Hon. S. Bond

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Women's participation in municipal decision-making

L. Reid

First Nations languages

C. James

Lifesaving Society awards for bravery

R. Lee

Income assistance

J. Brar

Eleanor Nicoll and South Cariboo citizen of the year award

D. Barnett

100 th anniversary of Duncan

B. Routley

Oral Questions

Government oversight of private post-secondary institutions

A. Dix

Hon. N. Yamamoto

M. Mungall

Intervention in UBC admissions process

J. Horgan

Hon. N. Yamamoto

UBC admissions process

J. Horgan

Hon. N. Yamamoto

M. Farnworth

DriveABLE program

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

N. Simons

B.C. Place business plan and naming rights

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

M. Karagianis

S. Simpson

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 22

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

R. Austin

R. Fleming

S. Hammell

M. Elmore

S. Simpson

B. Ralston

N. Macdonald

J. Brar

C. Trevena

S. Chandra Herbert

K. Corrigan

B. Routley

G. Coons

R. Chouhan

D. Routley

M. Sather

H. Bains

M. Mungall

D. Donaldson

N. Simons

H. Lali

C. James

A. Dix

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development (continued)

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

K. Conroy

C. Trevena

J. Brar

[ Page 10015 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two sets of guests in the Legislature with us today.

First, I have two constituents who are also teachers in the greater Victoria school district — Randy Dunbar and Martha Gerow. Would the House please make them welcome and thank them for their work.

Then I have a number of individuals who are here involved in the preservation of First Nations languages — and I'll say a little more about that later — Dr. Lorna Williams, Tracey Herbert, Peter Brand, Penny Brand, Shaylene Boechler, Alex Wadsworth and Susan De Stephanis. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Les: Joining us in the members' gallery this afternoon is the Ambassador of Switzerland, His Excellency Ulrich Lehner, who is visiting Victoria for meetings with the B.C. government today and tomorrow before attending the Globe 2012 conference in Vancouver this week. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Federica Lehner Timbal, and by the Consul General of Switzerland, Mr. Urs Strausak. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

[1335]

M. Karagianis: Today in the House I have a constituency assistant who is fairly new to my office but doing just a terrific job. Would the House please welcome Andrew Barrett.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to welcome a delegation of 15 senior civil servants from the Indian Administrative Service to the gallery today. The delegation is visiting British Columbia from India to attend a two-week program focused on competency-based approaches to human resources development and management in Canadian federal and provincial government. They are joined by two staff from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. I ask all members to join me in welcoming these guests to our House.

J. Rustad: It's always a pleasure to have guests come down from Nechako Lakes. Of course, it's a long way to travel, but today I have a number of guests down from Lake Babine Nation — Chief Wilf Adam, Deputy Chief Frank Michell, Justa Monk and Monty Palmantier. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

WORLD PLUMBING DAY

K. Conroy: Yesterday was a really important day that I'm sure everybody in the House would like to join me in acknowledging. It was World Plumbing Day. I'd like the House to join me in acknowledging the work that plumbers do across the province, but I want to specifically acknowledge my baby brother, Tom Thor-Larsen, the best plumber in the Kootenays. He will probably never get to Victoria, because he's too busy unplugging the pipes in the Kootenays. So please join me in acknowledging plumbers.

Introductions by Members

B. Stewart: Members of the House, I'd just like to let you know that my sister Andrea and her husband, David McFadden, are here in the precinct today. They're here to join me in looking at the interesting debate that I'm sure will go on here today in the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — CRIMINAL ASSET

MANAGEMENT ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Criminal Asset Management Act.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act. This bill will establish a comprehensive regime for management of assets restrained, seized and forfeited under the Criminal Code or other federal acts to improve effectiveness of criminal forfeiture in this province.

The proposed legislation will establish an explicit legislative authority to manage and dispose of assets forfeited to the government in criminal proceedings and will provide the necessary financial management mechanism to operate the criminal asset management program. The proposed legislation will enhance the province's tools for dealing with crime by removing the financial incentives to engage in criminal activities,

[ Page 10016 ]

as well as complement the distinct existing civil forfeiture program.

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 28, Criminal Asset Management Act, 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)

WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN

MUNICIPAL DECISION-MAKING

L. Reid: My remarks this afternoon will focus on Women Transforming Cities: Designing an Ideal City for Women and Girls. Women and girls make up half the population of Canadian cities. In Canada, however, only 21 percent of elected municipal officials are women. Girls are not typically engaged in making decisions that affect their lives in cities. Engaging women and girls in municipal decision-making, policy-making, urban planning and budgeting can transform cities to be more equitable, inclusive and democratic for all residents.

In some cities women set up organizations and advisory councils to change these statistics by addressing equality, equity and diversity. We want to build a network with a national conference entitled Women Transforming Cities: Designing an Ideal City for Women and Girls.

The Women Transforming Cities conference will bring together elected municipal officials with women and girls active in women's groups; unions; universities; schools; aboriginals; immigrant and refugee; housing and health organizations; violence against women; anti-racist, anti-poverty and child care activists; as well as planners, architects and engineers.

This is an opportunity for dialogue and action between girls and women and local governments. We want to transform our cities into places where women are more involved in the elective process and municipal governments are responsive to the priorities of women in Canada's urban centres. We hope to offer a session, delivered by female architects, on their vision of the ideal city or community space.

[1340]

For Canadian cities to be accountable to women, we need women to be involved in decision-making at all levels. A national conference bringing together elected officials with women from equality-seeking community organizations will move this agenda forward. We're organizing this conference to take place in Vancouver before the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual conference in June of 2013.

Organizing is taking place by e-mail, Skype, phone calls, Facebooks and in meetings across Canada. Please join us in engaging women and girls to transform our cities. The e-mail is info@womentransformingcities.org, and the website womentransformingcities.org. Please join us.

FIRST NATIONS LANGUAGES

C. James: Languages represent the identity of a people, and they are the holders of cultural, historical, scientific and ecological knowledge. Sadly, many First Nations languages are in danger of disappearing forever.

But a Vancouver Island–based organization is working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. The First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council has been delivering arts, language and cultural programs to B.C.'s First Nations since 1990. The enormously dedicated team behind the council makes it possible for elders, schools, learners and children to have access to 34 First Nations languages and 61 dialects.

One of the council's projects is FirstVoices, a suite of web-based tools. The site's language archives contain thousands of text entries and many diverse aboriginal writing systems enhanced with sounds, pictures and videos. A companion set of interactive on-line games entertains while teaching. The project recently produced 12 FirstVoices dictionary apps for B.C. languages, and using groundbreaking technology developed right here on southern Vancouver Island, the project has launched its FirstVoices chat for Facebook and Google chat.

The texting app had its world's premiere in Vancouver, with His Honour Lieutenant-Governor Steven Point and his wife, Her Honour Gwen Point, exchanging text messages in their Halq'eméylem language before several hundred delegates.

It's magical to see modern technology working hand-in-hand with our most ancient history, First Nations languages. First Peoples executive director Tracey Herbert is challenging all members in this House to go to the language map on their website and identify the endangered languages in our communities. She challenges us to learn a greeting.

So in the spirit of that request, I say, " JÁN ÍY, C̸ENS TÁĆEL HÁLE ," which translates to: "It's really good that you've all arrived. Welcome all."

LIFESAVING SOCIETY AWARDS

FOR BRAVERY

R. Lee: Last Saturday the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Lifesaving Society held its 100th annual Commonwealth Honour and Rescue Awards ceremony in Vancouver. I had the honour to present awards to some very brave

[ Page 10017 ]

British Columbians.

Just six weeks ago Alyse McDonald's car landed upside down in a water-filled ditch in Delta. While driving, off-duty RCMP Const. Aaron Jabs and his wife, Cherrie, noticed a wet little boy waving his arms. They pulled over and managed to rescue a two-year-old girl trapped inside a submerging car. The emergency service was called and soon arrived to treat the young family for hypothermia and shock.

Cherrie Jabs and Const. Aaron Jabs were presented with a Silver Medal for Merit and a Silver Medal for Bravery, respectively. They were also presented the Governor's Gold Medal for the most heroic rescue of the year.

Last April ten-year-old McKenzie Isaac of Merritt was playing in the shallow end of the pool. He saw eight-year-old Brayden Edwards struggling underwater in the deep end. He quickly swam out to tow him to the edge of the pool by having Braden hold onto his foot. McKenzie Isaac was awarded a Silver Medal of Bravery and the George A. Brown Memorial Medal.

Also awarded for bravery were Kevin Armstrong, Charlene Breti, Raph Bruhwiler, Kevin Carras, Wendy Cowan, Patricia Pilutik, Dean Francks and Dennis Robertson. Would the House join me recognizing these courageous British Columbians.

INCOME ASSISTANCE

J. Brar: There's a myth out there that applying for welfare is as easy as pulling up to a drive-through window to buy a meal, but I learned that the opposite is true.

[1345]

On the third day of my welfare challenge I had an interview with a worker from the Ministry of Social Development to learn about the process of applying for welfare. The application process was very complex and long. It could take up to four hours to complete the application. I also found that one must be very well educated with good math skills to do it himself or herself.

I stood in line with other income assistance applicants in front of a welfare office in the pouring rain. I got to speak with many people and hear their stories. The majority of them were there due to job loss and needed help getting back on their feet. At the end of the day I got my $610 for the month.

However, the following reductions were made before I physically got any money: $400 for rent; $20 deposit, which income assistance claws back every month until the deposit money is paid back to them; $15 deducted for the two days of January which had passed by before I got the money; $42 for bus tickets; and $25 for a basic phone. I was left with $108, which is less than $4 per day.

My biggest challenge during the month was to survive on $108. With this amount, I was able to buy food only for survival, not necessarily healthy food or enough food for a man of my age and size. That's why I lost 24 pounds in one month.

Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine as to what will happen to someone who ends up living on this amount for a longer period — even for six months. That's the question that we, the policy-makers, need to ask to ourselves.

ELEANOR NICOLL AND SOUTH CARIBOO

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

D. Barnett: Every year the South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce recognizes exceptional members of the community with a citizen of the year award.

The recipient is someone who dedicates all of their energy to improving the lives of the people around them — an unselfish, kind and compassionate person who believes that the people around them matter more. This is a someone who never asks for recognition or gratification. Altruism doesn't come around that often, so when it does it is of utmost importance to make it known.

For many years now I've actually had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the committee that selects the citizen of the year. It's truly a difficult task. This year we had 11 highly accomplished and valued nominees who have all contributed immensely to the betterment of their communities. All of the nominees are deserving and worthy of the title.

In the end, Eleanor Nicoll, a resident of the district of 100 Mile House, was presented with the citizen of the year award. Eleanor has spent the last 25 years promoting the arts in the South Cariboo. Chairing and organizing the Festival of the Arts and teaching and playing the flute for the local choir are just a few examples of her active community history.

In the 1980s when she worked as a nurse, she put passion and determination beyond the call of duty. She worked with local organizers to recognize her fellow nurses during Remembrance Day ceremonies for the contribution in past wars.

Please join me in congratulating Eleanor Nicoll and all of the other exceptional British Columbians who make our communities a better place to live.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF DUNCAN

B. Routley: Duncan celebrated its 100th anniversary March 4, 2012, with a new flag, which was run up the pole for the first time by our well-received B.C. Lieutenant-Governor, Steven Point. We even had a Sea King helicopter flyby, and we had a contest-winning song written by Ruszel which speaks well for all of the wonderful folks who live in and love Duncan.

[ Page 10018 ]

I know it's a big world, unfolding everywhere,

and happiness is found, wherever people care.

Some people like to travel, some stay put and try hard

to find the treasures that they need, right in their own backyard.

All across the country, you find work and find friends.

That might be in Duncan, or somewhere in between.

Fate has found me where I am; I guess I've put roots down,

I'll be wherever you are, and that's why I love this town.

You can go down to the river, or down to the ocean,

up to the lake, further up to the mountains,

and still be home for dinner, and that's why I love this town.

I travelled in my younger years, and everything I saw

helped me to learn and understand just how blessed we are.

It was then that I recognized that, what goes out comes around.

Those with more can give so much. That's why I love this town.

I know the parents of my children's friends.

I know my doctor and my mechanic.

I know my grocer and my waitress

and that's why I love this town.

[1350]

We love our new song, and we have a new flag, an exercise in art by committee, which was an interesting challenge. After much discussion, the committee of 15 approved one idea that went through up to 25 revisions before everyone on the committee was happy. It was finally passed unanimously.

I know we can't have props here in the Legislature, but if we could, the Duncan flag would look a lot like this. Happy centennial, and please join me in wishing Duncan a happy 100th anniversary, hon. Speaker.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

A. Dix: Serious concerns have been raised by students about University Canada West, a private college in British Columbia. Those allegations, of course, have been the subject in the last couple days in the Vancouver Province , as the minister will know.

The minister may not know, although presumably they've been doing work in this area, that the Deccan Chronicle , which reports from the Indian subcontinent, recently published a piece about how South Asian students have suffered due to the same institution's "dubious" claims.

When this newspaper approached the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi about problems Indian students were having with UCW, the commission replied that these concerns had been forwarded to the appropriate provincial authorities. Can the minister share with this House what actions her ministry took?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My understanding is that there are no formal complaints that have been registered with the regulatory body with respect to the issue that the Leader of the Opposition just raised, but I think that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that there are processes in place to look at any formal complaints that are filed. When any issues do arise or become known to us, these issues are dealt with very, very quickly.

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

A. Dix: Well, in the B.C. Transfer Guide, University Canada West isn't even listed as a "sending institution," suggesting that course work done at this institution is not recognized by other colleges and universities. So I guess the question is this. Serious concerns came through the Canadian High Commission. What actions did the minister take? What actions, if any, have been taken on this question?

Surely, the minister will agree with me — and it's the government that's made this a signature priority, even though their plan is several months late — this is a signature priority of the administration. So can the minister tell us what actions have been taken? The minister seems to not want to deal with the issue, but this is a significant matter, and I think we'd like to hear what specific action the minister will take when these complaints arrive on her desk.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The quality of our post-secondary education in British Columbia is very important to us. In fact, it's what sets us apart from other jurisdictions. We, in fact, in B.C. are considered leaders in Canada with our EQA, the education quality assurance standard that we have. It's a benchmark that sets…. The institution actually becomes EQA approved. It's an indication of the quality of the institution.

I don't know if the member opposite has read the B.C. jobs plan from cover to cover, but I believe it's on page 15. One of the areas and objectives that we have is to expand and strengthen our quality assurance framework, and we expect that we'll be implementing those changes by the end of the year.

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

A. Dix: Well, serious concerns, of course, have been raised in other jurisdictions about the holding company here as well. In fact, even the registrar of the regulator finds this "troubling" and says it's doubtful that those accrediting the school were aware of that history in 2009 when the government renewed UCW's university status.

[1355]

So I guess I wanted to ask the minister…. Serious concerns have been raised. Clearly, people do not believe through this process, where they have to go through the university first and then to PCTIA, as working for

[ Page 10019 ]

them…. There are hundreds of complaints out there, significant concerns that will hurt the reputation of British Columbia, and concerns being raised in other jurisdictions. What steps is the minister actually going to take to address these problems?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Maybe to put it into context, the business group that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to actually established business in 1995 in British Columbia. They had to receive approval to operate that business. There are processes in place to look at any formal complaints. I would encourage the member opposite…. If there are complaints that you are aware of or that perhaps you know of — allegations from others — I would encourage you to contact me or perhaps file a formal complaint with the regulatory body. That's exactly what they're there for.

The quality of our education is very, very important. The post-secondary education is considered to have a very, very high quality worldwide. That's why we're strengthening and expanding the quality assurance framework, and that is an objective that we hope to complete by the end of this year.

M. Mungall: Peter Chung left the U.S. after California state court alleged in 1991 that he had committed over 10,000 violations of the business code, including misleading students attending his private post-secondary schools. For over two years now on an online forum for international students, hundreds of students have made complaints about Peter Chung's newest enterprises here in B.C. — Eminata Group's Vancouver Career College, University Canada West and CDI College.

Many of these students claim that they were misled. All of these colleges under Eminata Group were reaccredited to operate in 2009, and all have EQA status. In January 2012 the Minister of Advanced Education wrote to University Canada West, granting them consent to continue operations after closing their Victoria campus.

These are all red flags. Why has the minister allowed UCW to continue instead of looking into these complaints to protect students today and to protect B.C.'s education brand?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I remind the member opposite that this organization received approval to operate in British Columbia in 1995. They've been in business for about 17 years, and to my knowledge, I'm advised that there are actually no formal complaints from students on this group of businesses. But again, I would ask the member opposite to work with whoever you appear to be working with, and if there is a formal complaint, please register it with the regulatory body.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: This is what the new executive director at the Private Career Training Institutions Agency says about the Eminata owner's past and the California court allegations about his practices there. She says: "That is something that would keep me from granting registration from a public's-best-interest perspective." Now, this is the organization where students would actually put forward their complaints. They've only received two, but nonetheless, this is incredibly important, according to the executive director at PCTIA.

When investigating why accreditation was renewed in 2009, the Province newspaper asked for but did not receive reports from that accreditation process. But the reporter was surprised that a senior staff member at Eminata had a copy of an e-mail he sent to the minister asking questions about those California court allegations.

Why is the minister failing to share information with the public but will share her e-mails with Eminata?

[1400]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would just like to correct for the record…. I did not share my e-mail with the gentleman that you just referenced.

Our province has a robust private sector post-secondary industry — 330, 340 private career-training colleges, mostly well run. When there are issues, there's a formal complaint process that students can use to register and lodge a formal complaint. When there are issues, they're dealt with swiftly.

I can tell you that our private career-training schools service thousands and thousands of students every year, and some of the students that I've talked to have said great things about the private career-training college that they've attended.

But again, those that have an issue have an avenue to make formal complaints, and I would urge the member opposite to file a complaint if the member opposite has some information. We need to protect the quality of our post-secondary education. It's what sets us apart from other jurisdictions in the world.

INTERVENTION IN

UBC ADMISSIONS PROCESS

J. Horgan: Last November Howard Waldner, the CEO of the Vancouver Island Health Authority, waived all normal provisions for contracting employees and directly awarded a contract of over $160,000 to an individual. He later revealed that he was unaware that this was a violation, and the contract was terminated.

Over the weekend the Vancouver Sun obtained an internal document from the University of British

[ Page 10020 ]

Columbia, noting that Mr. Waldner had tried to interfere and intervene in the admissions process at that august university.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Can she confirm that Howard Waldner, the CEO of Vancouver Island Health Authority, abused his power and tried to intervene in the admissions process on behalf of his son?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Mr. Speaker, I will take this on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Juan de Fuca, is there a different question?

UBC ADMISSIONS PROCESS

J. Horgan: There is. It has to do with the admission processes in general.

The minister, in her answer to a question from the member for Nelson-Creston, advised that the system is more or less on track. "More or less" is something, I think, that most British Columbians would be happy to be seeing on their mail delivery or their garbage pickup, but when it comes to post-secondary education, they expect a little bit more.

So again, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Is she aware of any interference in the admission process at the University of British Columbia on behalf of prominent individuals in the community?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'll just state for the record, again, that there is a process in place for students that have any formal complaints to register them with the regulator. When those complaints are registered and information is made known to us, we act on that information swiftly.

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. According to a memo sent nearly a year ago by the former admissions director, Denis Hughes, he in part resigned because of alleged preferential treatment given to a few applicants with well-connected parents who intervened on the application process into medical schools.

Does the minister think that is appropriate? And what steps has she taken to investigate this and find out exactly what took place and how many friends and well-connected individuals got their kids to jump the cue over those who worked hard to get into medical school the right way?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Mr. Speaker, I'll take this question on notice.

DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Members of the public and members on this side of the House have been raising concerns about the government's recently implemented fitness-to-drive policies, including DriveABLE. After meeting with the Alzheimer Society last week, the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara tweeted that there are "clearly serious scientific validity issues with DriveABLE."

Does the minister responsible for the motor vehicle branch agree with her colleague?

[1405]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that everyone, I think, understands is the anxiety and how difficult it is for people who are aging and face the possibility that they may be forced to give up their ability to drive. So it's a very serious issue and one that we've taken very seriously on this side of the House.

We should point out that DriveABLE actually started in 1998 in Alberta. British Columbia didn't begin the DriveABLE process. But of course, we're concerned when there's anxiety found amongst seniors across the province.

We do need to have assessment tools that are appropriate to ensure that the safety of those seniors is protected and also the public in British Columbia. We're always going to look for ways to improve programs. I have my staff looking at the DriveABLE program as we speak.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, after meeting with Dr. Douglas Drummond and the Alzheimer Society the member for Vancouver-Langara also said: "If you had a desk test like the DriveABLE that people felt was fair, that would be okay." She continued: "The idea that you could have your licence — something so valuable — taken from you on the basis of a desk test, I think, just doesn't feel fair."

These are scientists and doctors who are questioning the validity of the test. Does the minister responsible for the motor vehicle branch agree with her colleague, the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara, that there is a lack of fairness in the DriveABLE testing process?

Hon. S. Bond: One very important fact that the member opposite left out of her question was recognizing that DriveABLE references are medical references. So in fact, physicians in British Columbia, when they see one of their patients potentially facing cognitive impairment, actually refer those individuals to the program. It does not, as some have implied in this House, target seniors in British Columbia. In fact, what it does is accept medical references.

[ Page 10021 ]

We're fully prepared on this side of the House to contemplate improvements to the program. I actually welcome the advice of my colleague who made the comments. We think that she has a lot to offer, and I look forward to working with her to improve the program.

N. Simons: Dr. Drummond raised two key concerns last August about the new screening system. He asked, "How many false positives will there be with the new tools?" and secondly: "How will these assessment tools function in the real world as opposed to the university environment in which they were developed?"

Many seniors in this province have been forced to pay large sums of money and travel long distances to get retested by DriveABLE and pay $350 to do so. Seniors from around the province say that there are problems with the new testing and that they're the ones that are unfairly shouldering the burden of those flaws. Does the minister share the same concerns of seniors across this province?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what I think is unfortunate is when members on the opposite side of the House frighten seniors in British Columbia and, in fact, share misinformation. I can tell you that when members on the opposite side of the House gather up hundreds of seniors and imply that every one of them has to take DriveABLE, that is misinformation and fearmongering at best.

The most important thing to understand is that, unfortunately, we outlive our ability to drive safely. There does need to be an assessment tool. DriveABLE is used around the world.

[1410]

In fact, we are looking for ways to improve the ability to improve education, to offer it more widely across the province. But for the member opposite to suggest that every senior has to take a DriveABLE assessment is incorrect at best.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 10022 ]

N. Simons: The minister should know that members of her staff were invited to the meetings. If she had attended or any of her members had attended, they would have seen that we were very clear about what the whole role of DriveABLE was.

I think what should be pointed out to this minister is that the seniors are the ones raising the concerns. Mr. Speaker, 200 seniors in Sechelt just last week raised a number of concerns, among them the fairness and transparency of the test. They asked this specific question: how is it that the person who acted as chief researcher for the new guidelines also developed the medical test that doctors are being mandated to use, and they happened to be sent to a program that happens to be very well connected to her personally?

There are a number of issues in this, and it's all about fairness. Seniors nod when we say we want safe streets in our province. They agree. But they also agree that any program must be fair, must be transparent and must be accountable to the seniors that it's supposed to address.

So once again, can the minister show us the evidence — the scientifically, independently validated evidence — to suggest that the current system is fair?

Hon. S. Bond: What is fair is finding an adequate and appropriate assessment that actually protects individuals who have a cognitive impairment. This is not about targeting seniors.

The member opposite perhaps should have outlined to the seniors that he spoke to that, in total, 1,500 individuals across the province are sent for assessments based on a medical reference. It is not about the government suggesting that every senior should take DriveABLE. That is incorrect and inaccurate. It is 1,500 individuals that actually are assessed as a result of their physician's recommendation.

All of us are concerned that seniors are treated with respect and dignity. There are improvements necessary. We are working on them, but it's important that the member opposite gets the facts straight.

B.C. PLACE BUSINESS PLAN

AND NAMING RIGHTS

S. Chandra Herbert: As we all know, last week the Liberals rejected the $40 million naming rights deal with TELUS for B.C. Place, a deal that the Liberals initiated, which has left taxpayers on the hook for potentially millions of dollars.

Now the Liberal government says it believes PavCo can replace the lost naming rights revenue with other advertising revenues from the building. The chair of PavCo, David Podmore, says that the government has to relieve PavCo of the $40 million lost, because PavCo has already been selling that advertising. So can the minister, who claimed that they can make up the $40 million in advertising revenue, explain how you can sell ads that have already been sold?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite is incorrect, as usual. There are plenty of opportunities that we'll be able to take advantage of.

Just last November we hosted the Grey Cup in British Columbia. That one single event generated $118 million in economic benefits. This is a good investment for B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just last year the minister said he was looking at a number of revenue streams to make up for the cost of B.C. Place, a cost which is being shouldered by provincial taxpayers. He said: "There's value for allowing B.C. Place to be called something other than B.C. Place." He also said that the $20 million, not the later $40 million which was being negotiated, was a substantial amount of money, and he argued that that's why it should be renamed.

So now that this deal has gone sideways, I'd like to ask the minister if he'll release the business plan for this deal, since there's been no business plan for B.C. Place.

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite may know that we have a brand-new tenant in the building called the Vancouver Whitecaps. In fact, this Saturday they had their home opener, and they won 2-nil, which is good news for B.C. So 21,000 people took in that game. An additional $40 million in benefits each and every year….

The investment in this new roof and this new system translates directly into a $350,000 savings per year in terms of energy costs. This has been a good investment for the people of British Columbia. It will serve us well for 40 years.

M. Karagianis: I'm quite curious. It would appear that the B.C. Liberals are trying to double-count their revenue on B.C. Place, and that doesn't seem to meet the nod test on any kind of general accounting practice that I am aware of. So I think it's a clear question about the B.C. Liberals once again sort of forging ahead without a business plan for what they're going to do. We're already waiting on this side of the House for a business plan for — what? — the fire sale of public assets, the sell-off of liquor distribution.

Clear question. Can the minister present the business plan here for this revenue recoup, or are the taxpayers just actually on the hook for $40 million?

Hon. P. Bell: Obviously, the members opposite don't like the fact that the B.C. Lions hosted, and won, the Grey Cup game last November — $118 million in economic impact. Apparently, the members opposite don't like the fact that this facility will serve British Columbians for an additional 40 years. Apparently, they don't acknowledge the fact that there's going to be a $350,000 savings per year in energy savings and that we've got a brand-new tenant called the Whitecaps in the facility.

But perhaps they will acknowledge that there were almost 4,000 person-years' worth of employment created when this facility was built. It is a good investment for the province of British Columbia. It will serve us well for 40 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, based on the cost overruns on this, it better serve us for that long.

Let's just take a little look at this. So — what? — a $30 million payoff for Boss Power, $6 million for Basi and Virk for their trial, $40 million gone like this because the B.C. Liberals mismanaged the renaming here, and yet not one dime for child poverty.

It is very clear that the B.C. Liberals do not have a plan, a business plan, in any way here and that they are botching and mismanaging every step of the way. Taxpayers are on the hook for $40 million. The minister needs to just stand up and admit that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure I heard a question in all of that. But what I will say is that the option in terms of having a stadium of this nature would have cost double if you were to build a brand-new stadium. This is a facility that has served us very, very well since the mid-1980s.

The investment that we've made in this facility goes far beyond simply making it available as a major sports facility for another 40 years. It also has become the most seismically safe building anywhere in the city of Vancouver and is now a gathering point in the event of an earthquake. This has been a good investment. It will serve British Columbians well for the next 40 years.

S. Simpson: Is the minister trying to tell us here that he just saved us the $560 million we paid for this roof? We have a stadium with a roof that had…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …major cost overruns. The government told us, first, they were going to pay for it with a casino that never happened. Then we were going to get $40 million for naming rights that never happened. Clearly, there's no plan. Will the minister produce the business plan or admit there isn't one?

[1420]

Hon. P. Bell: You know, it's amazing how the NDP can make a bad-news story out of something like the Grey Cup — $118 million in economic benefit to British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, a brand-new…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: …professional soccer team now com-

[ Page 10023 ]

peting on a global…. They wouldn't have existed in the league that they're in now, would they, Member opposite? They're actually part of this league because we have a retractable roof in that stadium.

We're seeing world-class shows like the boat show come forward. We're seeing world-class home shows come forward. We're able to incorporate an additional 50 days of use out of this stadium each and every year. This is a facility that will serve British Columbians very well into the future. We're proud of the investment.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Government House Leader.

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 22

Hon. R. Coleman: I move:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all proceedings, relating to second reading of Bill (No. 22) intituled Education Improvement Act shall be completed and disposed of on or before Monday, March 12, 2012 at 6:15 p.m. At 6:15 p.m. on the date mentioned, the Speaker shall forthwith put all necessary questions for the completion of second reading stage of the said bill without amendment or debate. Any divisions called on the second reading, or a second reading amendment, of the said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16.

I further move that pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), on or before Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. all remaining proceedings relating to Bill (No. 22) shall be completed and disposed of. At 4:45 p.m. on March 15, 2012, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said bill without amendment or debate, and divisions called on any

section of Bill (No. 22) shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on the third reading of the said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16. Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of the sittings of the House.]

[1425]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Rustad

McIntyre

Reid

Thomson

Lekstrom

Bloy

Yamamoto

McNeil

Chong

Lake

MacDiarmid

McRae

Yap

Letnick

Barnett

Lee

Sultan

Dalton

Hawes

Coell

Krueger

Heed

Cadieux

Polak

Bell

Coleman

Falcon

Bond

Abbott

Hansen

Les

Stilwell

Hayer

Cantelon

Bennett

Pimm

Hogg

Howard

Thornthwaite

Stewart

Foster

Horne

Slater

NAYS — 32

James

S. Simpson

Corrigan

Horgan

Dix

Farnworth

Ralston

Kwan

Fleming

Lali

Austin

Conroy

Brar

Donaldson

D. Routley

Huntington

Hammell

Trevena

Elmore

Bains

Mungall

Karagianis

Chandra Herbert

Krog

Simons

Chouhan

B. Routley

Macdonald

Coons

B. Simpson

Black

Sather

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call in this House second reading of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, and in

Section A, Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development. Should those conclude we would move to the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

R. Austin: I will be speaking to this amendment. For those who are just tuning in to watch this debate in regards to this amendment and who did not see what occurred last Thursday when the House last sat, I'd just like to reiterate and put this back on the record so people understand what we are debating this afternoon.

My colleague from Juan de Fuca on Thursday brought in a reasoned amendment, and I shall read it. It says

be it resolved:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.'"

[1430]

[ Page 10024 ]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Now, the reason for bringing in this amendment is very simple. We have seen over the last year or so, and in particular over the last few weeks, a lot of consternation in our public education system that has arisen in large part because of the breakdown in relationships between the teachers and the B.C. Liberal government. But also, we have seen a lot of consternation on the part of parents and students here in British Columbia as the teachers decided to go on a legal strike.

We on this side of the House believe that this amendment is a possible and very reasoned solution to this debate. Prior to Bill 22 entering into the chamber, both sides of this dispute had already, on their own, even after several attempts to try and negotiate a contract…. Nevertheless, they both said that they were willing to sit down with a mediator. The teachers asked for that, and in point of fact, so did the employers association, BCPSEA, who voted just the weekend prior to Bill 22 coming in that they also felt that a mediator was the best way to go.

This reasoned amendment speaks to what it is that both parties were seeking. We do not think that ramming through Bill 22 is going to solve all the problems — or, indeed, any of the problems — that are currently in the B.C. education system.

Just today we have seen reports of teachers around the province of British Columbia, who are so upset, moving to perhaps limit their volunteer activity within the school system. Now, I don't need to tell you that it is a critical part of our school system for our students to benefit, to have the volunteer hours and activities that teachers put outside of the classroom. So this amendment allows them to pull back from that anger.

Right now, as we are sitting here debating this, they are, I believe, having a discussion in Vancouver as to whether to make the pulling back of all volunteer activity outside of the classroom go right across the province. Just think of the devastation and the impact that will have on our students to not have teachers working outside of the classroom on a volunteer basis to do all of the sporting activities, to do all of the plays and all of the experiential learning that happens by going on trips for our kids.

This reasoned amendment is a way to recognize that agitation within the school system and say: "Let's hold off for a second. Let's just pull back. Let's go back to the drawing board, and let's have the Labour Relations Board appoint a proper mediator who can actually go and take out some of that anger in the system and bring the two parties together in a way that will avoid the legislative hammer."

Since we were discussing this last Thursday, one of the school districts right here on Vancouver Island, the Victoria school board, has come out in favour, suggesting that we should in fact not proceed with Bill 22 but do exactly what we are saying in this reasoned amendment.

I'm going to quote from the Victoria school board. Their board chairwoman is Peg Orcherton, and she stresses the need to resolve the impasse in a way that satisfies both sides. "It is unreasonable to expect that each of our stakeholders will be able to return and provide our students with the full experience of school simply by legislating an agreement. It is for this reason that the greater Victoria board of education is asking you to appoint an independent mediator."

I think what this board chair is talking about, and recognising, is that even if Bill 22 is passed in its current form, that is not going to solve the problems that are apparent in our school system. Teachers are going to be forced back into the classroom. They are going to be going against their will but as professionals will, of course, carry out all of their duties. But there is going to be huge resentment.

There is going to be the potential of them not doing all of the extracurricular activities that are part and parcel of what we expect in terms of a vocational job such as teaching. They are under no obligation to do all the extra work, volunteer work, that we see teachers do. But all of us who have had kids appreciate the fact that teachers — many teachers, on an ongoing basis, each and every day — do extra things outside of their classrooms, quite aside from the work they do in terms of preparing their school day.

[1435]

It surely harms our education system when we reach the point where we are with Bill 22, where we are generating this much anger that we're going to potentially lose that. I think that the chairperson of the Victoria school board recognizes that when she says that this is not a good piece of legislation and it won't solve our problems.

We also have the employers association, which also agrees with this reasoned amendment. Prior to Bill 22 coming in, they had stated, just the week before this came in, in spite of their challenges….

Let's understand this. BCPSEA had been at the table for many, many negotiating sessions, as the minister alluded to in his remarks. I believe it's 60-odd sessions of trying to negotiate this.

In spite of all of that — 78, he's telling me — they still felt it necessary to try and avoid using the legislative chamber to do this. I'm going to just quote here. The letter stated, from the BCPSEA's view, that:

"Mediation can, in the appropriate circumstances, be effective in assisting the union and employer to reach a collective agreement. As essentially a continuation of negotiations under the control and supervision of a neutral third party, the mediation begins with the progress to date and the necessary interests and commitment to identify the matters at issue, prioritize and conclude an agreement.

[ Page 10025 ]

"The primary responsibility to reach an agreement rests solely with the parties themselves, as the union and employer must live with the result of the deal. In order to gauge the utility of mediation, it's necessary to review the bargaining process and results to date in their totality."

So in spite of their huge challenges over 78 bargaining sessions, the employers association was also asking for a mediator. I know that it's the view of the government side and the Premier and the ministers that this bill already has mediation in it.

The difference between the mediation that's in Bill 22 and the mediation that we're proposing in the reasoned amendment, of course, is that this is what I would term true mediation without barriers at the outset and, obviously, both parties going to the table and having to put their issues on the table and the mediator having to push and shove and do whatever it is that mediators do to try and get an agreement.

I would also comment that one of the groups that is probably being dealt the harshest blow in terms of the job action that has taken place since the beginning of this school year — and I'm speaking specifically to the phase 1 job action of the teachers — is of course the principals and vice-principals.

With the teachers not doing a lot of the administrative work and the supervisory work, that has been left, then, to board officials, other members who are not in the union bargaining movement and, of course, to the principals and vice-principals. So I think it's fair to say that the principals and vice-principals have no doubt taken on an enormous amount of extra work as a result of the dispute that has been happening in our school system.

In spite of that, the president of the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, Jameel Aziz, is also on the public record stating very clearly that his group — and he speaks for the principals and vice-principals — does not believe that a legislative resolution to this is going to be helpful to them.

Why do you think that is? Clearly, principals and vice-principals must be getting fairly exhausted with the extra hours and responsibilities that they have had to take on as a result of the teachers' phase 1 job action. But in spite of that, they recognize that the end result of Bill 22, if indeed it is passed and we don't take advantage of this reasoned amendment, will not solve their problems.

Once this bill is passed, the principals and vice-principals have to go back into their schools and have to sit down with the teachers, back in management meetings, and try to rebuild relationships that have been fractured as a result of what has gone on these past few months. But in spite of that, they recognize that Bill 22 is not going to solve their problems.

Yes, the teachers will be back, and they will be doing whatever it is that the principals and vice-principals deem necessary as part of their job. But clearly, the principals recognize that in order for a school to work well, it is indicative, it's important, that professionals who work together work in a collaborative atmosphere. That is what is in the best interests of our students and our children each and every day.

[1440]

Bill 22 clearly causes so much grief to that relationship that it makes it extremely, extremely difficult. So I think….

Deputy Speaker: The member is speaking to the amendment?

R. Austin: Yes, I'm speaking to the amendment. Sorry, Madam Chair.

As I say, Jameel Aziz also recommends, essentially, that this amendment being brought in. He says that clearly, Bill 22 is not a solution. We agree with him, and that's the reason why my colleague brought in this amendment. This is an opportunity to pull back.

We saw just last week a number of teachers coming here to the Legislature. We have seen parents out there, and we've actually seen children, students — particularly those in the higher grades, who understand the complexity of what's going on — saying they don't want to see the Legislature used as a place to force the teachers back in. They recognize that the good work the teachers do for them as students is incumbent upon the teachers coming in with a willingness to share all of their skills and all of their knowledge. Bill 22 doesn't do that.

We think that pulling back and putting in a mediator is the best way for us to do this. Now, we saw this same scenario taking place a few years ago, in 2005-2006, where the two parties were at loggerheads. In fact, at that time they were out on, I believe, a legal strike action for about two weeks, and the government of the day, the same government, appointed a mediator, who went and took both sides into closed negotiations and came out with a solution. Times have changed, and the solution would be different.

What we say on this side of the House is that by using a mediator, as they did in 2005-2006, the end result will be better for our students. It will be better for our teachers, and it will be better for the system as a whole. So we don't think that it is worthwhile for us to continue with this bill.

We think that taking the time out to appoint a mediator…. It needs to be an independent mediator. It needs to be someone who is seen to have the confidence of both sides. It can't be somebody who is just handpicked by one side or is only allowed to look at issues put forward by one side. It needs to be the kind of mediation that took place in '05-06, and that is exactly what this motion speaks to.

Now, the Labour Relations Board, as mentioned in our amendment, is the correct body to be able to appoint a mediator. If we were to use the Labour Relations Board….

[ Page 10026 ]

They have, in law, the ability to go and find someone who is independent, and it takes it out of the Legislature and gives time and a breathing space.

We have at the moment a period when the public education system is taking a breather. Some school districts have a two-week spring break; others have a one-week spring break. In fact, some of those school districts, depending on which part of the province they are in, take those two weeks this week and next week, and some take them the traditional spring break — next week and the week after.

So really, what we have is a three-week period, if the government was to support this motion, for mediation to take place. That is a good period, a long time, when the parties could be sitting down and solving this problem. Then we would not need to be proceeding with Bill 22. As a result, we would have a resolution that would work for everybody, but especially for our students.

It is our students who have been hugely harmed by what's happened over the last little while. While adults here argue in this chamber…. And of course, it is adults who have been stressed out in their various roles playing out in the school system. At the end of the day, what we want to find is a resolution that helps our students to have the best possible outcome and to have the best possible public education, particularly those who are in their final year.

[1445]

We've seen a lot of debate in this chamber, both on Bill 22 and towards this motion, in regards to the effects of this ongoing job action for students in their final year. Understandably, parents are very concerned. Understandably, students are very concerned because of the activities that have not taken place in their final year.

This motion, this reasoned amendment, enables us to pull back and ensure that if there's a resolution that comes about as a result of mediation, we can go back and continue with the school year. Presumably, that would certainly help all of those students who are in their grade 12 and who are very anxious about making sure that they have everything they need as they approach university, college entrance exams and qualifications.

I'm going to conclude my remarks, because I know that there are many others who want to speak to this motion. I'm going to conclude my remarks as the critic for public education by saying that we think Bill 22 is not the right approach. We think this reasoned amendment is a much better solution. We offer it as a gesture that we think is constructive to this debate.

We think this is not simply the opposition trying to in any way filibuster but to actually offer a constructive solution to what is a very challenging time. I think, as we've watched the public debate happen outside of this chamber, there are no winners in this debate — and what's going on outside of the House.

We think that by having a mediator appointed, we can have a much more positive outcome on what's going on and a much more positive outcome for our students, our teachers and our parents.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this reasoned amendment that was put forward by my colleague from Juan de Fuca, and I want to outline some of the reasons why this amendment is actually an opportunity that the government should consider and should take.

I think that the Education critic has just concluded on many very strong reasons why this time-limited opportunity is one that is in the best interests of students and parents in the province of British Columbia.

I want to reinforce some of the arguments that he was making, to persuade, if it's possible, members on the government side of the House so that they can turn back this afternoon from a cliff of failure on negotiations with teachers that has dramatic repercussions that will carry on for years in British Columbia — for teachers, for students, for our education system.

Take this opportunity to get it right and to use the abilities of a specially appointed mediator to avoid the spectacle of the Legislature and the government admitting failure and using the most heavy-handed tool at its disposal, which is to force through a bill that will suspend bargaining and impose a solution that, in this case, neither of the two parties support outside of this House.

The employers agency doesn't support it, and the Teachers Federation doesn't support it. It's very important in this debate, as we discuss this amendment, to remember that. It is the government, the B.C. Liberal cabinet, that is offside from the two parties that have been negotiating with each other as to what the next steps can and should be.

I'll come back to that, but I think that is, in a nutshell, one of the best reasons why members on the government side of the House can think for themselves on this amendment and join with other members of the Legislature and ask themselves what is in the best interests of the province and, indeed, understand that it is this course of action, proposed by the opposition today, that gives them a way out, that is being asked for by both of the parties that have been negotiating with one another.

This is an amendment that is necessary to fulfil that request which has been made of government and so far ignored, and I think it is one that is incredibly helpful to have been suggested at this point in debate, before we see time limits invoked on debate, before we see the blunt instruments of the Legislature used to cut off debate and force through something that neither of the two parties bargaining with one another want.

[1450]

[ Page 10027 ]

There are, of course, principles that I think not just New Democrats have in this debate but, I think it's fair to concede, that members of other parties in this House, independent members of this House, have. And that is the principle of free and fair collective bargaining in our society.

I mean, that is a defining hallmark of civilization by any standard. That is why, through the United Nations and other bodies, countries throughout the world have identified it as a critical human right in society and have seen it as a way to strengthen the functioning and success of democracy as a system of government.

That is not something I would claim — that just because I am a New Democrat, it is a principle that is not shared by the other parties.

Here we have a real, live situation playing out in the province of British Columbia today, where we see a government taking a course of action that people would find repulsive and do find repugnant when it is used in other parts of the world — where the bargaining process is suspended, where it is ended by legislative fiat. Divisions between employees, in this case — because we're talking about public servants; we're talking about teachers — and the state are poisoned and are allowed to fester.

In this case why this dispute is so important is because it can affect our kids, and it is not in their interests for this to be allowed to happen. So with this amendment, we can, both sides of the House, work together in joint opposition, really, to the principle of government legislating teachers back to work and, specifically, to the bill that this helps to make redundant, and we can move British Columbia past having further consideration of it.

It allows government to get to a process where the restrictions that Bill 22 sought to impose on the very process of mediation are removed. I think what people have found to be entirely unfair and objectionable about Bill 22 — or one of the main things — is that it referenced mediation, but when you read the clauses of the bill, it would fit no standard definition of mediation at all. It was about a predetermined outcome in favour of the employer. That is the government bill written by this government.

Deputy Speaker: I might draw you back to consideration of the amendment.

R. Fleming: It is time, through this motion, Madam Chair, to clear all of that away and allow genuine mediation to take place — mediation that is, in fact, supported by the B.C. Public School Employers Association, that is supported by the B.C. Teachers Federation — at this critical juncture in the bargaining process.

It's been tough. There's no question about it. The dispute has been entrenched on many positions. Nobody denies that. It has been made very difficult by the constraints that government has placed, and it has been made even more difficult by some of the egregious content of Bill 22.

We've gotten to the point where we are today. It is a very difficult place, but we can get out of the hole that government has dug by putting mediation back at the centre of this dispute and trying to achieve an agreement between two parties.

That is a chance that we have here, uniquely so, in this dispute at this point in time, because so many doors have been closed and shut by this government. But there is still one that is open. There is still a chance for government — and they have various means to do that — after passing this reasoned amendment today, to go forward and find a mediation process that is truly independent and that will work and add value and successfully conclude this dispute.

[1455]

So long as there is that chance, then, I think all of us as legislators need to grasp it, need to take it. Members have spoken incredibly well to how the public education system serves their communities, serves families they know, constituents they represent. They've talked about teaching excellence in our system. They've talked about all of the schools — elementary, middle, high schools, the institutions in their communities — that do an incredible job day in, day out, that provide the most important service to British Columbia today and for the future, of course.

I think that is why we have to take the place that we are at today, poisoned as it is by this government and some of the negotiating tactics they have inserted into the process, and try and get it back on track — through the use of a skilled mediator that can be appointed by government, that is independent — so that there can be some agreement, so that the discord and conflict can be ramped down and so that kids and parents and the education system come first in British Columbia. That's what this reasoned amendment is about this afternoon.

There are a few, I think, background facts that also inform why the efforts through this reasoned amendment have arisen. It has to do with some of the mistakes, I think, that were made by government, both in advance of and during the tabling of Bill 22 before the Legislature.

One of them is around the bungled implementation in the appointment of government's fact-finder. The government and the Minister of Education knew full well that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education would not be considered neutral in this dispute. This is, of course, a civil servant whose work is respected, whose skills and expertise are beyond question, but whose reporting relationship is directly beneath the Minister of Education.

That is what government calls its effort at mediation in

[ Page 10028 ]

this dispute so far, and it was, of course, rejected by both of the parties at the table — the Teachers Federation. Its value was also, I think, commented on in a negative way by the employers association in this case. So that was a complete flop of an idea.

Now we are at a point where we can actually rectify the situation, to genuinely put in place an independent special mediator that has the confidence of both parties — that is neutral, beyond reproach, beyond question — and take the opportunity to do what the Education critic mentioned was uniquely before us now. That is, as it happens, to use this three-week gap — this sitting week and the two weeks of spring break that are scheduled around the province, in most school districts of the province.

Get back to the table. Talk about the issues that have been the sticking points between the teachers and the employers. Take the alternative to what most British Columbians find completely repugnant, which is legislated hammers being used as a way of doing business in government, and find some common ground.

Show the kids, the students in British Columbia, that there are some grownups in this dispute, that government is going to pull back from the mistakes it has made that have led us to the brink, to this point that we're at, and do everything in its power to fix the dispute. That's an opportunity that is uniquely before this House this afternoon. The government can take it.

I know that members have heard from their constituents, from students and parents that they represent, that they're elected to represent. They understand that this is an opportunity that will only come once, and it has a shelf life of a few more hours because of the debate limits that this government has imposed here this afternoon.

It's one, I hope, that they are open to persuasion about. It's the one that should be taken in British Columbia. It's the right course of action, and we should be voting on that this afternoon so that we can avoid having legislative fiats used in British Columbia as a way to poison relationships in the education system.

[1500]

The stakes are too high. The system is too important for British Columbia, and that should be avoided every time it can be.

S. Hammell: When I rose in the House around the debate of Bill 22, I declared my interest at that point in time. I mentioned to the House that my mother was a teacher and my sister is a teacher, and that I was a teacher prior to coming to this House.

Once you've been in the classroom, you never forget it. You never forget the dynamic of being there or the fact that you're with a number of children who depend on you for guidance, for support and for structuring their day so that they can be involved and learn about the things that they want to learn about and some of the things that you just want them to learn.

I listened to one of the members opposite, and there was a kind of longing for the good old days when, I guess, teachers were teachers, where their word was law and those students were obedient. That was the way it worked, and it was all good. I do remember, vaguely, some of those good old days. I remember when I was a student teacher. With the fear of dating myself, I was a student teacher with a class of 49. My very first year of teaching, I had a split class of 43. I do not long for the good old days, not for one minute.

In those good old days back then, there were not only large classrooms but there were things like — and I phrase this carefully…. Young children were failed. I remember distinctly a child in grade 2 — so this is seven years old — was failed. Using that tactic to tell children that they were not good enough was common in the good old days.

The other thing that was very common in the good old days was the strap. When the child, if they were not as successful as they might have been…. The strap was used for any kind of behaviour that was not seen by the teacher or the principal to be appropriate.

I remember, actually, when the last child in the school that I was teaching got the strap. He thought that the law had been passed. That morning he went out into the playground and lit up a cigarette. Unfortunately, the message hadn't gotten down to the school that the strap was gone, and he got the strap.

Now, I would say the kid just didn't quite understand the process from Victoria to the classroom, and he was punished quite directly for it. It was kind of ironic, I think, that the last time the strap came out in that school, that's what the child got it for.

The good old days just don't exist anymore in a wide variety of places. In my constituency, when I go to a classroom, it looks nothing like the good old days. Seventy percent of the kids in most classrooms in my community are not of a European background. They are from everywhere under the sun, every possible place and continent around this globe. They come to Surrey. They come to other places in B.C. They come into the classroom with all their baggage, all their packages that they've come from, and they are taught by these amazing teachers in the classroom.

That's why we need…

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm drawing you back to the amendment.

S. Hammell: …to make sure that this reasoned amendment is thought through before we move on and pass this bill.

[1505]

Not only does the teacher have a multitude of children

[ Page 10029 ]

from around the globe; the teacher in this new, modern world — that new, modern classroom — has special needs kids. In the good old days special needs students were not in the classroom; they were somewhere else. They were not in the classroom, so the regular classroom teacher…. That was not an issue. But now — and I think it's the right thing — what we have decided as a society is that we need to bring all of our children together, and they need to be taught as a group.

That's why we shouldn't move quickly to pass this bill. We should consider this amendment and be very reasoned about what we're doing.

In the new classroom we have a huge range of cultures. We have a huge range of abilities, and we have a teacher who's trying to manage this amazing group of kids. I have seen many teachers, walked with many teachers, been to many classrooms in my community, and I just don't think there's anything we can do that is not supportive. We need to support these amazing people who are taking our children — the citizens, the lawmakers, the workers of our future — and working with them to become solid, great citizens.

I think that my experience as a teacher and my experience in going into this new classroom…. Not only do they have a huge background of a variety of different students; they have a variety of different needs. I defy anyone to look at the good old days and try to put that against the technology and the ability of even young kids to communicate in some of our new methods, such as the cell phone, the iPad, the computer. These little kids are on it, and they are in places that we, in the good old days, never thought were possible.

I do think this reasoned amendment is reasonable. We need to stop. We need to think about those classrooms. We need to think about the teachers. We need, first and foremost, to support them, to negotiate with them in a meaningful way, to move this process to a mediation process that is more encompassing of all different points of view and to get down with our teachers and negotiate in all our best interests.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to be speaking to the amendment on Bill 22. The main theme is that it's not in the best interests of the education system in B.C. for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.

I think that the reasoned amendment is the direction we need to go for two primary reasons. First of all, both sides, the employer and the teachers, have agreed and have taken positions that they're in favour of appointing an independent mediator. So that's to start. Additionally, in terms of looking at building and strengthening our education system, it's advisable and preferential to resolve issues around collective bargaining in a consensual way.

Part of the difficulty and the limitation and, really, the weakness of Bill 22 is adopting a mediator that limits the scope of reference and the terms of reference to settle the items under mediation. That is a fundamental weakness of Bill 22, and the reasoned amendment looks to resolve that contradiction.

[1510]

Over the weekend and today the letters have continued to pour into my office fast and furiously. I was reviewing more this morning. Really, the overwhelming, very consistent message that I've heard — it's coming from students, from teachers, from parents, from my constituency of Vancouver-Kensington, but right across the province as well — is the disappointment with Bill 22 and also, I think, the undermining of public education and undermining the relationship that Bill 22 and adopting a mediator, a government-appointed mediator, to resolve the issues….

That undermines the relationship between teachers and administrators and their ability, their role — the important role that teachers play — to bring such a whole and well-rounded experience to the classrooms.

The issue of the limited terms of reference is, I think…. The role that it plays is to be very provocative and also to pit the employer and teachers against each other unnecessarily and really frustrate that process.

Collective bargaining is meant to be an opportunity for both sides to come together to put issues on the table and resolve them through negotiation, give-and-take. Each side may not feel that they have their full list of demands met, but at least it's something that both sides can come together and live with. The limited terms of reference, which basically prescribe the outcomes for the mediation and exclude a number of concerns and issues that the teachers have, really, I think, thwart and undermine the process and also the spirit of what collective bargaining should be about.

So the reasoned amendment, I think, looks at addressing one of the fundamental weaknesses of Bill 22. It allows both sides, who have already publicly stated that they're in favour and in agreement, to have an independent mediator govern and hear their concerns. It's unnecessary for Bill 22 to legislate this aspect because it's allowed within the collective agreement.

We're seeing that Bill 22 is unnecessary legislation, a very heavy-handed approach. It's looking to exacerbate and to really undermine and bring conflict to our education system at a time when it's not needed, at a time when we should be looking at how we bring all parties to the table together — how we work with administrators and with teachers, how we work with school board trustees and all the professionals in the education system — to strengthen our world-class system that we have in British Columbia and how we meet the challenges going forward in the future.

[ Page 10030 ]

The reasoned amendment is an option that we can look forward to, and I also encourage the colleagues on the other side of the House to rethink their position, to step back from the situation where we are today and to vote in favour of the amendment.

When I visited schools over the last few days and talked to teachers and talked to parents, there was a real frustration, I think, that I sensed from parents and from teachers — the approach that the government was taking on this dispute — and also a sense that it was unnecessary when we have both parties, the employer and teachers, who have been willing to sit down and discuss matters and when Bill 22 was brought in to impose mediation with these very limited terms of reference.

[1515]

So I'm speaking in favour of the reasoned amendment. I'm looking forward to passing the amendment, addressing some of these concerns that we have and looking at how we can rebuild the relationship that we have — which we need to strengthen in our province — with teachers, with our administrators and with the employer, and to look at constructively bringing value and also putting children's needs first in our system.

I'm going to close my remarks on that note. I hope that we'll be hearing from more of my colleagues on this matter and, as well, that we'll be able to reach a consensus and have a vote in favour of adopting the reasoned amendment.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in my place and speak to the amendment to Bill 22 put forward in the name of the member for Juan de Fuca. You'll know that the purpose of this amendment is to deal with one specific aspect of the legislation, and that's around the question of mediation and how that unfolds.

Now, it's important that people understand that's clearly not the only area of this bill that probably needs to be dealt with. We know that the decision of government to essentially abandon its responsibilities in relation to class size and composition, and to those rulings, essentially, of the Supreme Court — by legislative manipulation, quite truthfully — was the decision that was made there. We'll hopefully get an opportunity maybe to speak about that when we get into the committee stage and talk more deeply about that.

The reasoned amendment deals more clearly with the other major component of this, which is the question of mediation. What we know the government has done with this legislation, in terms of the order to teachers, is to deal with a number of aspects.

Now, we know that the government has decided there will be no monetary matters, no wage matters dealt with in the mediation process, and that is an issue unto itself. But what really is part of the significant issue here, I believe, is the decision of the government to essentially rig the mediation. That's what's happened here. They have rigged the mediation.

What they've done here is…. First of all, they have ignored the wishes of both the teachers and the employers, who both said…. The teachers came a number of weeks ago and said: "We're prepared to go to mediation." The employers accepted that and were prepared also to go to mediation. They were prepared to adopt that, have the Labour Relations Board go through its usual conventional practices to put a mediator in place.

That's not what's occurring because of Bill 22. Instead, we have a situation where the government will appoint a mediator — not a mediator who's necessarily acceptable to both parties, not necessarily acceptable to either party. But they will appoint a mediator.

The other thing that the government has essentially done, in addition to saying that monetary issues are not on the table…. They've essentially crafted this mediation in terms of terms of reference, it's very clear, so that you have a situation where, in fact, the employer's interest — the concessions put on the table by the employers — is what will be in front of this mediator.

So it's not even a balanced mediation in terms of what we have in Bill 22. It's not even a balanced mediation in terms of allowing the list of things that the teachers have put on the table that, in fact, are not monetary issues.

[1520]

Interjection.

S. Simpson: The member from Kamloops, I'm sure, will be on his feet in a few minutes to engage the debate. I can't wait.

All of the issues that the teachers have put on the table that are not monetary in nature have been excluded from this mediation, and that takes away from the fairness and the balance. That's part of the problem, and that's why this reasoned amendment has been put forward. The amendment has said, essentially, that if we're going to have mediation, if the government is sincere, if the government truly believes in mediation, if the government wants to advance that, then it's critical that they allow it to have an opportunity to work. And it will only work if it is fair.

There is absolutely nothing fair about what has been proposed by the government here. It's blatantly unfair; it's rigged. It's fixed so that it will end up with one result. At the end of the day, if the mediator doesn't end up going where the government is comfortable, the CEO of the Public Sector Employers Council — a senior employee of the government — has the right to essentially write off the decisions of the mediator, should they choose to do that.

We have a government that has essentially stacked all the cards on one side. That's why this particular amendment becomes so critical, because we have the oppor-

[ Page 10031 ]

tunity here, with a fair mediation, to maybe begin to pull these parties a little closer together, maybe begin to find the common ground that we hear all the rhetoric about on the government side.

Yet all of the action is exactly antithetically connected to that. It has no connection. The government's action to Bill 22 is exactly the opposite of anybody who has said: "Let's be reasonable and fair-minded. Let's try to do this in a responsible way." The last thing they would do is Bill 22 if they actually wanted to be fair, balanced and reasonable. But that's not what the government is doing, and we have this situation where that's going to occur.

What we need to do here is pass this amendment, give mediation a real opportunity to succeed, and challenge both parties to come and sit down and do this work. We know it will be difficult. We know it won't be easy. We know it will be challenging. Challenge them to come together to sit down at the table and make this work. That will not happen if we proceed down the road of Bill 22 with this version of mediation that has been cobbled together by the minister and the government.

But we can do this through the Labour Relations Board, through the practices that they have available to them, through the tools that they have available, through the mediation processes that have a longstanding record of responsibility and success. That tool is available, and it's proven. We can do that, but we can only do it if the government moves, and for the government to move, the best way is to adopt this particular resolution to be able to do that.

What I really think is important at this time is for the government to take a step back from this bizarre ideological position they've taken with Bill 22 and say: "Okay, we're seriously going to try to address the issues that motivated Bill 22. We're going to do that by allowing mediation to maybe have a chance to work."

Again, as I said, it's something that both the Teachers Federation and the employer were heading towards. They had both agreed to it. They had gone to the board to start that process, and then it was sent sideways by Bill 22. It wasn't like they weren't prepared to go and have that conversation around mediation. They clearly were.

I know I have many, many colleagues who want an opportunity to speak to this before the hammer comes down at six o'clock or so today to end this debate.

Again, I just want to urge the government to think this one through one more time. Think about fairness, balance and responsibility. Think about the school and the environment in the school. Think about creating some kind of confidence not just in teachers but in all British Columbians that this government has some vague notion of fairness and balance and of what is good for education — certainly there is no evidence of that based on Bill 22 — and move forward and adopt this amendment.

[1525]

B. Ralston: It's my privilege to rise briefly in the debate here. The government has brought down what is called time allocation, which means that this segment of the debate is now limited, and we will be obliged to conclude it this evening. Many of us on this side will be speaking. We will be speaking briefly in order that as many of us can speak to this reasoned amendment as possible.

A reasoned amendment is a parliamentary motion which allows a member to put on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill. It's described by Erskine May as being "declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill."

By bringing forward this reasoned amendment — our House Leader has brought this reasoned amendment forward — on this side of the House we're expressing our opposition to the principle of the government legislating teachers back to work and imposing restrictions on mediation that effectively predetermine the outcome in favour of the employer.

That particular part of the bill has come under close scrutiny. Really, when one looks at it, what is being asked of the mediator, who would be appointed under Bill 22, is to basically mediate what are called government's — the employer — concessions. The employer in this dispute is the B.C. Public School Employers Association. That's the bargaining agent on behalf of the government.

What is being asked for is that mediation really mediate the number of concessions — that is, weakening of the contract in the view of the BCTF — that have been tabled during the course of negotiations. So unlike a more fair mediation where a mediator would essentially come with clean hands and a mandate to solve the dispute, this mediation that's set out in Bill 22 would effectively require both sides to mediate the concessions that have been tabled by the employer.

That obviously is not fair and not satisfactory, and that's why, in my view, both sides in the dispute agreed that an independent mediator be appointed. Indeed, that's what this amendment calls for.

The Labour Relations Board has the power, on application by both parties — and both parties joined in that application — to appoint a mediator to begin to resolve this dispute. It is perhaps striking that in the course of the very protracted negotiations thus far in the dispute, there hasn't been any involvement by a mediator to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.

While my experience in labour relations matters is limited, certainly the few occasions where I've had, many years ago and as part of my employment, to deal with a professional mediator…. I think at one point I dealt with Mr. Vince Ready. There is a tremendous power and ability to persuade that a veteran mediator can bring to

[ Page 10032 ]

a dispute and find resolution in a way others would not have thought possible. It's a real skill. It is usually applied in disputes where negotiations have broken down and where the parties, on their own resources, aren't able to find a resolution.

That's something that hasn't been tried, and that's what I think should be considered in this particular case. There was a report filed by the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations and the Minister of Labour. That was a fact-finder report. What everyone thinks of that report…. His appointment and his report were open to the criticism that he was not fully independent, in perception, at the very least, from the employer's side.

A traditional mediator possesses independence, an open mandate and a willingness to assist the parties to come to an agreement, and can really resolve disputes. Some of the more protracted disputes in B.C. labour history, of which there have been many, have relied upon the good offices of mediators in just those kinds of circumstances.

[1530]

In addition to both bargaining agents, both parties, agreeing prior to the introduction of this legislation that a mediator be appointed, the Principals and Vice-Principals Association stated on the record that they did not support legislating teachers back to work.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Within the broader community of people in the field of public education, there would appear to be a consensus that mediation, at the very least, was an idea worth trying in the sense that principals and vice-principals don't think that legislating the teachers back to work and mediating in the way that's structured in Bill 22 will be very effective.

It is important to consider the impact of this dispute in the way it's proposed to be resolved by the government in Bill 22. A residue of bitterness, of unhappiness, of general distrust will accumulate and damage the future bargaining relationship. I think when one considers what the long-term impact is, that's a very — perhaps subtly but over time — destructive impact upon the bargaining relationship and a corrosive effect on the public school system.

We speak of the importance of public education. Many of the economic goals of the government ostensibly or at least arguably, to hear some of the rhetoric, are tied to the ability to educate and to train future citizens to make them critical contributing members of society, to teach them the skills that would enable them to participate in the economy in all sorts of ways. Public education is key to a lot of what we do in the province. Particularly in provincial jurisdiction, it's one of the most important things that we do.

It really, I think, is an opportunity for the government to listen to the opposition on this occasion. There's no particular urgency, given that the teachers, following the mandate of the Labour Relations Board given to them under the Essential Services Disputes Act, have decided not to pursue job action this week.

Many schools are closed for the spring break this week, next week and the following week, so there is a period of three weeks where a good mediator could bring the parties together and begin the work of trying to solve this dispute in a way that, I think, the public would really welcome. I think the public would welcome it. This may be an opportunity.

And who knows? It may even be an advantage to the government to resolve it this way. I don't sense that they're very happy with their own position and the advances or not that they claim to have made in pursuing the dispute this way. So it's an opportunity for the government to step back, to use this opportunity, this three-week period, to take up the idea of an independent mediator, to appoint someone very senior or have the Labour Relations Board appoint someone very senior, very skilled, who could bring the parties together.

I support the reasoned amendment. I think it makes good sense. It's an opportunity that the government at this point should seize. I'm hopeful against, perhaps, all reasonable hope that they might even consider it in this particular case. Certainly, the case for mediation, I think, is made.

I think it will be to the government's substantial disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the entire public education system if this dispute proceeds forward in the way that the government seems intent at this point on having it proceed — that is, to be resolved by the legislative mechanism of Bill 22, which is very unsatisfactory in very, very many ways and rejected, I think, in large part by the public, by the teachers, by the principals and vice-principals and poses long-term deleterious effects on the public education system.

Madam Speaker, with those brief comments I am prepared to end my remarks and give way to a colleague.

[1535]

N. Macdonald: I stand to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment to Bill 22. This was moved by the Opposition House Leader. It offers, I think, an elegant solution to the impasse in our public education system.

The amendment proposes to put the labour dispute to real mediation, as has been requested by both teachers and employers. In my first opportunity to speak on Bill 22, I laid out the three objections I have to Bill 22. First, Bill 22 does not respect teachers. Bill 22 makes learning conditions in public schools in B.C. worse, and Bill 22 undermines collective bargaining in B.C.

What this amendment does is address those issues. If you look at it, it provides an opportunity to be respectful to teachers. It offers the possibility of improved learning

[ Page 10033 ]

conditions for our students, and it is consistent with the principles of bargaining in good faith. So not only are we opposing bad legislation, but we put in front of the government an opportunity to do the right thing.

We have an opportunity for real mediation, in the weeks that we have, without disruption of classes, so it's a sensible approach that you would think a competent government would embrace.

What we've seen, of course, is that the Premier doesn't really have a coherent view on public education that is in any way evident. What we see is, of course, sadly that classrooms are pawns in what is a two-year-long election campaign that she's running — and used as a gambit.

How did we start with this? It started at the beginning of the year. Teachers were free to negotiate as long as it didn't include working conditions or pay. Of course, as we know, that doesn't leave a great deal.

There are two points that I want to make in the limited time that I have. The first is that as we look at opportunities to do things better, we need to remember that the provincial government is responsible for public education. The disruption of classes over this year and, quite frankly, in previous years is a B.C. Liberal failure, and the responsibility sits with them.

If you go back, it started in 2002, with the deceit surrounding Bills 27 and 28, actions deemed unconstitutional. This attempt at mediation would offer a step back from that approach, and that's what's needed.

It continued from there, to funding changes that forced the closure of over 130 schools, in rural communities mainly, funding changes that degraded special education supports, and then a whole series of half-thought-through educational initiatives — from BCeSIS, to how the Pacific Carbon Trust works, to the physical activity requirements.

When you look at teachers and what they've been asked to deal with over the decade of B.C. Liberal rule, we really can understand why there is no trust left. The B.C. Liberals really have only themselves to blame.

What I can say is that I believe in public education. Colleagues that I have in the NDP believe in public education. We believe in the possibilities of doing better, and I think that, given the opportunity, people in this province could have a provincial government committed to a public education system, and that's what we would strive for.

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, Member.

N. Macdonald: The second point that I would make related to this reasoned amendment is that we need to remember that teachers' working conditions, which this principled amendment would allow us to deal with, are really students' learning conditions. Composition and class-size requirements are in place to create self-welcoming, functioning, learning environments.

My experiences as a teacher and as a principal…. I heard earlier speakers talk about their experience when they began teaching. What I can tell you is that I know, from my first years teaching, that I can control a class of 40 students. But when you do that, when you have those sorts of conditions, there are compromises that affect the learning of students.

If you look at advertising…. You look at private, elite schools. What do they advertise? They will advertise things like small classes and supports for students. These are clearly things that they feel people will pay thousands for.

[1540]

If we believed in the quality of our educational system, it would be the provincial government that would be fighting for opportunities to provide that enhanced experience.

B.C. Liberals have purposely removed those standards, and that's something that in mediation could, again, be put on the table rather than with Bill 22, which leads to a very predictable result, which is a degradation of the classroom experience for students, which is something that very clearly is of very little interest to the B.C. Liberals.

All of us have, as MLAs, received e-mails and letters from our teachers, and I very much want to thank those that have taken the time to write in and express the concerns that they have with the education system that they're working in. I know that, as you read these e-mails, you sometimes think: "Why would anyone ever teach?" The odd thing is a previous speaker talked about the nostalgia that they feel for teaching, and even with this going on, as you read, the nostalgia for that experience comes through.

I have two minutes left, and I just want to share a story that reminds us of what's so special about teaching.

I was at a convention for forestry. I met a forester. I think it was just two months ago. We drifted into a conversation about the year that he had spent teaching, and he quickly started to talk about one young man who had not read well — struggled in class, very withdrawn. This forester did a hands-on project where students had to assemble a very complex model. The work suited that one troubled student, and he ended up showing first one student how to do it and then another and then the whole class. At the end of the day that student came back to that forester who was a teacher and asked if he could take the model home so that he could show his mother.

The interesting part was that as the forester was telling the story there was this welling of emotion, because through all of the hardships that we have, it's that teachable moment, that wonderful time when you connect with a student and make that difference.

So this is something I feel passionately about. This is an opportunity with this reasoned amendment to do something better, to do something better for our kids, and I

[ Page 10034 ]

would hope that the government would look at it and see it as the direction to go.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand in this House and support the amendment presented by the member for Juan de Fuca with regard to Bill 22, the poorly named Education Improvement Act.

The amendment presented by the member is pretty important and timely. It states: "It is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation."

The amendment would get away from the heavy-handed legislation and allow the mediation process to proceed. I think Bill 22 is not a solution. It makes, actually, things worse for students, parents and teachers. It increases class size, weakens protection for special needs students and hurts the quality of the education that our children receive.

[1545]

So it's about time, I think, for this government to step back and allow both parties to work together to find the best workable, practical solutions that are best for everyone — for parents, for teachers, for students and for the employer.

At a time when we have more than 15,000 overcrowded classrooms, we should allow both parties, the employer and the teachers, to work together to find solutions in the best interest of our kids. That's why we need to pass this amendment, because it will allow, actually, both parties to go through a mediation process that will work for everyone.

At this point in time forcing teachers back to work without finding workable solutions is not in the best interest of our children. Therefore, it's about time, I think, for every member of this House to think about this amendment and support the amendment so that we can allow both parties to work together to find a workable solution. At the same time, it is time for this government to step back and allow the agreed upon mediation process by both parties.

At a time when we have more than 25 percent special needs kids in some classes, particularly in the city of Surrey where the student enrolment has been increasing for the last many years, it is not the time to pick fights with teachers. It is the time, I think, when we should allow all parties to work together to find real solutions, not only forcing teachers back to work. There are some pressing issues in classrooms, whether it's class size or the class composition.

In my city I got a letter from a teacher who told me that there are about 30 students in his class, and out of the 30 students, almost one-third of the students are special needs students, which is quite a high percentage of students to deal with in a class of that size.

So that's why I think we need to pass this amendment. I urge every member on the other side to think really seriously about the amendment presented in front of you and to support the amendment so that we can allow all parties to work together in the best interest of our children. That's why I'm supporting this amendment, because I think it is important.

It is not the time for the government to go heavy-handed against the teachers and force them just to go into the classroom without finding those solutions. So that's why I think this side of the House wants to work together to allow parties to find solutions that are better for our kids.

Prior to the introduction of Bill 22 the British Columbia Public School Employers Association and the British Columbia Teachers Federation had both agreed to mediation. They had actually already agreed to do that. Why, then, is there a need to force them into a mediation which is not actually an independent mediation in the normal process, which takes place agreed upon by both the parties? I don't think there's a need to do that at this point in time. I think we need to allow both parties to work together to find solutions that work for everyone.

Madam Speaker, we would like to see a solution that will create positive working and learning conditions in the classroom, where teachers feel respected and motivated to teach our children, because that's very important. This government can force them — they do have the power to force — back to work, but they cannot make them happy by doing so. I think that in order to create positive working conditions and learning conditions for our students, it is important that both parties actually sit together and find solutions that work for all parties, including our children.

At this point in time teachers have actually opted to hold off on further escalated job action, so we have time. We have almost three weeks at this point in time to allow the process, and that gives us the best opportunity to allow the independent mediation process.

[1550]

I would like to conclude, keeping in mind my time, that at this point in time this is certainly not the time to pick a fight with the teachers. This is actually the time to find solutions to very important, pressing issues we have in our education system, particularly class size and composition. That is, I think, a very important issue. We need to deal with it at this point in time.

That's why I think this amendment is very important. This amendment will allow that to happen, so that's why I will support this amendment, and that's why I urge every member of this House to support this amendment.

[ Page 10035 ]

C. Trevena: I think that it will come as no surprise that I am standing in support of the amendment to Bill 22, which has the very strange name of the Education Improvement Act.

The amendment — I think it's worth mentioning again — is very clear. It asks, and I will read it into the record again:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.'"

Now, the reason why I'm supporting this amendment is very simple. It's a sensible approach. Imposing legislation on any group of organized labour is not going to improve a situation. By its very nature, it is a heavy-handed approach. It is saying: "It is my way or the highway. We are telling you exactly what to do. We're not going to give any scope for anything else."

We've seen it time and time again. We're seeing it more and more often. It is an extremely worrying approach to labour negotiations, to labour relations, that as soon as any organization decides that it wants to exercise its right — which is a right for a union to do, to withdraw its labour as a means of protest — they're legislated back to work.

However, the teachers in British Columbia have had a very low-key dispute for the last eight months or so. Since September they've been having a very low-key dispute, which has really had very little impact on many, many students. There has been a desire from many people for negotiation. What this resolution would do, what this amendment would do, is allow that mediation, that negotiation, to get underway.

The teachers would like to see that, the school trustees would like to see that, and the B.C. Public School Employers Association has also indicated that they'd be willing to work on that. The trustees, in their meeting just before this legislation was imposed, had said: "We'd like to see mediation."

It seems the only group that doesn't want mediation, doesn't want to try and resolve this in an amicable way, is this government. It makes not just ourselves in the opposition, who are often questioning the government's decisions and why they act…. It's making a lot of people wonder what the government is thinking, when everybody but themselves says: "Let's take a step back. Let's talk about this. Let's find somebody independent who can bring both sides together and try and find a resolution."

Mediation is really the way. In so many instances we're looking to try and find resolution. Whether it is outside the judicial system…. You try to find mediation so you don't have to go through the courts process. In family cases you try to find mediation so you don't have to take a child into care. There are many, many instances.

But in this respect, we get the government just saying: "Well, it's our way." When we had an independent fact-finder that the government appointed so they could find out what was allegedly happening, within the week of that fact-finder reporting, we had the Minister of Education stating that his staff were going to be working over the weekend to have legislation.

[1555]

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, Member.

C. Trevena: Well, Madam Speaker, I am speaking on the amendment, because the amendment is talking about mediation and negotiation and why it's important to have that rather than accepting that we are just going to impose a settlement, as this legislation does. If we go ahead with the legislation as it is, it's imposing a settlement that is going to inflame, not sort out, this problem.

Many of my colleagues have had many, many letters from teachers who are concerned about what's happening, who are concerned about what's happening in their classrooms, concerned about what's happening to their profession. And they know that what is being imposed on them through this legislation, if it goes through without an amendment, is really going to make things much, much worse.

They are extremely worried about what this legislation will mean to them and are looking for ways that they can have a reasoned dialogue. This amendment, by allowing for mediation, by taking that step back, would allow for that.

And as my colleague from Surrey just said, now is the ideal time. We don't need to be rushing this through right now. We don't need to be closing the debate on this, this

section of the bill, by the end of today. We don't have to be closing the bill off by the end of the week, as this government has said it intends to do.

We could, say, accept the amendment, take a step back. We've got spring break in many school districts. In one of my own school districts, school district 72, they're actually not taking their spring break till Easter, so they're going to be off until mid-April. There is a lot of time for discussion, for serious discussion, serious mediation to happen, if this amendment is accepted.

I'd hope that the government…. We've not heard many voices on the government side. I don't think we've actually heard any voices on the government side on this amendment. In fact, we've heard nothing from the government for several days about this bill, although they've all indicated that they are concerned about it. You know, we've had at least one minister — and I'm sure some of the MLAs who were former teachers — concerned about this bill. Yet they've not spoken to the bill. They've not spoken to the amendment.

[ Page 10036 ]

We have a Labour Relations Board that is set up, that offers alternatives. Mediation is an alternative. Mediation will ratchet down the anger, will allow both sides to sit down and talk. It's something that everybody but this government wants to do. I think that the people of B.C. can judge this government on that — what I would say are bullying, heavy-handed tactics. It's one of many that they've shown over the last years. They've shown many times that they've legislated people back to work without having the opportunity for mediation. Here we've given them the opportunity.

I would hope that the government looks at this seriously, thinks about it seriously, has the courage for what people in B.C. want, and says: "We will accept the opposition's amendment. We'll vote in favour of it, and we'll get back and have mediation."

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to speak in support of this reasoned amendment, an amendment calling for mediation — mediation between the employers and the employees; real mediation so that we could get to the bottom of some of the issues we've been hearing about around classroom composition, class sizes, learning conditions, working conditions; mediation that should allow us to have those discussions, because if you're going come to a solution, you need to find some way to cooperate. You need to sit down, talk to each other in a real way and put the issues aside that you can't agree on and, of course, find agreement on the ones you can.

That takes real guts. That takes real courage, and that takes willingness on both sides to move. Mediation can help do that because the facts come out on the table. The mediator helps you agree on some set facts between two opposing sides, allows debate and considerations, some back and forth and to and fro — that kind of thing — to actually happen.

I had hoped that by now we would already be at mediation. That this kind of process, which I understand was called for by both sides to this dispute and has received widespread support from the public, school trustees as well…. We could have been doing this already. If this was not just a political manoeuvre by the government to create division and to create a fight with the thinking that it might help them, we would have been in mediation already.

[1600]

If this was a challenge, I would have assumed this would have happened last fall, potentially. Certainly, it could have happened well before now. People knew that there were issues. They understood that there were going to be some challenges. You would think they would try and deal with that in a way that would bring people together first, rather than going on the divide-and-conquer kind of approach which we see here.

I definitely will be voting in support of this amendment. I understand that there's still some time today, and government MLAs may get up and share their thoughts on mediation and the amendment we brought forward. I think that would be helpful for this debate. However, I have not seen that occur in this debate yet.

I understand that the Premier has also indicated a desire to see these kinds of actions taking place. I would hope that the Premier is able to share her point of view on this motion that we've brought before us today. So far, we've not had the benefit of her voice in this debate, which is too bad.

I know there are some members on that side of the House who have shouted at us while we've called for mediation, rather than getting up from their seats and speaking. I think, again, rather than shouting across the room, it would be much more helpful if people would get up and state their piece, listen to each other and try and come to some sort of conclusion together.

That's what mediation should be about. That's what this House could, I think, be used in a better way to do, in terms of our political priorities for government in B.C. Certainly, when government puts up a bill, we respond. We've put up a motion, a proposal, an idea, something that might help in this situation, something that all parties have called for — all parties, save the government. I think it would be useful to hear the government's point of view on this.

We are calling for real mediation. Set aside the legislation, as it stands, and let's get some real work done to support our students in our schools and to support the educational experiences which would benefit us all in the future. After all, that's what we should be looking out for — the future — in this House — certainly, today and the circumstances of today, but also the future.

That's why I think mediation would go a good way, hopefully, if it was serious and people said: "All right, we're going to leave our anger about past issues aside, or our biases." But we don't see that. Instead, we get millions of dollars spent on radio ads, paid for by all of us, attacking teachers and teachers' point of view. I find that really unhelpful and quite rude. Mediation certainly would be a better route to go than spending millions of taxpayers' money attacking teachers on the radio.

I don't understand why the government has chosen that course. They would be wiser, I think, to use taxpayers' money to improve the educational experience of everybody, not through trying to spin people on the radio. Mediation is much better than spin on the radio.

Maybe some of the members opposite would like to get up to discuss why they think it's better to use attack ads on the radio than mediate. But maybe not. We may not see that, since it is really indefensible. There is no defence for that.

I look across and I hope, in the spirit of bipartisan support for mediation and dealing with issues facing our students in our schools…. I would expect this debate would receive attention from both sides. I certainly will wait

[ Page 10037 ]

until the end of today and into tomorrow and on and on, with the hope that that spirit of bipartisanship, of offering a suggestion, may be received in the spirit it was intended and folks on that side of the House will actually discuss that and say yes or no. I'd just be interested.

Mediation. Again, we use it in our own lives. We try and deal with those issues in our own communities through mediation wherever possible. Certainly, this is one of the biggest issues government is facing right now. I would think we need to look at how we deal with issues in our own homes and in our own communities, to try and come to some sense of a solution in this.

People want this solved. They want us to look at this in a real way, not in a partisan slugfest kind of manner, when of course, in the end, it should be our students and our youth that we're thinking most about here.

There may be differences of opinion. There certainly are. I certainly think class size is an issue. Some folks disagree and think that no matter how big the class, if you just pay the teacher more, it'll somehow solve the issue.

[1605]

You know, I think that's a discussion that could be had through mediation, through debate. Certainly, it would be useful. We could even have that discussion in committees, have that kind of a discussion to actually look at the evidence, rather than just assertions, rather than just might makes right. It certainly would raise the tone in this House if we were working from a more fact-based approach as opposed to an attack-based approach.

I understand that there are a number of MLAs on this side of the House who certainly are very interested in supporting mediation and a positive proposal for our students and for our teachers and for our families. I hope that there will be speakers on that side, too, but I will wait and watch. I know, certainly, my colleague for Burnaby–Deer Lake is very ready to go and to speak about this