2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Songwriting award recipients

S. Chandra Herbert

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Thomson

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Mission Memorial Hospital

M. Dalton

100 th anniversary of Port Alberni

S. Fraser

40 th anniversary of Camosun College

M. Coell

Role of social workers

C. James

Response by fire departments to mill explosion and fire at Burns Lake

J. Rustad

Deaths of farmworkers in vehicle accidents

R. Chouhan

Oral Questions

Funding for groups participating in Missing Women Inquiry

A. Dix

Hon. S. Bond

J. Kwan

S. Fraser

Agreement on naming rights for B.C. Place

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

Infection cases and patient information at Burnaby Hospital

S. Simpson

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act (continued)

H. Bains

A. Dix

M. Elmore

D. Donaldson

N. Simons

G. Gentner

H. Lali

R. Chouhan

L. Popham

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

H. Bains

N. Macdonald

G. Coons

[ Page 9857 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: I have the honour today of introducing special guests who join us on the floor of the House today. They are eight parliamentarians from the Parliament of the Kingdom of Norway, also known in Norway as the Stortinget.

The delegation is visiting Canada at the invitation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. They were in Ottawa earlier this week and will finish their Canadian visit in British Columbia.

I'd like to introduce His Excellency Dag Terje Andersen, President of the Parliament of the Kingdom of Norway; Mr. Per Sandberg, Deputy Parliamentary Leader; Ms. Borghild Tenden, Deputy Parliamentary Leader; Ms. Anne Tingelstad Wøien, Deputy Parliamentary Leader; Conservative Party member Ms. Siri A. Meling; Labour Party member Ms. Ingalill Olsen; Christian Democratic Party member Mr. Geir Jørgen Bekkevold; Saami Parliament member Ms. Marianne Balto.

Our guests are also joined in the gallery today by Her Excellency Else Berit Eikeland, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to Canada, and Mr. Bjørnar Dahl Hotvedt, International Secretariat of the Stortinget.

Also in the gallery today are other representatives from the Stortinget, the Royal Norwegian Embassy to Canada and Canada's International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate.

I would like to ask all members of the House to help make our guests welcome today. [Applause.]

[1335]

Hon. C. Clark: I am pleased to welcome guests today from the Alberni Valley and the central Island. Mark and Lisa MacDonald are with us, the publisher of Business Vancouver Island magazine. Mr. Graham Williamson is the president and CEO of LIFESUPPORT Patient Transport. Mike Carter is the executive director of the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce, and Peter Doukakis is the executive director of the Qualicum Beach Chamber of Commerce.

Jan Cole is the president of Ty Watson Hospice Society in Port Alberni. Bob Cole is from the Pacific Salmon Foundation and is vice-chair of the Sport Fishing Advisory Board. Darren DeLuca is from the Port Alberni Port Authority transportation committee, and Jerry Peterson is from the manna homeless ministry. Of course, as someone well known, I think, to this chamber, Ms. Paula Peterson is a tireless volunteer on behalf of free enterprise in British Columbia. I hope the House will please make them all very, very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is an educator from my constituency in Sooke. It's Chelsea Richardson from Journey Middle School. Would the House please make her very, very welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the House today are a couple of constituents of mine, Lois and Warren Hammond from Port Coquitlam. Lois is a caregiver to her husband, Warren, who was diagnosed recently with Alzheimer's, and is over here to help educate those of us in this chamber on the importance of treatments and exactly what happens when you're looking after someone with Alzheimer's. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Today I have the pleasure of introducing to the House a number of guests who are here in Victoria to shed light on the issue of human trafficking. British abolitionist William Wilberforce once said: "Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know." These are individuals who have taken his words very seriously.

Maj. Brian Venables is the Salvation Army's divisional secretary for public relations and development. Deborah Coggles is the chair of the Salvation Army B.C. division anti–human trafficking committee. Naomi Krueger is the manager of Deborah's Gate, which is one of Canada's only specialized recovery homes for victims of human trafficking. Jassy Bindra is the B.C. human trafficking coordinator for the RCMP, and Todd Hauptman has been an active community leader in the fight against modern-day slavery for the past three years. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, I am the proud aunt of two very darling little girls. They are my nieces, and they are Phoenix and Siren. They're watching at home today, and I promised that I would wish them a very happy birthday. Of course, their birthday follows their big brother's birthday just a few days ago, and that's Griffin. So happy birthday to all my nieces and nephew.

J. Rustad: I ask that the House join me in congratulating Leona West and Dwayne Joseph, who were the winners of Global TV's Dream Wedding contest. They're on their way, off to Mexico, as part of that contest. So would the House please join me in congratulating them.

H. Bains: There are a number of teachers from Surrey in the gallery today watching question period and the rest

[ Page 9858 ]

of the debate: Eric Newmeyer, Barbara Newmeyer, Randy Sykes, Gabriel Mattiskoo, Don Mah, Ken Jones, Peter Martin, Tim Sapruit, Amber Rainkie, Emily Gingera, Angela Thibeau, Anjoya Breda, Bapinder Mattoo and Brenda Sampson. Please help me welcome them to this beautiful place.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Jean Blake. She's the CEO of the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia. With Jean is Barbara Lindsay, senior manager of advocacy and public policy for the Alzheimer Society. Along with them is Dr. Doug Drummond, a geriatrician, formerly of Prince George and now in Vancouver. Patrick Tham is a caregiver for his father. With them, too, were Lois and Warren Hammond, already introduced by the member for Port Coquitlam.

[1340]

They were here to talk to us today about First Link and the other things they're doing for the many people in British Columbia that are in dementia and Alzheimer's. Could the House just give them a real thanks for all the wonderful work they do on behalf of all of us and our families.

A. Dix: I wanted to join the words of the member for Abbotsford-Mission. Patrick Tham is a resident in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. He and the Alzheimer Society do just a remarkable job. The stories they tell and the difference they make is moving to all of us. I just wanted to support the words of the member for Abbotsford-Mission and thank Patrick for coming and visiting with us today.

H. Lali: I don't know if she's made her way through the gallery yet, but there is a young woman who grew up in Merritt. She is the daughter of Gordon Swan, who was the government agent and mayor for over two decades and now works in Kamloops. This young woman grew up at the same time as all my nieces and nephews went through all of the elementary and high school system in Merritt.

Her name is Amber Rainkie. She is now actually a teacher in Surrey. She wrote me an e-mail a couple of days ago, which I'm going to read to you. I'm sure that all of the members in the House, especially folks from rural B.C., will recognize this. She writes: "I will always be a Merritt girl at heart. You can take the girl out of rural B.C., but you can't take the rural out of the girl." Those are her own words. I would like the House to give Amber Rainkie a warm welcome to Victoria, please.

D. Hayer: I also want to welcome 11 teachers from Surrey that met with myself and the members for Surrey–White Rock and Cariboo-Chilcotin to discuss issues related to education. It was a good meeting we had today. I think we might be meeting with some of them later on today. I met with one of them this morning at 8:45. Again, I want to welcome them here. Thank you for coming and explaining the issues.Will the House please make them all welcome, just like my colleague, who had a meeting.

R. Chouhan: Before lunch I had the pleasure to meet with two wonderful teachers from Burnaby. They not only do their teaching responsibilities, but they also go out of their way to help anyone who needs help in the Burnaby community. They are Sharon Freeman and Patti Jukes. They are here in the gallery today. Please join me to welcome them.

S. Fraser: I would like to join with the Premier in welcoming the significant contingent from the Alberni Valley and from Qualicum Beach. I would like to add to that welcome His Worship John Douglas, the new mayor of Port Alberni, and his wife, Donna. I was lucky enough to have lunch with them today. I would also like to say that I've been lucky enough to get a pin. It's a limited edition — the centennial of Port Alberni. John was able to take that right off his lapel onto mine. He's started out in his new role as mayor with flair, with energy and with style. Would everyone help make John and Donna feel very, very welcome in this House.

D. Routley: Joining us today are 23 Vancouver Island University students. They are students in the Canadian business and government relations management course curriculum. Their professor, Dana Collette, is with them. They study Canadian political environment as it relates to the business community. To them and to the guests from overseas, I would warn — as Mr. MacMinn used to warn — that question period can be heated, but there's heat and anger in this chamber so that there isn't blood on the streets.

S. Hammell: It is my honour to join the chorus and, again, welcome to the gallery some teachers from the city of Surrey. They are Linda Stewart, Christine Olson, Marianne Corbell, Nevokoski Pathakaski, Colleen Ichendorf, Rayland Geerie, Phyllis Minsky, Julia McRay, Casey Jones, Glynis Caldwell, Kevin Larkin, Amanda Hickey, Mina Dilcolcou and Christine Eurich. Will the House please make all of these people welcome.

[1345]

Tributes

SONGWRITING AWARD RECIPIENTS

S. Chandra Herbert: I want the House to congratulate two constituents here today, Reid Jamieson and Carolyn Victoria Mill, for winning the John Lennon folk songwriting award. We hope they go on to produce many more fabulous albums, like "Rail." Pick it up today.

[ Page 9859 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Today I introduce amendments to the Forest Act, Wildfire Act, Forestry Service Providers Protection Act and Occupiers Liability Act.

Proposed amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act will reduce liability concerns arising from the public use of resource roads. This may allow resource roads to remain open rather than be deactivated when commercial activity has ceased. This will benefit recreational users and communities who wish to market access to popular back-country areas.

Proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act provide clarity on the obligations to reduce potential fire hazards when a secondary tenure is issued, typically to allow bioenergy producers to use slash and roadside debris. The amendment will ensure that communities will continue to benefit from the protection from wildfire risks that are sometimes posed by the buildup of logging debris.

Proposed amendments to the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act will facilitate implementation of the act by strengthening provisions dealing with how liens and charges under the act will be registered and tracked. Forest sector stakeholders and the Crown will benefit from the increased clarity provided by amendments to the Forest Act with regard to the submission of information on tenure applications or stumpage.

A minor proposed amendment to the Forest Act will enable more effective means of notifying people about Forest Service road closures.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 26, Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MISSION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

M. Dalton: Mission Memorial Hospital has been an integral part of Mission for nearly 90 years. Originally located on 5th Avenue, a new facility was built on Hurd in 1965. Over the years innumerable medical staff, volunteers, donors and organizations have played an essential role in the hospital's capacity to meet the health needs of our residents.

The hospital has benefited greatly through the efforts of the Mission Memorial Hospital auxiliary, the hospital board of directors and numerous service clubs including Rotary, the Elks and the Royal Purple. Not to be forgotten are the staff and volunteers at the Christine Morrison Hospice located on the third floor.

Mission Memorial has gone through some challenging times. Only 2½ years ago there was great angst in the community that the emergency room was going to be cut. The member for Abbotsford-Mission and myself had numerous conversations with the Minister of Health, Fraser Health and constituents on this important issue.

I am pleased to say that not only have the emergency services remained intact but also the hospital has announced that Mission Memorial will be a prototype for specialized health care.

In conjunction with the district, $40 million will go towards a community health centre and state-of-the-art campus of care. The 27,000-square-foot health centre will house primary care programs and services for diabetes, mental health and addictions, home health, and a seniors clinic. A 200-bed 128,000-square-foot campus of care for seniors will provide 24-hour care.

Just recently the Premier visited the hospital, met and thanked health care workers and announced the construction contractors. These new additions are great news for Mission Memorial Hospital and great news for the people of Mission.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: The city of Port Alberni is celebrating its centennial this year, and you are all invited to visit. It is fitting, I think, that Mayor John Douglas and his wife, Donna, are here in these chambers to help kick off the event.

[1350]

The Nuu-chah-nulth have lived in the Alberni Valley for millennia. The non-native settlement of the region began much later. Actually, Port Alberni began as two cities. The first non-native settlement, later named New Alberni, was established in 1860. It became the birth-

[ Page 9860 ]

place of the forest industry in British Columbia. In 1886 a second townsite, named Alberni, was established closer to the mouth of the river as a service centre for immigrant settlers. The twin cities were born, and the rivalry began. The two towns competed for the important terminus of the Trans-Canada railway. New Alberni, being closer to the deep-sea port, won out, with the railway station being built in 1911.

On March 12, 1912, the city now renamed Port Alberni was created. The city of Alberni became the terminus of the Trans-Canada Highway and was incorporated as a city almost a year after Port Alberni. The twin cities amalgamated in 1967 to form the current city of Port Alberni.

Now, in 2012, the mayor and his wife are joining this Legislature and the city of Port Alberni in celebrating its history. The gala exhibit opening entitled "The Twin Cities Turn 100" will be showcased at the world-class Alberni Valley Museum on March 31. The inaugural event, including the proclamation, follows on April 1, and then an exciting series of events spanning the remaining year.

We invite the province and the world to join us this year, for the time of your life, in truly historic Port Alberni.

40 th ANNIVERSARY OF

CAMOSUN COLLEGE

M. Coell: I am proud to stand in the House today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Camosun College, an important milestone in the history of one of B.C.'s top post-secondary institutions. Camosun was formed in 1972 when the B.C. government merged the Institute of Adult Studies at the Lansdowne campus with the B.C. Vocational School at their Interurban campus. It now serves 12,500 students registered in degree, diploma and certificate programs and a further 7,400 registrants in courses offered through their continuing education department.

The college has a diverse and welcoming student body. Each year Camosun welcomes over 800 aboriginal students from 50 First Nations, including Métis and Inuit groups, and 460 international students from more than 40 different countries.

Camosun has earned an outstanding reputation for teaching excellence and strives to provide one of Canada's best learning experiences. The college contributes roughly $61 million to the local economy and regional income annually due to Camosun's operations and capital spending, plus another $7.7 million generating from out-of-region students attending the college. Altogether, the local economy annually receives roughly $800 million in income due to past and present efforts of Camosun. The college is an engine of economic growth for the region.

Camosun is also home to the Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence, a 117,000-square-foot building that will eventually serve another 18,000 students, 1,400 high-performance athletes and thousands of greater Victoria people every year.

PISE facilities provide educational programming and sports leadership, coaching sports, science, coach and athletic development and sports medicine within a single centre. This is the first of its kind in Canada. Since 2001 we have invested $42 million in capital projects at Camosun….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Coell: Would the House please congratulate them on 40 years.

ROLE OF SOCIAL WORKERS

C. James: This week in British Columbia is Social Work Week, an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the vital role and incredible contribution that social workers make each and every day in our province. This year's theme is "Celebrating strengths," a theme that is also a fitting description of the job of a social worker — building relationships, creating partnerships, and supporting and strengthening our communities across the province.

Social workers provide services in a variety of areas including health care, child welfare, community agencies, daycares, schools and universities, corrections, and public and private practices. They also make substantial contributions to social policy and research. A social worker's job is anything but nine to five.

[1355]

I've seen the incredible difference that social workers can make. My grandparents and my parents were foster parents, and continuing the family tradition, I also fostered for over 20 years. Over that time, so many social workers touched our lives.

When I was just six years old, an amazing social worker named Bernice Packford arrived at our home at midnight with five children in need of care. Bernice was someone you never said no to. She continued to be a strong voice for those in need in our community through her career and her retirement, and she's greatly missed in Victoria. Bernice wore many hats, as social workers do in their job. They are advocates, teachers, counsellors, caregivers, negotiators, mediators, coordinators and so much more.

I would ask everyone in this House to offer our thanks to the many social workers making a difference, as we mark Social Work Week, and take a moment to celebrate their strengths and the many ways social workers give of themselves to make lives better for so many British Columbians.

[ Page 9861 ]

RESPONSE BY FIRE DEPARTMENTS

TO MILL EXPLOSION

AND FIRE AT BURNS LAKE

J. Rustad: With the visit to the Legislature this week of our professional firefighters, I thought I would add to yesterday's accolades and rise today to recognize the heroism of fire chiefs and volunteer firefighters at the Burns Lake and Houston fire departments. Every firefighter deserves our sincere respect and thanks for his or her work in the community, but the Burns Lake and Houston firefighters have recently faced an extreme circumstance that deserves a special mention. Their response to the recent tragedy in Burns Lake, at the Babine Forest Products mill fire, is an especially clear-cut example of the bravery and honour of these firefighters.

On January 20 an explosion at the mill blew off the roof of the building and led to a violent fire that trapped workers inside. Volunteer firefighters were quick to respond, fighting blizzard conditions and low visibility to reach the scene of the explosion where, to hear fire chief Jim McBride describe it, "chaos reigned supreme."

Firefighters worked all through the night in snowy, minus-21-degree weather to control the fire, and some were posted to the hospital to assist with incoming injuries. Nineteen people were injured, and two lost their lives. Were it not for the valiant efforts of these firefighters, the tragedy could have been far worse.

The Burns Lake and Houston fire departments have dedicated crews of men and women who not only put their lives at risk every day for people in their communities, but they volunteer to do so. They would say that it's just part of their training to do this, but clearly, they are an ultimate definition of selfless heroes.

Please join me in extending to them our deepest gratitude.

DEATHS OF FARMWORKERS

IN VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

R. Chouhan: Five years ago today we saw the tragic deaths of three farmworkers — Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia — in a crash in Chilliwack. A number of other farmworkers were also seriously injured in the same accident. A few weeks ago another passenger van crash took the lives of 11 workers in Ontario. These types of vehicles are commonly used to transport farmworkers and yet are known for their poor safety record.

Last Sunday a candlelight vigil was organized in Abbotsford to remember these farmworkers. There were a number of speakers, including the children of these three women farmworkers. One of the speakers was eight-year-old Avneet Sidhu. Avneet talked about how difficult it was for her to live without a mom. She hoped that no one else would ever lose a mom like this.

Mr. Punia hoped that before the beginning of the next harvest season, all steps would be taken to ensure the safety of farmworkers. His daughter also spoke there and made comments about how difficult it was for her to accept the fact that her mom was no longer there.

We all hope that the farmworkers have safe working and transportation conditions so that this kind of tragedy never happens again.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Tynehead, I think, has an introduction.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: We have over 70 students from grade 5 in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are from Surrey Christian School, one of the best schools in British Columbia, and they're here to learn about their government. Would the House please make them very welcome and thank their teachers and volunteers.

[1400]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR GROUPS PARTICIPATING

IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

A. Dix: Grand Chief Edward John yesterday, in announcing the First Nations Summit ending participation in the Missing Women Inquiry, said that there has been a "systemic pattern of discrimination at the inquiry." As a result, the inquiry that First Nations, after all, helped to create in hopes of preventing more violence may not meet its mandate. A pretty serious question for the government.

I have a question for the Premier. How does the Premier intend to act in response to these words of frustration and disappointment expressed by First Nations leadership about the inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: As we said yesterday in this House, every member in this Legislature and the people of British Columbia want to ensure that the tragic circumstances that took place do not occur again. In fact, that's why the government created not just a hearing process but a study commission process.

What that process allows is for participation in a way that does not require legal support. We believed as a government that that was the most appropriate way to include the necessary information and groups. We did, though, make a very conscious decision about providing legal support to those who were most directly impacted, and those are the families of the missing and murdered women.

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

[ Page 9862 ]

A. Dix: The minister will know that Ms. Robyn Gervais quit the inquiry yesterday as a result of these same concerns. I just want to — because the minister refers to the families — quote from Lillian Beaudoin, whose sister Diane was murdered. She said today: "We are afraid that we are not going to get what we came for — the truth of what happened and what we can do for the future, for the women who are afraid to go to the police." She went on to add: "The impact of Robyn withdrawing is that aboriginal women don't have a voice and someone to represent them."

Now, the government previously decided not to fund support for groups that had been given standing by the commissioner. That was a decision by the government, not by the commissioner, one that the commissioner disagreed with.

I'm asking if the minister would consider reconsidering the government's decision in light of these developments.

Hon. S. Bond: This is a very emotional, troubling circumstance in our province. That's why we as a government, as I said earlier, determined that the best commission would be one where there was both a hearing and more formal process and a study commission process. The commissioner, Commissioner Oppal…. I know the Leader of the Opposition would certainly agree with his credibility, because in fact the NDP made a choice that he indeed would be a commissioner of a previous inquiry.

Commissioner Oppal is fully aware of the importance of including aboriginal voices in what is an absolutely profound and important process in this province. I am very confident that Commissioner Oppal will continue to look for ways to include aboriginal voices in the discussion that's taking place.

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

A. Dix: I know the government didn't create this inquiry for it not to succeed. We all want it to succeed. You know, we can think back to a federal public inquiry into the Air India issues, which I think had a real effect. People who were involved in that inquiry, members of this House who participated, know that it had a real effect and provided real support for the families in question. These are important questions, and I think the minister would agree with that, so I take what the minister said with a great deal of respect.

But here's our situation. The government refused to fund groups that had been given standing and was criticized by the commissioner who said that would impede the functioning of the inquiry. The commissioner himself called government cabinet ministers, and subsequently the ministry reviewed what they were concerned was an apprehension of bias.

We have the events surrounding the departure of Ms. Gervais. We have the departure of the First Nations Summit from the inquiry. I think, as a British Columbian — I think lots of people would say this — that this inquiry, which should be the most important inquiry we've ever done, is not meeting that standard right now.

[1405]

We have to do better. We can do better now. So I'd ask the minister, in light of these circumstances, in light of what happened, in light of the fact that the inquiry is not meeting that test, to reconsider decisions made by the government and ensure that aboriginal voices are fully heard at the inquiry.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, to the Leader of the Opposition, I need to remind him that in order to participate in this process, it is not necessary to have a lawyer. That's why the government created a study commission. In fact, most recently you have seen Commissioner Oppal actually change the format of the commission to allow for a panel process so that he can be more inclusive.

With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, there were additional legal supports provided. Within the more than $4 million budget that has been provided to date, the commissioner added four lawyers, including, unfortunately, the lawyer that has chosen to step aside from this process. But we should be very clear. Four additional lawyers were added to support organizations which, despite the fact that those resources were provided, chose not to participate.

Let me be perfectly clear. We absolutely want to ensure that the process has credibility and that the outcomes are provided to government by the end of the six-month extension that we've already provided to the commissioner. We fully expect that he will continue to look for ways to be inclusive of aboriginal voices.

J. Kwan: Yesterday Ms. Gervais, the former independent legal counsel for aboriginal interests, said to me that the study forum is not the answer for the First Nations community. She told me that aboriginal people want to be heard on the record and under oath, and that there should be hearing of evidence, cross-examination, finding of facts. You cannot do that in a study forum. She wondered why the police are not referred to the study forum, but the aboriginal community and their interests are being referred to a study forum.

Ms. Gervais lost confidence in the Missing Women Inquiry and withdrew her participation. Shortly after that the First Nations Summit also withdrew their participation. The First Nations Summit is of the view that "the inquiry will clearly not be able to fulfil a critical part of its mandate." Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said, "The aboriginal voice in this inquiry has been relegated to a sideshow," and that this

[ Page 9863 ]

is a charade of inquiry.

My question is to the Premier. Given this grave situation, what will the Premier do to salvage the inquiry now?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess, perhaps somewhat differently than the member opposite, we don't actually believe that the success of the inquiry should be based on the number of lawyers you have attached to the process.

This is a study hearing commission. It allows for individuals and organizations to participate. To be perfectly clear to the member opposite, the commissioner did add four additional legal supports. To many of the organizations, that offer was made that the legal support would be put in place. Despite the additional lawyers and the additional service provided, they chose not to participate. I can assure you that Commissioner Oppal is well aware of the importance of including the voices of aboriginal people.

Importantly, we wait for the outcomes of this commission. We look forward to receiving those. As a government, as I said yesterday, we made a conscious and clear choice to provide legal support to the families who have so tragically lost the loved ones in their lives.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

J. Kwan: The commissioner made the recommendation to this government so that the 13 groups with legal standing would have legal representation, and it is this Liberal government that refused to grant that recommendation.

Chief Stewart Phillip said that this is not an inquiry of missing and murdered police officers. It is an inquiry of missing and murdered women.

Ms. Lillian Beaudoin lives in Ontario and has been in Vancouver since October to attend the Missing Women Inquiry. Her sister, Diane Rock, was the second-to-last woman murdered. With the departure of Ms. Gervais, she expressed sorrow for this loss and echoes the concerns that so many have already expressed — that the work of the inquiry is severely compromised.

Many of the families felt that from the beginning. The 13 groups granted standing should have been funded because they have so much to give to this inquiry.

Now that First Nations leaders have condemned the government's action on the inquiry and they have withdrawn from the process, my question, again, is to the Premier. She claims that she wants to ensure that aboriginal women's voices are heard at this inquiry. What is the Premier going to do to restore faith in the hearts and minds of the aboriginal community that there is still some value in this inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: Everyone in this House shares the horror about what happened to women in British Columbia. That's why this government and taxpayers in this province continue to fund an inquiry that today is in excess of $4 million.

In fact, the member opposite apparently, despite my answers previously…. Four additional lawyers were provided within the commission's budget. We should be clear. This is an independent commission.

We should also talk about why a study commission is important. Commissioner Oppal travelled to seven communities in northern British Columbia. Who did he speak to? Aboriginal families and women in northern British Columbia. In fact, he travelled to Prince Rupert, to Kitwanga, to Terrace, to Kitsumkalum, to Nisga'a. In fact, the members for Skeena and North Coast spoke very passionately at those hearings.

I should point out to the member opposite that none of the people involved in those dialogues required a lawyer. In fact, almost 300 people participated and spoke of the systemic challenges to aboriginal people in this province. I would suggest that that wouldn't have occurred if we simply relied on lawyers and a formal process.

S. Fraser: Never in the history of public inquiries in British Columbia, never in the history of public inquiries in Canada has the government refused specific recommendations to fund legal counsel for groups with standing at a public inquiry — never.

The reality is that with this inquiry, 24 high-powered lawyers representing various government and police representatives have monopolized all of the proceedings in the Missing Women Inquiry. There are only two lawyers funded for aboriginal women's and community groups that have been sidelined — 24 to 2.

On Monday one of those two left, we heard. Yesterday the B.C. First Nations Summit left. That's the group that represents all treaty nations in British Columbia.

The Missing Women Inquiry now has officially no credibility with First Nations and aboriginal people in this province. What will the Premier do now to fix this travesty of justice and re-engage those that matter the most?

[1415]

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's an interesting difference between, perhaps, the view we have on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House. I think what's most important is that we find ways that give people the opportunity to participate in a process — including, in fact, members of the opposition. They didn't require a lawyer, but they went and spoke passionately.

In fact, I'd urge the member opposite. Maybe you should go and have a look at the Missing Women Inquiry website. Look at story after story after story presented by aboriginal women in British Columbia who shared their story freely in their home communities — Kitsumkalum, Nisga'a — where they were able to participate in this pro-

[ Page 9864 ]

cess in the communities that they live in, without a lawyer.

On this side of the House, as I said before, we actually do not believe that to participate in this process, we need to tally up the number of lawyers involved. We did make a choice. We did provide legal support to the families who lost their wives and their loved ones. That was a choice this government made.

AGREEMENT ON NAMING RIGHTS

FOR B.C. PLACE

S. Chandra Herbert: We learned today that after telling Crown corporation PavCo to go out and get a corporate naming rights sponsor for B.C. Place, a sponsorship reported to be worth $40 million, the B.C. Liberals have now backed out of the deal. Can the minister confirm that TELUS, B.C.'s largest private sector employer, spent millions on signs for B.C. Place which are now useless because of B.C. Liberal mismanagement?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that for the first time this session we've actually heard a policy pronouncement by the members opposite. Remarkable.

This has been a long-drawn-out negotiation. It is concluded with the decision that we are going to retain the name B.C. Place. We think it is an iconic feature that all British Columbians support. We are going to move on now and sell individual advertising rights throughout the stadium. That will create a significant amount of revenue. We're very comfortable with the decision. But more importantly, we know that British Columbians are comfortable with the decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister may find it funny that after courting TELUS for this private sector deal, spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on lawyers, negotiating teams, on fixing up B.C. Place to fit the signs and getting TELUS to spend millions of dollars on signage, which I am told is sitting in a warehouse somewhere, the minister finds this humorous. I think that's too bad, because that's not how you treat a private sector business in B.C.

I see….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see that the Premier finds this humorous as well.

We know that PavCo's operating budget was dependent on this $40 million worth of revenue, which has to be made up somewhere. We also know that the government spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, working on this deal.

[1420]

Will the minister tell British Columbians today where they will find the money and how much B.C. Liberal mismanagement has cost us all?

Hon. P. Bell: This is the same member, the very same member, that complains about the signs on the side of B.C. Place each and every day. I'm not sure whether the member opposite is now advocating for more signs on the side of B.C. Place or less signs.

What I know is that if we relied on the members opposite to figure out how to drive the economy in British Columbia, the only thing we would have is a very large gelatin plant. I'm not sure whether that would be strawberry or cherry.

INFECTION CASES AND PATIENT

INFORMATION AT BURNABY HOSPITAL

S. Simpson: Yesterday the Health Minister told the media that government was being more transparent around rates of C. difficile . Transparency needs to start with the infected patients and their families, and that is not occurring.

Jean Peacock, who is 82 years old, was in Burnaby Hospital in 2009 recovering from surgery. Her family noticed a sign on the door identifying an infection, a room with several other patients. Neither Ms. Peacock nor her family were told that she was the infected patient or that the infection was C. difficile . They were only informed when they tried to move her because of concerns about cleanliness.

There was no transparency, as information was kept from the patient and the family. This is wrong. Can the minister tell us why anyone should have confidence in a government that allows these practices?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am clearly not in a position, nor would I speak to the individual circumstances of a patient, and circumstances that occurred three years ago.

I can today, as I did yesterday, point out the seriousness with which all individuals, all clinicians, all administrators in Fraser Health and at Burnaby Hospital take the situation; point out the steps that have been taken to ensure that there is data collected and available to the public, not just with respect to Burnaby Hospital but hospitals around British Columbia; and to again assure British Columbians and those people in Burnaby, in particular, that they will receive top-quality care in a safe environment at Burnaby Hospital.

[ Page 9865 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Collecting data on a website and making quarterly reports doesn't resolve the issue for families who have loved ones in the hospital who have been infected and who are infected at that time.

Yesterday a government spokesperson stated that affected people were being informed about C. difficile outbreaks and that this had been the practice for a number of years. Ms. Peacock and her family would tell you that that isn't true. They would tell you that they were kept in the dark and that it created a further risk for them.

Transparency on this issue is not a courtesy. It is essential to protect the patient, their loved ones and others from further health risks from this infection. To not have that disclosure be mandatory is a failure of B.C. Liberal leadership.

Will the minister ensure that every patient in British Columbia who is facing a potential infection such as this and their families will have the information fully disclosed to them and that it will be done immediately?

Hon. M. de Jong: I regret that I detect in the member's question an underlying suggestion that doctors, nurses and the people that provide care in hospitals across British Columbia are somehow conspiring to keep information from patients. That is fundamentally untrue. Fundamentally untrue.

Not only do those on the front line providing the care take this seriously, but we clearly do, and take it seriously to the extent that we have provided mechanisms for patients and their families to register their concerns when they have them.

[1425]

That's why we set up the patient care quality review boards. That's why someone like Dr. Doug Cochrane has been placed in a position where he can deal specifically with cases where patients or their family believe that they have fallen victim to a gap in information or treatment. So for the member to stand in this House and suggest, as he has, that there is some conspiracy afoot to keep information from patients is, I think, reprehensible.

M. Farnworth: It's not the doctors and the health care professions we're worried about keeping information from people. The track record of this government when it comes to sharing information is what causes the people of this province concern. The fact is that Jean Peacock wasn't told, and neither was her family told.

There were 473 infections and 84 deaths associated to C. difficile — 84. Those are the facts in the report, Minister. You may not like them, but they're the truth.

So the question to the minister is this. Can the minister tell this House how many of the other 473 people who were infected with C. difficile were not told that they were infected with C. difficile ?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it is fundamentally important, while we are having a discussion of this sort, that the member be accurate in the information that they are providing. The report that the member refers to, the only report that has been the subject of these discussions, was prepared by Dr. Gardam, an internationally recognized expert on infection control.

Steps have been taken and continue to be taken. We are dealing with an older facility, a facility that was built 60 years ago. It has, in the last ten years, received $20 million in capital upgrades. That will not be enough to alleviate some of the challenges that associate on the site. Those will be alleviated when we do, as we have done in communities right across British Columbia, eliminate the three- and four-bed wards.

People in Burnaby need to know — and I will repeat — that thanks to the efforts of the doctors, the nurses, the cleaning staff and the officials at Fraser Health, they can attend at Burnaby Hospital confident that they will receive excellent health care in an environment that is safe.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: When members of the public go to a hospital for health care in a public facility, they expect high standards of cleanliness. They don't expect understaffing. They don't expect to see bugs in hospital rooms. They expect that when there's an issue, they are told about it.

When it comes to transparency, we haven't seen that from this government. Jean Peacock didn't see that from this government.

So my question to the minister is this. Will he ensure that the 473 people who were infected with C. difficile will be told that they were infected? Will he at least commit to that?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is remarkable, for me, to sit in this chamber and hear this member — a former minister, as a matter of fact — purport to compare the level of data that is available today on cleaning standards, on infection control, with what existed ten or 11 years ago, because there was virtually nothing.

To suggest, as the member and his colleagues have, that patients aren't in a far better position today to assess what is taking place at hospitals — to assess cleaning standards, to assess infection rates — and for the member to suggest, as I think he has again, that C. difficile is not present in virtually every single hospital in North America is doing a disservice to the discourse that should take place around this issue.

[1430]

Burnaby Hospital and the officials there — the doctors, clinicians, nurses and cleaning staff — are continuing to work to ensure that patients can attend and receive high-quality health care in a safe environment. That has been and continues to be the sole criteria and the basis

[ Page 9866 ]

for how we are advancing.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we'll continue second reading of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, and in

Section A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Mr. Speaker: Member, if you would just allow a few members to leave the chamber.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to welcome to this House David Eby. Many will know him as a lawyer with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association as well as Pivot Legal Society. I would like to invite the House to please make Mr. Eby very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

H. Bains: Once again, I stand and take my place to engage in Bill 22 debate. Right at the onset I will tell you that after examining the bill clause by clause, I will be standing here making arguments that we should not pass this bill.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I think there are a number of reasons that I will lay out why this bill is not a good bill for our students, for parents and for education in British Columbia. But before I do that, I just want to take a moment, and I want to thank all those teachers who are standing up for their students, who are standing up for education of our children, who are standing up to this government, trying to convince them that this government is on the wrong track.

I want to thank them for taking extra time, their own time outside their classrooms, helping our children. I want to thank them for paying out of their own pocket many of the school supplies that the children need that are not available from school or that sometimes their parents cannot afford.

I want to thank them for developing our children, our future, to become a more compassionate and more caring society. Our children are inspired by their teachers because they see them as their mentors. I think we owe a great deal of respect for all the work that they do in developing and creating a society that all around the world actually look up to — in Canada and British Columbia — and say: "Hey, there is something good going on." What this Bill 22 will do is quite the opposite.

[1435]

That is a regret to say. I think we all came here — we were elected by our constituents — to do the work on their behalf and make decisions that will actually pass the test of time.

When I first got elected I realized there are so many decisions made in this chamber decades ago that we realize now were bad decisions. They were actually embarrassments. They're a blip. They are dark spots on our history, and that's not what we should be doing here.

The decisions that we make here today…. When our children and their children read Hansard and find out what went on in these chambers 40, 50 or 100 years after we leave these chambers, they would be proud of the decisions we made. I don't think for a moment that any one member in this House will make a decision knowing that the decision will not pass the test of time.

But I guess many times decisions are made for different reasons, sometimes political reasons. I think this bill here has a lot of those elements in it. It's all about politics, not very much for education. There's nothing in there for our children. Certainly, there's no respect shown in this bill for our teachers — our most valuable resource that we depend on and who actually look after our children. They develop them into better citizens when they grow up.

Instead of that respect that we owe to our teachers, which they deserve for doing a fantastic job in British Columbia teaching our children, we actually are trampling on their rights — their democratic right that we all enjoy under our constitution.

I don't know what the other reasons are that the minister and this government would bring in a bill such as this. I want to thank all those teachers from Surrey who actually are, I'm told, watching this debate today. I want to thank them because in Surrey, I can tell you, we all should be proud — and we are proud in Surrey — of the work that our teachers do.

That minimum is expected from this government. They expect better from this government than the respect they are getting — I should say the disrespect — from this government.

I just want to talk about what brought us here today. Why are we here talking about Bill 22? What are some of the reasons behind it? The government members, one after another, stand up for political reasons and say, "Well, you know, we respect our teachers; they do a good job" in one breath. In the other breath, they stand up like the member for Burnaby-Lougheed stood up here yesterday, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism….

[ Page 9867 ]

This is what he had to say about our teachers, after listening to some of the members from the Liberal side saying that we have nothing against them and that they are doing a great job. Then they go on to make statements like this. This is what he said, and it's quoted in Hansard : "I go back to the teacher that I spoke to. Ten years' specialty. He said it's impossible for him and teachers to cross the picket line. If you want to talk about bullying, British Columbia teachers union is the biggest bully in the province."

That was spoken about our teachers in this House. The member today is now wondering who said that. That was the member I mentioned, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed. He is the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. He should know what he said yesterday.

Then we go on, and the other members stood up here and said: "Well, 30 years of failure to conclude the collective agreement. How are we going to learn from that?" She went on to say: "How do we educate our children?"

A start would be to start respecting our teachers and give them the democratic right that they deserve. That would be a good start. That's how you educate our children to obey the law, respect the law. That's not happening with this Bill 22.

[1440]

I will read you…. A teacher who wrote me this from Surrey. Christina Smith — she said this. It's a long letter, but I'll take parts of it:

"I purchase items with my own money for my students' use. I run a readers' workshop program that I developed with my father, also a teacher, wherein each student in my class is reading a novel at his or her reading level with questions specifically written for that novel. I purchased each of those approximately 80 novels myself, as well as over 700 novels that form my classroom library. I also purchased a cart full of non-fiction books, three class sets of novels, a class set of a Shakespeare play, the posters in my room, supplies for those students who do not have them, teaching resources, art supplies, math manipulatives and various prizes and presents for my students.

"Most of the time I don't regret any of these things. I don't regret the time spent helping my students with concepts they find challenging because when they finally get it, their eyes light up. This makes me happy.

"I don't regret the novels that I purchased for my classroom or the time put into designing my readers' and writers' workshop programs. Even students who hate reading are able to find a book they enjoy in my classroom, and even those who hate writing are a little thrilled to see their story in print in the book of their writing that I produce at the end of the school year. Their joy inspires me.

"I don't regret counselling students during my breaks or after school, because it means that there is an adult they can trust in their lives. This is something I hope and wish every child has."

This is what a teacher goes through every day. This is a story from one teacher. Talk about dedication. Talk about commitment. Talk about a bright future that we have for our children when we have teachers like that teaching those students.

Then she goes on:

"But I'm told that I'm lazy and selfish and entitled. I'm told that despite the fact that the MLAs of our province have a cost-of-living increase every year, I'm greedy to want to negotiate one in this recession.

"I'm told that I cannot be trusted to know what I need to learn in order to be a better teacher. I'm told that if one of these lessons that I plan goes badly one day when I'm being evaluated, my administrator can dismiss me, making it impossible for me to ever teach in this province again.

"I'm told that the administrator's personal choice should have more weight in hiring than my experience in education. I'm told that because I recognize that the students who were designated were designated because they needed additional support, and I desire to provide that support while making sure that the rest of the students in my class are not neglected, I'm discriminating against special needs students."

After the work that they do that she has listed — paying for materials out of her own pocket, helping students during her breaks and buying those books, 700 of them — she's told that she's lazy, greedy and selfish. How disrespectful can any government be?

In the private sector if a manager treated their employees like that, that manager would be fired. There won't be any production because those employees are not respected for the work that they do.

That's exactly what's happening with this government, how they treat our teachers. They should all be fired for that — it can't be soon enough — before they do more damage to our education, to our students.

[1445]

Yes, I understand when I came here that there would be ideological differences. Yes, they want to help their friends who happen to be elites, who happen to be multi-millionaires, who happen to be multinationals.

Yes, I understood that they wanted to create two classes: those that help them, their friends and insiders, and then the rest of the province — the teachers, the working class — who this government feels are not entitled to have a good living in this province. Madam Speaker, that's not how you run the province.

Bill 22 is designed not to negotiate a collective agreement. You would think that this government…. After being repeatedly advised that their actions are illegal, after being repeatedly told that they need to do a better job, that they need to respect our laws, their own laws, the international laws and the guidelines that we work under — what do they do? In the last 11 years international labour organizations cited this government for violating international labour laws 11 times. Out of that, five times it was against the teachers, the action they took against the teachers.

That's their legacy, and then they wonder…. The last 30 years there haven't been any…. And then they talk about how there hasn't been any collective agreement. Fifty-eight sessions they said they had with the teachers. But how can you have a collective agreement when you send your negotiators with their hands tied and tell them not to negotiate a deal, when you knew right from the onset that they were there to pick a fight with the teachers for their own political reasons?

I've been involved in collective bargaining for most

[ Page 9868 ]

of my life. I can tell you what Bill 22 will do. And what this government did is a recipe for failure right from the beginning. When you walk into negotiations, two sides must walk in with minds made up that there will be a successful conclusion to those bargaining sessions. When you do that, there's one key element in that success. That is respect for each other.

What did this government do? After the first session they know that both sides bring proposals to the table. They know that's a normal process. What do they do after the first session? They go out there and start kicking the teachers. "How greedy they are. Look at the demands that they have on the table." Knowing fully well, they know that that's what happens in negotiations. You bring demands; you bring proposals. Both sides have proposals, and then you negotiate in good faith.

There's that word. There's a reason why that word is existing in all labour codes across the country or, for that matter, across the world — good-faith bargaining. There's a reason behind that. If this government ever went to that table and did good-faith bargaining, we wouldn't be here. Bill 22 wouldn't be here today. It wouldn't be here.

That's exactly what this government had in mind. They didn't want to conclude a collective agreement. They wanted to pick a fight right from the beginning. And I tell you that is very, very disappointing. In fact, it makes me angry that right from the beginning…. If you look at the history of this government, Bill 22 is another example of that history. If you don't respect your employees, don't expect the best production or the most efficient workforce.

For convenience's sake, they stand up here every day. When there are questions about hospital cleanliness or mismanaging the hospitals, right away they stand up and say, "Well, you know, the front-line workers are doing a great job" — conveniently going on their side. But when the time comes, when their turn comes, like it happened in 2000 and 2003, the first thing they did was rip up their collective agreements.

Hospital employees went through it. Teachers went through it. They ripped up their collective agreements. How can you have good labour relations when an employer treats you like that?

[1450]

There were clauses in those agreements, both the teachers' and in the HEU, that existed for decades. They were legally negotiated clauses — legally negotiated by both sides. A lot of time and effort went into it. Many people made sacrifices in order to have those clauses in the collective agreement.

What did this government do? After promising not to touch those collective agreements, the first thing they did when they got elected was rip up those collective agreements — the very clauses that they said they would not touch. So how do you expect your employees to trust you ever after again?

Then, rather than saying, "Sorry that we screwed up. We shouldn't have done this," what do they do?

I want to thank the teachers and the HEU for taking this government to court and having the Supreme Court tell this government that their actions were illegal.

Again, what do they do? Rather than saying, "Yes, we were wrong. Yes, we're sorry. Yes, we will actually put those things back to make it legal again," what do they do? The court instructed them that they better fix it within a year. They gave them a year. So this is their remedy. Rather than agreeing, they show nothing but contempt, even to the courts. In my view, Bill 22 is that — the very example of that.

They will try to abide by the court ruling, and then they are bringing the same clauses through Bill 22. How disingenuous can you be? This is the record of this government.

It's all about respect. If you don't have respect for your employees, you will have nothing but troubles on your hands. The speeches here that I heard around Bill 22, and before, show and reconfirm exactly what this crowd is all about. It shows contempt and disrespect for working people.

In fact, you could hear…. When you listen to these folks standing in this House, you could see the hate oozing out when you talk about the working people and especially their elected executives. Hate for them — that's what comes out of their mouths. That's not how you treat your citizens. That's not how you treat your citizens as a government. That has to change.

You know what? You saw 6,000, 7,000…. Not only teachers. There were many other citizens of this province. They came here yesterday to send a clear message to this government that Bill 22 is draconian and must be defeated. That's their message loud and clear. We on this side of the House will do everything to see that that bill does not see the light of the day, ever.

I think it's so sad that when the Premier stands up here…. Actually, it was in 2005. This is what they said. They said in the 2005 throne speech that the government was introducing their five great goals for a golden decade. What a golden decade that was. The number one goal was the goal of making B.C. the most educated and literate jurisdiction in North America by 2010.

In 2007 this was pushed back to 2015. You don't make B.C. the most educated and literate jurisdiction in North America by kicking our teachers and trampling on their rights.

[1455]

I want to talk about what, on the ground, they have done since that time, since they made that announcement. In my city we have 292 portables right now — 292 portables where students are studying, where they're forced to study.

How is that? Because since 2005 and 2006 there hasn't been a single dollar allocated to the Surrey school dis-

[ Page 9869 ]

trict to add even a foot of new classroom space. Not a single dollar was added for Surrey school students for new classroom space. Does Bill 22 provide those students any relief? No, it does not. I tell you, Madam Speaker, when you talk about Bill 22, and I'm going to talk about it clause by clause….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to advise the speaker that he should address the contents of Bill 22. He was referring to an area that has no application to this bill whatsoever and is factually incorrect as well.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Surrey-Newton continues.

H. Bains: I know there are some stats that I'm referring to in support of my argument to Bill 22, and I know that the government doesn't feel comfortable hearing those. But those are the facts. The facts are that there are students in portables in Surrey because of bad policies of this government.

On one hand, the Premier will stand up, again for political convenience…. "We're not imposing a collective agreement on teachers." But let's go through the content of this bill, and then the public can judge whether this bill is being used to impose a collective agreement on the teachers. At least they should be honest with the public when they're speaking about what the content of their bill is and what the effect of this bill would be.

They are, in fact, imposing the terms of the collective agreement on the teachers. They are. How could they go outside and say that they're not? Let me go through some of the contents that talk about what kind of collective agreement it would look like.

But they're not imposing, according to the Premier. I'd like to have any of those members, even the minister, stand up. That they're not imposing these terms once the bill is passed…. The fact is they won't be able to stand up and say that in this House. What does that tell you? What does that tell you about being honest with the public and being honest with teachers and being respectful of teachers?

Part 2 of the bill talks exactly about imposing conditions on the collective agreement. Here is

section 27 of the School Act, under the School Act. This is what they would say.

They have a lot of courage to stand up and say that they're not imposing this collective agreement on teachers. Come on, anyone, stand up and tell me and challenge me on that.

You are imposing. Madam Speaker, this government is imposing….

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, Member.

H. Bains: Yes, Madam Speaker.

This government is imposing terms of settlement on teachers.

[1500]

Class size and class compositions are talked about in here. I'm talking about the effect this bill would have on students in my city and all across this province.

How can a teacher be in a good teaching mode, or how can you create a good teaching and learning environment, when you are actually treating that teacher with that kind of disrespect that has existed in this bill?

They don't believe in negotiating these terms. If they were, they would be out there negotiating rather than legislating.

It looks like my time is running out very fast. I have a lot to say about this bill.

I want to say that this bill will not do a thing for our students in Surrey. There's nothing in this bill that will deal with the problems that we have with those portables.

We have the CommunityLINK program. It's not going to do anything. Surrey students are some of the lowest on a per-capita basis — 55 percent versus $200 in some of these districts.

There are many MLAs from Surrey from the Liberal side. They're mum on that, never said a word about that. How is that going to help our students? It's not going to help at all. That's why I say — and I urge everyone to defeat this bill. It's draconian.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-Tynehead seeks leave to make an introduction.

D. Hayer: Yes, please.

Deputy Speaker: Please go ahead.

Introductions by Members

[ Page 9870 ]

Debate Continued

A. Dix: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 22, the inelegantly named Education Improvement Act, which in fact, in my view and in the view of our caucus, does nothing of the sort.

The issues we're debating today have a long history in labour relations in our province and really span the time, in particular, that this government was in office. Last year in the Griffin decision on Bill 28, the judge in the case said as follows:

"The evidence that the government relied on in the hearing before me to support its assertion that class-size limits were causing hardships to students and parents was anecdotal hearsay. It was so vague and unsubstantiated that it was impossible for the BCTF to challenge it meaningfully. It would be unfair to give it any weight for the truth of its contents."

Those words of the judge speak to the core of the reason why members of the opposition oppose this legislation. This legislation and the practice of the government is not good for students, not good for classrooms, not good for parents, not good for our community and not good for teachers.

We are rising, and we are speaking against a bill that comes at exactly the wrong time in the history of British Columbia. Exactly the wrong time. This is a difficult time, in fact, in the economic history of the province. There are lots of people struggling right now, and we all understand that. Members in all their communities, whatever their partisan stripes, understand that in the community.

We understand that this is precisely the time, a time when many young people in our communities do not have the skills for the jobs of the future, when we should all be working together to make public education better. We should all be working together to ensure that grievances between each other don't set aside that goal.

[1505]

Instead, what we have is a government that seems bent on confrontation, bent on not working with teachers at a time when surely we should be working together to make the public education system better. At its core, Bill 22 simply does not do that.

You know, when the decision came out last year — I think the date was April 13 — in the Bill 28 case, it reflected, I think, a decade. Certainly, that decision profoundly affects this legislation. The decision in that case reflected some of the fundamental problems with a decade of B.C. Liberal management of the education system.

Specifically, in fact, as the judge said earlier, the government made assertions to them that — frankly, at best, according to the judge — were based on anecdotal hearsay but went contrary to everything that we know.

Studies of class size repeatedly show that smaller class sizes are better for students. The government's assertion that they're not flies in the face of that. Their assertion and their weakening of even the existing provisions and the existing model that they put in place in this Legislature…. Their repudiation of that in this document, in this bill and in this legislation is the wrong path.

What happened there? On one day the government introduced Bills 27, 28 and 29, bills that of course have been the subject of negative rulings in the courts — one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Supreme Court.

What happened on that day was the government, contrary to what it had said it would do, stripped aside provisions that didn't protect teachers per se but protected students and protected the quality of education. That's what happened.

They essentially said to teachers, with respect to collective bargaining, that you can't negotiate wages, and you can't negotiate working conditions. It's sort of collective bargaining by Franz Kafka.

They express a surprise, in this context, ten years later. They express surprise ten years later that they are failing to arrive at agreements, especially a year after their very action in the Bills 27 and 28 case, the very action that they took in that case, was repudiated in the courts. In fact, what we have is a piece of legislation that essentially, at its core, reinvigorates that system. The system that they put in place that failed is being re-established in this piece of legislation.

So we have a government that says: "One day, well, let's acknowledge this…." They are at least admitting by this legislation that what they did in Bill 33, their previous effort in this area, was wrong. They're at least admitting that they have failed, that the thousands of classrooms that are outside the limits are evidence of that failure. They are admitting that they were wrong.

The minister, although not in the legislation, says that one day, after the next election, they might negotiate class size and composition. They're saying that one day that might happen, but in this bill right here, right now, they are weakening their existing provisions.

What has been the consequence of Bills 27 and 28, and what will be the consequence of Bill 22? Well, I'll tell you.

Directly as a result of provisions like this, in the average elementary school in my community, where surely libraries should be treasured in schools, the average in my community is three days a week for a teacher-librarian

[ Page 9871 ]

in an elementary school. That is the average.

[1510]

Across British Columbia — and this is more so the case. My constituents in some respects are lucky compared to some rural school districts, school districts, in fact, that often don't even have the public library support or backing or access, or access to Internet services even, that communities have in other places.

Arrow Lakes school district, zero teacher-librarian time. Haida Gwaii, 0.04. Central Coast, 0.8. Gulf Islands, 1.12 for the entire school district. Gold Trail, 1.41. Stikine, 0.5 — that's two and a half days a week for the entire school district. Action by the government; consequences for students.

So when the government again goes down this same path, again goes down this path on class size and composition, again says to teachers: "In spite of the ruling of the courts, we are going to reimpose those conditions on you…." I am telling you, hon. Speaker, it is simply not a remedy to strip collective agreements of class size and composition provisions.

They ruled, as the ruling was in the Griffin case, against the government, and then they come back and reintroduce those same provisions. That is not a remedy, and it's not a remedy that will provide any comfort to any student, any parent, any teacher in British Columbia. I think, beyond that…. I think people in the House understand this. I know the Minister of Education understands this, that at this time when public education is so important, this is the very time when we should be working together to try and resolve some of these problems together.

The option of legislation, the option of imposing agreements, the option of imposing a mediation process…. Hon. Speaker, as you know, the Premier said yesterday, referring to Bill 22, that we gave the teachers what they asked for. She said this in public: we gave the teachers what they asked for. Now, the day this legislation was tabled the Premier challenged. She said we should be debating this in this House, and that's why I'm here today to debate this in this House. I encourage her to come in and explain those remarks to the people of British Columbia.

Two weeks ago Monday, so I believe that would be 16 days ago, the BCTF applied to the Labour Relations Board for a mediator. Ordinary practice would suggest that mediator would be appointed. It's often appointed, in fact, on the say-so of one side in a dispute. In this case, the other side, the negotiating agent, BCPSEA — on the government side and on the school district side — agreed to the mediator. That was a mediation process that was intended to be open.

That was an opening, surely, for the government to avoid what we're going through right now. That is why we can surely say that the government's response to that request, in fact, was this legislation — announcing it would be coming in place and then introducing it. The government says: "Oh, you know, we couldn't have a success in that mediation process." Well, they guaranteed that there wouldn't be a success in this mediation process by doing precisely what they did with this legislation.

Surely, they have not gone down the right path here. Surely, this is not the path to success — to making our classrooms better, to developing a better relationship — when both sides express themselves open to mediation, to shut that process down and impose legislation that weakens class size and composition arrangement and imposes a so-called mediation process.

There it is in the bill. It says mediation — whose principal goal appears to be to negotiate further concessions from teachers in a process to come. Can't talk about class size and composition. Can't talk about compensation. Can't talk about anything but what the government says they can talk about within the law. How is it that's going to make things better?

[1515]

How can it possibly be suggested, as the Premier did yesterday, that that is somehow in the interest of teachers, that teachers somehow should support an effort, essentially, to take away any voice they have in their classroom and some hope in the future, reflecting the court decision, that one day they might gain one. Presumably, that day will come after May 2013.

I think at its core it shows a government at the end of its mandate that wants confrontation. Teachers would not be on strike today, would not have been on strike yesterday, would not have been on strike Monday if the government had allowed the mediation process to go forward. This is their strike. They caused this to happen, and people are paying a real price for it and will continue to. It will have consequences long into the future.

Look, I knew and the government knew and the BCTF knew and parents knew that these negotiations were never going to be easy — certainly, never going to be easy after what the government had done with Bill 27 and 28. They were simply never going to be easy.

But to take this kind of action for some sort of desire to create a political wedge, some sort of desire to raise anxiety, to bring forward this legislation at this time and cut off mediation doesn't make sense. It is not respectful, hon. Speaker. It is not respectful of the public, it's not respectful of parents, it's not respectful of students, and it's not respectful of teachers.

What we are saying in this debate and what we'll continue to say is that the government has to give that opening an opportunity to succeed. They cannot continue to proceed in the same way. Their policies in 2002 they have to say — I think that the consensus is you'd have to say — have not been good for public education in British Columbia.

Fewer ESL teachers at a time, by the way, when ESL enrolment is growing; fewer aboriginal education teachers at a time when aboriginal education and the number of aboriginal First Nation students is growing in our public

[ Page 9872 ]

schools; fewer special needs teachers at a time when special needs education is growing; and less support in the classroom at a time of real challenges in our economic lives — these decisions by the government are directly related to Bills 27, 28 and Bill 33 and now Bill 22, this bill.

You know, I think all of us understand this, and we hear this debate often. You'll hear Liberal MLAs say: "You know, we like our teacher." People have stories. We've all been influenced by teachers in our lives in extraordinary and positive ways. I think probably every member of this House can tell a story of a teacher that's influenced them in a positive way in their life, maybe shown that things were possible for them that they didn't know were possible. But the disrespect….

The government tries to make a distinction between "teacher" and" teachers" — as if teachers didn't have the right in our province to elect their own representatives, as if teachers didn't have the right to express themselves and their views about something they obviously care passionately about. This is true for all of us, I think. It's probably true of all the members on the government side, who frequently go to events in public schools in our community, frequently support them.

Certainly, the public doesn't agree with the government, for example, on the issue of teacher-librarians and the importance of books, and the cuts that have been made and imposed because of the decisions made in Bill 27 and 28, reinforced here in Bill 22. The public, in 2009-10, gave $1.2 million to buy books in public schools in British Columbia, and the government has seen fit in that period to slash support for teacher-librarians in many of our communities that need that support most.

I think there is a disconnect here between the government at the end of its mandate and a public that wants to see our education system succeed. Teachers struggle and work and believe every day that that's possible.

[1520]

A teacher from Carleton Elementary School in my riding has written to me, as many teachers have over the last number of days. Here's what she said.

"I admit it. I'm a greedy teacher. I'm greedy because I think that my students deserve more than $10 each so that I can buy the educational textbooks and supplies that they need in a year. Softcover textbooks cost an average of $20, while hardcover books cost about $50 each before tax. The teachers' guides that I need to use the textbook effectively cost well over $200.

"For the past three years my colleagues and I at my grade level have been purchasing 15 literacy texts each year, and we still have a few years to go before we can attain a full class set of books needed to fully cover the curriculum.

"At my school one class sends the social studies textbooks home with half the students so that they can do the homework, and then the other half get the textbook the next day so that they can do their homework. Last year one grade level in my school had enough money allocated to buy nine science textbooks and the teacher's guide to be shared between the two full-sized classes."

Yet if you go to Carleton Elementary School and you see teachers like this and other teachers, they do remarkable things. That's why it is not good enough. It is not nearly good enough to say, on the government side: "We can't do it. We can't address class size and composition in our public schools. We can't work with teachers." They ought to work with teachers, because teachers every day are working with students and making life better in our communities.

It's true of Windermere School in my constituency as well. I had a letter from a teacher named Wagner Costillo, who many on the government side will know because he's been involved in so many environmental initiatives in public education. He spends 60 hours a week to support students in the leadership program. He comes in, in the summer. We have this extraordinary community garden at Windermere School in the summer. He comes in, in the summer, and he keeps it going and maintains it.

He's an extraordinary teacher by any standard. We have an event every year on climate change in that school that he helps organize with students, where he empowers students. Hundreds of students from across the Vancouver school district come to that event, and he is an inspiration for that. He would never say that himself, but we know that to be true.

Teachers do that every day in our public schools. Simply put, they deserve better than this.

Yes, we oppose legislation that reduces protections for students for class size and composition. Yes, we oppose that, and that is precisely what this bill does. Yes, we oppose conditions in this legislation that essentially set up a mediation process that cannot succeed, that is intended to only discuss the government's issues and not the BCTF's issues, intended to use the threat of fines to impose conditions on the BCTF — intended, in other words, to use public education as a political wedge. So yes, we oppose that. Yes, we oppose people….

The right in a democracy to speak, to express their views, to express their differences — that has been found to be a right in the Bill 29 case, to bargain collectively. Yes, we support these things.

We know it's hard. We know it's hard for the government and we know it's hard for the union to come to an agreement. But we owe it to the system, we owe it to the children in that system and we owe it to the parents in the system to do better than this.

I wanted to say one other thing, one other note from another teacher in my constituency, who lives in my constituency and teaches at Tecumseh School, which is out of the constituency. She is so frustrated and is another teacher who works dozens of extra hours every week.

This is the reality. This is the practical reality of students and teachers in the system — that right now, with the economic challenges facing our province, with the challenges in our public education system, there have been reductions in other areas that have pushed problems into the public school system.

Celia Yeung says how frustrated she is, especially for ESL, LAC and special needs students.

[ Page 9873 ]

[1525]

"At work I voluntarily spend extra hours of research at lunch and after school to provide extra assistance for some of my struggling students. But that isn't enough. Some of them have serious learning issues for life. They need a lot more help. We need to make sure there are more resources and resourced special education teachers and counsellors available to address their many needs."

I think there is an important lesson in what Celia says and what other teachers, whose words we have spoken in the House, have said, which is that they're not giving up. They have been treated, I believe, disrespectfully over time, a disrespect established in the Bill 28 case by the B.C. Supreme Court. Yet, every day they continue to do their work and do it well.

We have much to be proud of in our public education system today. So much to be proud of and so much…. With a little bit more support, a little bit more respect, imagine what we could do then.

I said at the beginning of this speech that I thought this was the wrong time for the government to take the course that it's taking, a course of confrontation and division. We have seen, over the last number of years, a very high child poverty rate in our province and growing rates of inequality.

There's no place in which these issues are more keenly felt than our public schools, no issues that are more keenly affected by the provisions of bills such as Bill 22 than public school students, who need a public education system and need specialty teachers to allow them to achieve their dreams as previous generations have achieved their dreams.

This bill gives up on the future, gives up on the possibility of doing it better, gives up on our public schools. We will not support legislation that hurts class size provisions. We will not support legislation that hurts class composition provisions. We will not support legislation that puts an end to real mediation and imposes a disrespectful process on teachers.

That's why members of the NDP caucus, our MLAs, are standing in this debate. It's why I will be proud to vote no to Bill 22. It's why I hope that the government…. It seems, depending on who you speak to on any given day, it has a different opinion about what should happen with respect to this legislation.

I am hoping, in fact, that there is a debate on the government's side, not just a contradiction between the Premier and the Government House Leader and the Minister of Education, not just the difficulties of government management — that they're really having a discussion.

This is a moment when a government that wants to lead the province in a new direction should step back. They should step back from this legislation, which will do harm to our classrooms, and sit down and have real negotiations — take it off the table and allow real mediation to work. I believe we owe that and they owe that to our public school system and to our students, teachers and parents in that system.

In my time of working for Canadian Parents for French and working with parents to improve educational opportunities, I've visited every school district in British Columbia with a French immersion program. I saw amazing things in our public schools — people doing things that you can't believe. Teachers in places like Hazelton and Dawson Creek who are teaching young people to be fluent not only in French but in First Nations languages. It is an extraordinary thing to see these things happen.

What we do in this Legislature matters to what teachers do in classrooms. When you have a bill like this that disrespects that, it matters. That's why it would matter if the government did the right thing, withdrew this legislation, and sat down and worked with teachers on a better solution.

[1530]

Point of Order

J. Horgan: Like the next guy, I enjoy having a snack when I'm listening to something that's entertaining and factual and riveting, but I do believe that popcorn is not permitted in the precinct. I'm wondering, hon. Speaker, if you could clarify that. If there have been changes to the standing orders and the executive council is now allowed to enjoy some popcorn when they are hearing a good speech, that would be news to all of us. I'd seek a ruling on that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your point of order.

I think all members know that consuming food in the Legislature is not within the rules of the House.

Debate Continued

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to rise and speak on Bill 22 and to register my opposition to Bill 22 and also outline some of my arguments and bring forward a number of stories and experiences that I've heard from teachers, students, parents from within Vancouver-Kensington but also that I've heard from across the province in terms of their concerns with Bill 22.

I think, just in terms to gauge the reaction of the imposition of this bill…. First of all, it was certainly a very heavy-handed approach to dealing with the issue before us today in British Columbia around the teachers negotiating to renegotiate their contract.

The principles of collective bargaining are that it's a democratic right that we enjoy as British Columbians and as Canadians. It's a right that has been fought for and earned, and I think, it's a very important underpinning

[ Page 9874 ]

and principle of our democratic institutions in our societies. I feel that the imposition of Bill 22 really is an affront to collective bargaining, to these principles and also an unnecessary affront to collective bargaining.

Just yesterday we saw on the lawns of the Legislature certainly the largest gathering of several thousands of people, many teachers and other supporters gathering to express their opposition to Bill 22 — folks who had come from around the province. And I think that this is a reflection of how people feel that Bill 22 is an unjust piece of legislation and also a very heavy-handed approach that undermines the basic rights of teachers to bargain issues of class size and composition.

Today I'm told that there is a rally, several thousands of people, at the Vancouver Art Gallery, as well as rallies right across the province. Reports, I've heard, are that there's a lot of support and sympathy for teachers in their efforts to have a respectful resolution of their issues with the government.

Bill 22 fundamentally is an affront to teachers because, in important ways, it brings back the provisions of Bill 28. The ruling of Bill 28, I think, also characterizes the last ten years of how our education system has been undercut and undermined, and the frustration that teachers have experienced with Bill 22 — also connected back to Bill 27, particularly Bill 28.

Just to take us back in terms of the history and the record of the issue of teachers bargaining for class size and composition, it's a right that they had in their collective bargaining. But under, then, the Minister of Education — then Christy Clark as minister….

[1535]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please refer to members of the House by their title or their riding.

M. Elmore: Thank you.

The Minister of Education — I believe the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam at the time — brought into the House Bills 27 and 28, which effectively stripped the ability of teachers to bargain class size and composition. The recent ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court, just this year, finding that Bill 28 was fundamentally illegal…. It had allowed the government time — a year — to bring in changes to rectify and remedy that situation.

But I think it's clear that certainly, the provisions that were found to be illegal and ruled so by the B.C. Supreme Court have…. We're seeing that being brought forward in Bill 22. So these are the concerns, the legitimate concerns, that are being expressed by teachers.

In addition to those egregious issues, the claim of the government to be addressing the concerns that the teachers have…. The B.C. Teachers Federation had requested to have a mediator appointed. The difficulty with Bill 22 is that it sets the terms of reference and it limits the role of the mediator and the terms of reference for mediation. So we're seeing a weakening, in this context, of class size rules. This is seen by many as an effort to bring a wedge and also provoke a confrontation between teachers and also between the government, which is unnecessary.

I would also ask for the Premier to take her place in the House and speak to the legislation and enter the debate. During question period she brought up the issue and concern and seemed very eager to debate issues around education and, last week, the possibility of a teachers' strike. She seemed very eager to engage in debate at that time.

Now when the debate is on the floor and we have the ability to express our opinions and our concerns, I haven't seen the Premier, and….

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's not appropriate to comment on members who are or are not in the House.

M. Elmore: Thank you.

I would look forward to hearing from the Premier on these matters, to speak on Bill 22 and the issues associated and to hear the Premier's concerns that she seemed very eager and willing to raise just last week. So I look forward to hearing those arguments and hope to hear them in the course of the debate on Bill 22.

In Vancouver-Kensington I've had the opportunity to visit all the schools, the elementary schools and the high schools, to talk to the teachers and meet the children. One thing that I've been impressed with is the dedication of the teachers, the quality of the various teachers, the librarians, the different professionals, counsellors. I think it's safe to say it's more than a job; it's a vocation for individuals in the teaching profession.

[1540]

Valuing teachers and the work and contribution that they do in our classrooms….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I think that we've seen, over the last number of years, teachers really step up and apply themselves, to put in extra hours after class, to meet the needs of students, under

[ Page 9875 ]

what we've seen — the shrinking resources coming from the Ministry of Education.

The response that we're seeing in the public — and, certainly, in my opposition to Bill 22 — rests on the fundamentally wrong direction that the government is taking this issue. It's an unnecessary provoking of the teachers into this dispute, and it's not a way to resolve very important issues that face us in British Columbia in terms of the provision of quality education for our students.

Besides the tremendous value that teachers contribute in the classroom, I'm hearing a lot of support from students — letters to my office. I think all members are receiving letters into their constituency offices, not only from teachers but also from students and parents.

I was surprised. Last week we saw, as far as I can remember, an unprecedented mobilizing of students in support of teachers — certainly of students who have been in the classrooms over the last ten, 11 years, who've seen the chronic difficulties around underfunding and cutbacks that have happened — and showing their support, also, for public education.

We are seeing, as well, the culmination in Bill 22…. The fundamental issues that were ruled illegal by the B.C. Supreme Court are continuing in Bill 22. Under the previous Minister of Education, the current Premier, the record…. Not only was Bill 28 brought in under the watch of the then Minister of Education and current Premier, but we also saw a record of many schools closed and of quite substantial cutbacks in capital budgets and in education budgets.

Also today we're seeing the difficulty and the challenges of stagnation of graduation rates. I think these can be viewed as systemic challenges in the education system. The difficulty and the challenge in terms of resolving….

[1545]

It's not only an issue of just bargaining with teachers in terms of wages and benefits. There's also the issue of the quality of education and ensuring that the government and the employer have a respectful and meaningful relationship with teachers.

Teachers really support and provide the fabric in our education system, not only teaching our students but also contributing so much to the quality of the classrooms and to really having a fulsome education experience — ensuring, if students have difficulties, that they're identified and that they are addressed. Teachers are the ones who apply themselves to make our education system function.

We're seeing, with Bill 22, the effect of undermining and eroding, I think, the very fabric of our education system and also the fundamental question and issue of the role of collective bargaining in our society.

I also have to wonder if the imposition — and, I think, the unnecessary and very heavy-handed imposition — of Bill 22 is not tied to other considerations, political considerations — to use it as a wedge issue.

We have the government lagging in opinion polls. It's just a shame, I think, that we are seeing this unnecessary approach being taken by the government — kids are really the ones who are losing — when we have the ability to negotiate in a respectful way with teachers.

Besides the teachers having expressed their discontent with Bill 22 — and, I think, rightfully so — we've seen, over the past ten years now, the impact of when Bill 28 was brought in, which lifted the ability for teachers to negotiate class size and compensation. We've seen resources brought out of the education system. It's estimated that nearly $300 million a year, from 2002, has been removed from the education system, that there is a lack of resources to the tune of nearly $300 million a year. We've seen special education teachers removed and the loss of support, particularly for students with special needs, in classrooms.

Another issue that I think is a concern and that has been raised to me is the lifting of the maximum three individuals with individualized education plans per classroom. The challenge with that provision is that the accompanying resources do not come with that to support the students in those classes.

The challenge around providing support for special needs children…. Certainly teachers and principals in schools have the abilities to manage those workloads, but generally there was an accompanying resource to support at least three individual education plans — the students who had those IEPs. With Bill 22, we see that that has been removed. The challenge is that we don't see the accompanying support being provided to students and also being provided to teachers in their classrooms to meet that demand.

[1550]

Bill 28 was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, ruled unconstitutional on April 13, 2011, and struck down. The premise was that it breached the Charter right guaranteed for freedom of assembly, that that legislation — brought in under the then Minister of Education, the current Premier — breached those basic guaranteed rights to freedom of assembly through collective bargaining and that it really trampled the collective bargaining rights of teachers.

We saw that that was a very clear decision that was made, and yet we see that those basic provisions are what are being proposed now in Bill 22. It's ten years where we've gone through this process. We've seen the education system chronically underfunded; the closure of nearly 200 schools, predominantly in rural areas; cutbacks and the loss of several hundred teachers who support students with special needs, and ESL teachers. Again, in Bill 28 we see that those issues have not been resolved.

We'll see, certainly, how it plays out — this issue. Certainly, I think that teachers are speaking out, bringing their concerns. Parents are bringing their concerns. Parents are also caught in a difficult position, because ob-

[ Page 9876 ]

viously parents want their children to be in school and to have the best education and support they can.

But I think that many parents, particularly ones that I hear from, also recognize, respect, value and understand that teachers are standing up not only for collective bargaining rights but also to uphold and promote teaching conditions in their classrooms and, fundamentally, the environment that their children take

part in, in our education system.

I have received a number of letters. They come in fast and furious to my constituency office from many constituents. I'm sure that the other members, as well, have received many letters. I'd like to share some of them and some of the feedback I've gotten from local constituents and local teachers who do a great job, in Vancouver-Kensington in particular. I have a number of teachers who live and work in the constituency.

We have a school, South Hill Education Centre, which provides a lot of support to allow students to complete their grade 12 equivalency and also provides other vocational training for students in pursuit of post-secondary education, sometimes filling in those gaps. I've attended many activities and events there. I have a letter from Brian Hobson, who is a teacher there, and also a resident. He's asking for help to raise concerns with regards to Bill 22.

I wanted to share that as a teacher in the South Hill Education Centre, he has been struggling. Certainly, he's a very committed and very passionate educator. That's one thing that struck me whenever I attended activities or graduations at South Hill Education Centre. The teachers really, I think, have a special commitment. There's a special feeling when you go there. They provide grade 12 completion courses, and they have a very high completion rate and graduation rate.

[1555]

Brian Hobson shared with me that he feels that Bill 22 undermines his ability to perform his job, his vocation as a teacher, and is asking me to also speak out against Bill 22.

In addition to Brian Hobson, I have received a letter from Gloria Rocquet, who is a teacher and also a constituent opposed to Bill 22, who took the time to write and to express her concerns. In addition to teachers, I'm hearing as well from high school students and also constituents who are not necessarily parents, but they are concerned about the issues. They are opposed to Bill 22.

I have a letter from Jill Barclay, and she teaches at Dickens main school, which is just outside of Vancouver-Kensington, but her child attends Dickens Annex, which is in the boundaries of Vancouver-Kensington. I'd just like to share her letter with you. She says:

"Hello, Ms. Elmore.

"I'm writing to urge you and the NDP party to do everything in your power in opposition to this legislation. It's an attack on public education as we know it.

"As a teacher and a parent of a student in your riding, I'm very distressed. I feel that the Premier is coming back to finish off what she started as Minister of Education ten years ago.

"Teachers continue to fight for improvements in public education. We have bargained for these safeguards to quality education with past governments, in many cases trading off monetary gains in return for services for students with special needs and ESL requirements.

"I see that this government is using the heavy hand of legislation to wipe out our safeguards once again. I'm tired of feeling that the provincial government is working against us in our goal of meeting the needs of all students and protecting our public education system.

"I see nothing in this bill that will improve education. In fact, it will further decrease the morale of myself and my colleagues. I do not relish the idea of walking off the job next week, but I feel that this is my only recourse in order to stand up for my rights, my collective agreement and public education as we know it."

I think that that certainly captures the sentiment and is a very clear expression in terms of not only Jill Barclay, a teacher at Dickens main, but a familiar message and refrain that I've heard from many teachers in this dispute.

Jill Barclay cites having to endure the past ten years. Besides having the ability to negotiate class size and composition, removed for the past ten years with Bill 28, and the challenge and difficulties teachers have been facing to deliver quality education to their students, we've seen, particularly in Vancouver….

It came to a head last year, when there was a proposal to close six schools, all in East Vancouver and one in Vancouver-Kensington. We saw, really, not only the integral role that teachers play in schools but also how schools are connected into the fabric of the community and society. I attended many public hearings and met many teachers and heard from parents and students about the value of their local school to the community, the importance that it has in strengthening the community.

Also, we heard that the conditions where the six schools were going to be closed were as a result of the downloading and not matching — the downloaded costs from the provincial government and the challenges for the Vancouver school board to meet the shortfall of $18 million in terms of downloaded costs, in terms of negotiated benefits, increases in Medical Services Plan, increasing rates in B.C. Hydro costs, as well as needing to fund higher insurance requirements and also carbon offsets.

[1600]

The point I want to make is that over the last ten years…. Ten years is a good window to look at. We see Bill 22 before us today. It is really a reflection of Bill 28, which has been ruled unconstitutional. In that ten years we've seen in British Columbia the challenges that the education system has faced under the Liberal government.

I'm hoping that I can hear from the Premier in terms of her thinking, her concerns and arguments to bring in Bill 22. We know that over the last ten years — besides not having the ability to bargain class size and composition; the downloading of costs; the closing of schools; losing

[ Page 9877 ]

hundreds of teachers, particularly special needs and ESL teachers; having to, as well, deal with that…. These are big concerns and challenges.

I'm very pleased to speak and also voice my opposition against Bill 22.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place in the second reading of Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. For those dedicated viewers who might be watching our proceedings today or perhaps reading Hansard later, I wanted to say that second reading is an opportunity to speak to a bill in general and let one's thoughts and concerns be known.

I would like to start today right away with a quote from a letter that a teacher in my constituency, in Stikine, has written to me. I quote from this letter. He writes:

"At this point I would like to pose the question: how is increased class size, lower funding, fewer resources for special needs, degraded infrastructure, reduced funding for extracurricular activities and a strained relationship going to lead to an excellent education system, as the minister continues to parrot in his education improvement bill? It doesn't."

I couldn't more succinctly say that myself, from that letter from a teacher.

It outlines why I will be agreeing with my colleagues on this side of the House in voting against Bill 22 — because it does not address some fundamental issues in the classroom for the children of Stikine and for the children of this province.

But first, it's important to know how we got to where we are today. I'll especially be focusing my remarks on the context we find in the K-to-12 public system in northern, rural communities of Stikine. As a little background on that, in Stikine, the constituency I represent, there are three school districts.

School district 87, Stikine school district, is totally encompassed by the constituency. It's 188,000 square kilometres, which is larger than the United Kingdom — larger than Scotland, Wales and England combined. There are schools in Atlin, Dease Lake, Lower Post, Telegraph Creek. These are some of the more isolated rural communities in the constituency and in the province, and each of them has schools. The school district covers the traditional territories of the Taku River Tlingit, the Kaska and the Tahltan.

There are two other districts that cover partial sections of Stikine. School district 54, the Bulkley Valley school district. That includes schools in Smithers, both elementary and a secondary school, and in Telkwa, an elementary school. There's a part of school district 82 that touches on my constituency, the Coast Mountains school district. The communities of Stewart, Hazelton, New Hazelton and Kitwanga all have schools in the public system and in the constituency of Stikine and part of school district 82.

That context is to give you an idea and members an idea that there are vast areas that these schools cover. They're isolated communities, many of them. The only community that is over 5,000 is Smithers. There are large First Nations populations in the constituency. Many times the majority of the students in the public schools are of First Nations ancestry.

[1605]

Teachers play an even more prominent role because of these small populations and isolated communities and at the same time are impacted by what is happening in these communities as well. I'll get into that a little bit more in the 30 minutes I have to address this bill. There's a lot to talk about in 30 minutes, so I'll try to get through it all.

How did we get to where we are today? I think that even members on the government side of the benches would say that it's not a very good place to be. From my perspective and the perspective of people I represent in Stikine, it's a classic example, looking at the history of this government, of "You'll reap what you sow." Many problems in the education system — and I'll again be focusing on the rural context especially — can be traced back to 2002. In 2002 the current Premier, Premier Clark, was the Education Minister.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you do know the rules allow for referring to members by their riding or their title, not their proper names.

D. Donaldson: I'm sorry. I apologize, hon. Speaker.

The current Premier was the Education Minister in 2002. What she introduced in 2002 was a change to the funding formula by which school districts receive their funding. It was a move from a program- and cost-based funding formula to a capped, student-based system. This resulted in a system shortfall in education funding.

Curiously enough, after the introduction of the funding formula, it was reported on in the news media at the time, and there was a news reporter who talked about this move and, perhaps, the motivations behind the move. I would like to quote from a news

article of that time. The point of this is to explain how we got here today — around the issues that Bill 22 is attempting to address, not in a very successful manner. It was a partisan move, according to this reporter.

He talks about a cabinet decision document that he was able to acquire.

"The document reveals the reasons behind Friday's move to per-pupil student funding and away from the old system known as program and cost funding. The document explains that the old formula obligated governments to meet or manage each increase in cost or each new service offered by school boards."

He goes on to write:

"With total education funding now frozen or protected, in the language of the B.C. Liberals, the document" — and this is an internal document — "warns the cabinet that given government direction that education funding will be flat over the next three years,the current program- and cost-funding formula will not work."

Again from this article:

"The ministry will be called upon to make decisions" — that's the

[ Page 9878 ]

Ministry of Education — "about which programs…."

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I know Bill 22 very well. There is not a reference in there to a funding formula. I'd like the member to address the principle of the bill, if he would.

Deputy Speaker: Members have enjoyed latitude, but the point is well taken. The member can bring his remarks back to the content of the bill.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, I thank you for your remarks.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: I will address my comments to the content of Bill 22, which deals with issues that need to be explained and need to be discussed around the history of how we got to where we are today.

I will just summarize, then, to say that the funding formula that was introduced in 2002 has had direct consequences on rural schools. These consequences are what teachers are facing today in the classroom, which Bill 22 is trying to address and, again, not doing a very good job of it. The funding formula, when it was changed by the government — and this is around Bill 22….

Interjection.

[1610]

D. Donaldson: It is around Bill 22. I know that the Minister of Education might object to this line, but that's because we have to look at how we got here today. He might not be very happy with it, but it was the result of the government he was part of in 2002.

School districts — rural school districts that I represent that are impacted by Bill 22 — are being forced to deal with fixed costs. No matter what the class size, fixed costs are fixed costs. There have been a number of fixed costs that have gone up over the years.

It doesn't matter how many people you have in a classroom. Bill 22 talks to the composition and class size. Bill 22 talks to the number of students that might be in a classroom. No matter how many students are in the classroom, that classroom still has to be heated. It has to be cleaned. It has to be lit. There's support staff, and there are teachers.

Bill 22 speaks to the composition of classes and talks about increasing class size up to 30 students. The fixed costs associated with that classroom — they don't change. When it comes to trying to pay for these costs, then we get into a situation where rural schools have been very challenged by the changes that were made to the funding formula in 2002 by this government.

What does Bill 22 try to address? It also tries to address class size and composition. We know, as well, that in 2002 the Premier and then-Minister of Education was proud and delighted to present Bills 27 and 28, which stripped class size and composition from the collective agreement and teachers being able to negotiate on those matters.

As it turned out, Bills 27 and 28 just last year — April 12 last year — were ruled invalid and unconstitutional in the B.C. Supreme Court. Judge Susan Griffin found…. Again, Bill 22 is trying to address what went on with Bills 27 and 28 in 2002, introduced by this government. The judge found in her ruling that the evidence that the government relied on to support its assertion that class size limits were causing hardships to students and parents was anecdotal hearsay. It was so vague and unsubstantiated that it was impossible for the BCTF to challenge it meaningfully. It would be unfair to give it any weight for the truth of its contents.

That's what the judge found just last year. This is why the current government and the current Minister of Education was compelled to try to address the judge's findings around Bills 27 and 28. He's trying to address those in Bill 22, but again — and I will get to that — I don't think in a very successful manner.

The current Premier and then-Minister of Education, when she spoke to Bills 27 and 28 in 2002, said: "I am so proud to speak in support of this bill, and I look forward to getting on with the job of building a top-notch education system for British Columbia."

Well, the bills, as I said, were found to be invalid and unconstitutional. I assume that the Minister of Education at that time didn't know that. Otherwise, she wouldn't have proudly supported the bills that she introduced.

But let's look at the top-notch education system that teachers are attempting to deal with, that's addressed through Bill 22, by looking at the reality today in the classrooms that these actions in 2002 on the funding formula and on class size and composition created. Again, you'll reap what you sow.

I just want to give a little flavour of what students are facing in the classrooms in Stikine to give an idea that this is why teachers are determined to address the situations the B.C. Liberals have created. I have a letter here that addresses what teachers are facing in the classrooms, from a teacher in Stikine. She writes:

[1615]

"I want to see my students succeed. It is a provincial and district mandate to improve the success rates of First Nations students. I can tell you that to improve the education rates of my students — which, of course, will lead to higher graduation rates, better health, less jail time, more financial independence and a better future for my students, lest we forget — I need help.

"I need either qualified assistants that can work intensively with my students to give them the skills and confidence to stay in school, or I need smaller classes so that I can do it all myself. I need the learning assistance in my school to be fully staffed so we can assess kids we suspect of having learning disabilities and get them the help they deserve and not wait two years, by which time students

[ Page 9879 ]

are so frustrated they have to drop out of school."

This is a teacher that's outlining the need for smaller class sizes, which is not addressed in Bill 22, and really points out something that is of grave significance in Stikine around the assessment of learning disabilities in students. Bill 22 does not address these two topics in any kind of manner that will make a difference to the conditions these teachers are describing for students.

I want to paint that picture more fully in Stikine around Bill 22. This is from another teacher in Stikine. He writes:

"It is my professional opinion that the high level of frustration students are having academically is due in part to our inability to address identified needs in their individual education programs and the not-yet-identified needs of those who have not been formally assessed. The expression of this frustration is documented in our low attendance rates and behavioural concerns."

So again, the not-yet-identified students.

This teacher wrote extensively on this topic, and he describes an apprenticeship and workplace mathematics grade 10 class. He writes:

"This is a provincially examinable course and has five individualized education program students and several students who are well known to the administration team due to poor attendance and behavioural concerns. At thi