Hansard -- Thursday, October 6, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 3 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		561

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		562
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 10)
	Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		562
	Government support for first nations
	J. McIntyre
	Mental illness awareness
	C. Wyse
	Richmond Youth Soccer Association
	J. Yap
	Public transit
	R. Fleming
	Cooperative governance in B.C.
	J. Nuraney
	David Walton
	S. Simpson

Oral Questions		564
	Government role in teachers labour dispute
	C. James
	Hon. S. Bond
	Hon. M. de Jong
	D. Thorne
	J. Horgan
	J. Kwan
	Access to nutritional supplements for income assistance recipients
	C. Trevena
	Hon. C. Richmond
	Government support for social housing
	D. Routley
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Government support for low-income seniors
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents		569
	Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2004
	Hon. R. Coleman

Second Reading of Bills		569
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12) (continued)
	R. Chouhan
	G. Coons
	D. Cubberley
	M. Sather
	G. Gentner
	B. Lekstrom

Motions without Notice		589
	Continuation of sitting beyond ordinary hour of adjournment
	M. Farnworth
	A. Dix
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		594
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12) (continued)
	M. Karagianis
	G. Robertson
	S. Hammell
	C. Trevena
	J. Kwan
	R. Fleming
	C. Wyse
	C. James
	J. Horgan
	L. Krog
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. M. de Jong
	A. Dix
	S. Fraser
	G. Coons
	R. Chouhan
	H. Bains
	G. Gentner
	B. Simpson
	C. Trevena
	M. Sather
	C. Evans
	R. Austin
	J. Brar
	D. Thorne
	C. Puchmayr
	M. Farnworth
	K. Conroy
	N. Macdonald
	C. James
	D. Routley
	S. Simpson
	B. Ralston
	D. Chudnovsky
	J. Horgan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		719
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues (continued)
	Hon. I. Chong
	M. Karagianis
	C. Trevena
	N. Macdonald
	J. Horgan
	C. Wyse
	B. Simpson
	S. Fraser

C. Puchmayr: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today Carol Arnold, who resides in my constituency. Carol is of Métis-Cree heritage and is seconded to the Gulf Islands school district to work as a faculty associate at Simon Fraser University. She's engaged in teacher education with the indigenous people's teaching education module. It is important to note that 60 percent of Canada's aboriginal population lives in B.C. and that this segment of the population is the fastest growing in western Canada. The majority of first nations are under the age of 25. Carol is part of a delegation of the public school teachers from across the province, and she serves as co-chair of the aboriginal education committee for the B.C. Federation of Teachers. Please give her a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to welcome to the chamber today Lynda Croft Reynolds Turney, who indeed has been a friend of mine for 33 years. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I have two introductions to make today. First, I'd like to introduce to the House Sheila Maracle, who is a constituent of mine. Sheila is from the Mohawk nation in southern Ontario. She's lived in B.C. for the past 15 years and has taught for ten years in Vancouver's inner city, where the schools have a majority of aboriginal students in their class. Please make Sheila welcome.

I'd also like the House to welcome Christine Stewart, who is a Ganada and citizen of the Nisga'a Nation. She's a Vancouver teacher, and Christine has just defended her master's degree in July. The topic was indigenous teachers working in lower mainland public schools. Please welcome Christine Stewart.

R. Lee: In the House today we have some visitors from Guangdong, China. We have Jock Zhao, section chief of the Zhongshan Overseas Chinese Affairs Bureau; Mr. Yan Lin and Mr. Jianing Song from Zhongshan Radio and Television Station; Mr. John Zhang, principal of the Bond Language Institute. Accompanying them is Mr. Lincoln Liu, president of the Victoria Hook Sin Tong Charity. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Austin: It's my privilege today to introduce two members who are visiting here. They are both constituents of mine and friends. The first is Sue Spalding — she's a member of the Tsimshian nation — and her partner Shane Pauls, who is a member of the Tahltan nation. They are both aboriginal educators. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

M. Polak: I would like to introduce to the House Daryl Racette. I had the pleasure of working with Daryl when I was part of the aboriginal education advisory committee in the Surrey school district. Would the House please make Daryl welcome.

M. Karagianis: In the gallery today we have eight people who represent a very innovative entrepreneurial enterprise called Street Newz. Street Newz represents and is an entrepreneurial effort on behalf of all those who live in poverty on the streets. I would like to introduce Janine Bandcroft, Ted Hawryluk, Ken Bath, Robin Kingsley, my good friend Rose Henry, Robert Lightheart-Jones, Jim Hedger, Diane Wallrich and Larry Wartel. Would you please make them welcome here today.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a special visitor from the United Kingdom. I'm pleased to welcome Martin Cronin, the newly appointed consul general for the United Kingdom in Vancouver. He's here for meetings with a number of ministers mainly on trade, commerce and energy issues, and we welcome him to British Columbia and wish him well today. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

L. Krog: With great pleasure I introduce three guests today. One of my old classmates from law school, a senior public servant from Ottawa, Milly Nickason. Accompanying her is her mother Millicent Nickason and her uncle Dr. Gilbert Ogilvy. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Routley: I would like to welcome to the House a friend and constituent, Brock Mcleod, a fine activist, a defender of education. I would like the House to please make him welcome.

R. Hawes: Years ago, when the Minister of Agriculture was a young man still trying to find his way, he met a mentor that straightened out his life and taught him everything that he now knows. That mentor is in the gallery today, Mr. Ted Adlem. He happens to also be the president of my riding association. Could the House please make him welcome.

G. Coons: I'm pleased and honoured to have the privilege of introducing a good friend and colleague from Haida Gwaii. She's one of my constituents. She's an aboriginal teacher from Tsimshian nation. Her traditional name is Bilham Yuks, which means pearl on the fin of the killer whale. She is from the Git'le'giux tribe from the house of Meduck, grizzly bear. Her crest is killer whale. She has been a proud member of the B.C. Teachers Federation for five years, and she currently teaches grades two and three in Skidegate on Haida Gwaii. Please join me in welcoming Michelle Davies to the House today.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House we are joined by three members of the Elliot family. They are three young people. Two of them are full-time students, one is a high school student, and one is a full-time SFU student. I would like to welcome Molly Elliot, Nigel Elliot, and Caroline Elliot, affectionately known to family and friends as Boomer. Will the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased today to welcome my good friend and a good friend of many on this side of the House, Cheryl Hewitt. Cheryl has been a longtime advocate in the health care and cooperative movements. Importantly, she is a lifetime member and activist in our party. She is currently the treasurer of the provincial NDP. I'm pleased to say that she managed my election campaign, and I thank her very much for all that work. Please make her welcome.

G. Hogg: This morning I had the honour of meeting with a resident of Surrey–White Rock. She's an aboriginal teacher in the Surrey school district. Her name is Gaaxstalas Wedlidi. She's a member of the Tlowitsis first nation. She's a passionate teacher who cares deeply about the services provided to the students of Surrey and this province. Would you please make her most welcome.

G. Gentner: It's with great pleasure I introduce to the House Lynda Toews, a teacher from my constituency of Delta North, although us colonials refer to it as north Delta. Lynda teaches adult basic and special education at the Invergarry adult centre in Surrey and is an executive member of the BCTF. Could the House please give her a warm welcome.

M. Sather: I want to add my welcome to a member of my constituency, Millie Nickason, who is here today. Millie is 82 years old and just full of life. She recently came to my constituency office asking that assistance be provided for people who are seeking treatment across the river in terms of getting there — not for herself, but for others. Would all members please make her welcome.

M. Farnworth: I'm pleased this afternoon to introduce to the House Laura Rudland, who is a teacher in the Vancouver school district and lives in my constituency. Laura is also president of the First Nations Education Association, Provincial Specialist Association. She's also a member of the Metlakatla nation. I would ask the House to please make Laura welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 10 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm introducing Bill 10, which proposes amendments to three forestry statutes: the Forestry Revitalization Act; the Forest and Range Practices Act, or FRPA; and the Wildfire Act.

The proposed changes to the Forestry Revitalization Act correct the schedule to reflect the current owners of licences and allows further updates to be made to the schedule as they are required. This bill also makes parallel amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act. These amendments clearly authorize the compliance and enforcement actions that may be taken for past contravention of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and for contraventions of the grandparented code under which some licensees continue to operate while they transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The amendments ensure that all contraventions of the code are subject to the compliance and enforcement actions set out under the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act. These amendments will ensure that the government can continue to protect the forest and rangelands for all British Columbians.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, 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.

J. McIntyre: I'm pleased to rise today to report to the House that I had the privilege of attending the Premier's announcement last week of the provincial government's doubling the funding to $6 million for the Squamish-Lillooet cultural centre in Whistler, in my riding. This centre will showcase first nations history and culture and will be a lasting legacy for generations to come from hosting the 2010 games.

It also demonstrates the benefit of partnerships not only between two first nations but among first nations, various levels of government and the private sector — in this case, Bell Canada — who have combined resources to build what will be a tremendous cultural addition to the region. Building new arts and culture facilities will have the added benefit of reinforcing Whistler's status as a first-class international four-season resort.

Throughout the past year I have had the privilege of developing constructive relationships with first nations leaders in my constituency as we work together to advance this government's commitment to build new relationship with first nations. I have had various meetings with the Squamish nation, Lillooet, Nekwakwa, the newly formed Iskut nation, as well as the Lower Stl'atl'imx Tribal Council to assist in achieving goals and dealing with concerns.

I'm proud that in the budget update, this government has committed $100 million to a New Relationship fund that supports capacity-building and will assist first nations communities to be effective partners in consultations regarding the use of land and resources. British Columbia will be an even better place for all of our children to grow and thrive as a result of our government's approach based on recognition, respect and reconciliation.

C. Wyse: I would ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging that this week is Mental Illness Awareness Week. Mental health touches all segments of the population. I think that every one of us here has probably been touched at some point by an individual with a mental illness.

Despite the fact that one in five Canadians is directly affected by mental illness, the social stigma that our society has yet to fully overcome prevents many from getting the help they need. Fifty percent of the ten leading causes of disability are related to mental disorders. Mental health conditions now contribute more to disability in Canada than any other single disease group, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The theme of Mental Illness Awareness Week this year is "Face mental illness." The Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and all of its member organizations, including organizations in B.C., are putting forward the faces of courageous Canadians who have gone forward with their stories of mental illness so that we can all see that they are just like you and me.

I would ask that all of my colleagues reach out to individuals and organizations in your community that are marking this week, and not just this week but every week, so we can promote greater understanding of just how we are all impacted by mental illness.

I would, in particular, ask my colleagues to also recognize that today is Depression Screening Day and to raise public awareness about this so that people in your community can get the help they need. Public institutions like colleges, universities and organizations in the community hold free screenings to build public awareness and get people help. There is much more to be done to ensure that people with mental illness can lead healthy and productive lives.

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about the greatest sport in the world and how it's doing in my community — that would be soccer — and the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Richmond Youth Soccer Association.

I recently had the opportunity to be a guest along with the Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts at the wonderful dinner held to celebrate this anniversary at the Vancouver Austrian Club in Richmond. Back in 1955 the Richmond Youth Soccer Association started with just six teams. Since then, soccer in Richmond has grown rapidly. Thanks to the support of countless volunteers, Richmond soccer today has 168 boys, 100 girls and 100 adult teams. This coming weekend 113 boys teams and 110 girls teams will be coming from all over the lower mainland to participate in the 29th annual Thanksgiving tournament. It will be a great weekend for sport in Richmond.

These men, women, girls and boys play soccer year after year, developing their skills, working out and having fun with friends in a team environment. Over the past 50 years over 25,000 children have come through the Richmond Youth Soccer Association. Some of the notable players include Randy Samuel, who played for the Canadian national squad and the Whitecaps. Most recently Jason Jordan of the Vancouver Whitecaps Football Club was named the United Soccer League's first-division most valuable player for the 2005 season.

Three Richmond youth players under 14 will be going to Florida in November with the Whitecaps youth program to defend their North American youth league championship: Connor Radil, Joseph Martin and Tommy Cui.

Richmond Youth Soccer supports our government's great goal to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. This is important because the more people we get into a healthy lifestyle, the fewer health problems our government will have to deal with that are caused by inactivity. Fewer health problems will mean happier people and less need for expensive health treatments. Certainly, Richmond Youth Soccer is a valuable institution in my community.

R. Fleming: I rise to speak today to make a statement about the important role that public transit plays in Greater Victoria and in over 50 other B.C. communities.

Every day B.C. Transit provides mobility to a significant section of our citizenry. Public transit also plays a tremendous role in the development of our economy and contributes to the health of our citizens. Good transit systems enhance property values in commercial centres and assist in the revitalization of downtown centres. In areas of heavy congestion, investment in public transit helps goods move faster, provides personal time savings for commuters and improves employers' access to labour.

Public transit also helps our economy and public safety by reducing vehicle collisions. The rate of fatal

collisions per passenger kilometre is 1/20 that of car travel. Recently in Victoria a group of transit riders, supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, supported the introduction of late-night bus service on weekends. The cost of the service is relatively small; the potential to save lives, immeasurable.

My community is unable to fund this initiative and has been unable to make up for the cutbacks to transit service in the last four years. Today there are 100,000 fewer hours of transit service on the road in my community. With fewer buses on the roads, service is worsened. I'm deeply disappointed that the 2005 budget update has not shown any vision for communities or displayed any interest in public transit in Victoria and the 50 other small and medium-sized communities across B.C.

J. Nuraney: I want to share my observations at the UBCM convention, which I attended last week. I was very impressed to hear comments from mayors and councillors from different jurisdictions in our province like Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Hudson's Hope, Penticton and others. The common core was the excitement they felt because of the economic activities taking place in their municipalities. There was a marked sense of confidence and optimism about the future of our province.

Apart from this infectious optimism, what I found most reassuring was the hum of cooperation among the different levels of government. Remarks from our Premier, the Prime Minister and other leaders resonated with the new way of doing business through cooperation and consultation.

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke about her resolve to work in the spirit of cooperation, I felt a sense of new hope for our province. In a democratic society such as ours, it is expected for political parties to have differing points of view. However, when those leaders with opposing political philosophies talk about seeking common ground, it bodes well for the future of our province.

I would like to thank both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition for their efforts in pursuing a new way in cooperation and in adopting a road that is less travelled in order to seek what is best for British Columbia.

J. Nuraney: If I may, Mr. Speaker. I consider it a privilege to be a part of what I like to call a new way to improve the lives of British Columbians and for the generations to follow.

S. Simpson: On October 2, I attended a celebration of life for my friend David Walton, who passed away from cancer. After struggling with the disease for 26 years and having beaten it twice, David finally lost his battle on September 1 of this year.

It was an honour for me to attend David's celebration of life along with hundreds of others, including the member for Vancouver-Kensington and David's cousin, the Minister of Economic Development.

David was born on April 5, 1959, in Squamish and raised in 100 Mile House. He graduated from Simon Fraser University and was the recipient of the Terry Fox Gold Medal award for courage in 1986, an award that is given to a person who has demonstrated those personal qualities of courage in adversity and dedication to society which have been exemplified by Terry Fox in his Marathon of Hope.

David was a longtime political and community activist, one of those people that we who sit in this place know are the backbone of the political process, an active New Democrat who volunteered in every capacity including many years as constituency president. He worked as executive assistant to the Attorney General and as ministerial assistant to the Premier. David was bright, committed and compassionate. His many friends in the political world will miss his wisdom, kindness and generosity.

His activism was much broader than simply partisan and electoral politics. It included his many years of community work both as a volunteer and professionally, including with the Pacific Community Resources Society where he worked for families and youth in need.

David has left behind many good friends and family who will miss him dearly. More than anything, he will be missed by his wife and soulmate, Anisa Kassam-Walton. David was one of those people we are all proud to have known. He was committed to social justice, to his family and to his community, and he was an inspiration in the manner in which he dealt with his illness with dignity and courage. I was privileged to have known David Walton. I ask this House to pass on its most sincere condolences and best wishes to his friends, his family and in particular to his wife Anisa.

C. James: With parents and students now in limbo, I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier if she will take any responsibility for increasing the level of confrontation in this dispute with teachers.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, that's an interesting question coming from the Leader of the Opposition. This is actually the side of the House that believed that education was so important that we said it was an essential

service, to make sure students stayed in school and in classrooms across this province.

C. James: Well, we can see where their essential service has taken us now. It's taken us to a crisis, to the brink of a crisis. Leadership demands a search for common ground, trying to find solutions. That's what leadership is about. But this government has not shown any leadership.

Again I ask the Deputy Premier: do you think that it was a mistake for the Premier to brush off a request that was made three months ago for the government to sit down with teachers and try and resolve this dispute?

Hon. S. Bond: We have made it perfectly clear that class size is an important issue to us. We have made several opportunities available to have that discussion, including for a number of years the education advisory committee. We want to have that discussion. We think it's a meaningful place.

This morning my colleague the Minister of Labour met with members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Teachers Federation. As a result of that discussion and a briefing that I've had with the Minister of Labour, we are going to create in the province a learning round table. I expect this afternoon to be contacting parties — which include the B.C. Teachers Federation, trustees, parents and also administrators — to come and participate in a significant forum.

We understand that class sizes and situations for teachers are important. In fact, we are prepared to have that discussion. I invite the B.C. Teachers Federation to join us at that table.

C. James: I understand that disputes like this are complex and difficult. But it's been three and a half years. There have been opportunities to resolve this dispute and to find a table before this. Why, once again, does this government need to bring us to the brink of a difficulty for parents and students in this province before they finally look at a solution?

Again, I'd like to raise another issue with the Deputy Premier. Will she at least accept that the Premier and his party used the election process to again inflame the situation and create more confrontation by using the education system as a political tool?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, on the eve of what she has correctly described as a day fraught with uncertainty, that I'm a bit surprised at her question. We are at a point where we need to show leadership. On this side of the House we are doing so. We are doing so with a piece of legislation that is before this House, which I understand there are differing views on. But we are all legislators. We are all lawmakers.

The leadership that the Leader of the Opposition has to show is to make it clear to the people who she counts on for political support that she does not support what would be unlawful and illegal activity. This is her opportunity to do so.

Hon. M. de Jong: And while we are committed to working and leaving no stone unturned to find a resolution to these complex matters, that is the question that the Leader of the Opposition must answer and make clear — that she, her party, will not support teachers or anyone else breaking the law.

D. Thorne: This government has made it very clear that they believe the bargaining system in British Columbia is broken in this instance, and it's true. It needs to be fixed. But it is not going to be fixed in a climate of anger and confrontation, a climate that this government laid the groundwork for.

Does the Deputy Premier understand how ripping up the teachers' contract in 2002 contributed to this serious impasse?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is broken. We have been through the history, and there are versions of that history. But the part that is irrefutable is that through five rounds of negotiation, the parties have never arrived at a freely negotiated collective agreement. So we have begun the process of rebuilding or attempting to rebuild that negotiating structure.

Earlier today I announced, as I said I would earlier this week, that Mr. Vince Ready has accepted the role as the industrial inquiry commissioner to begin the process, to work with the parties, to get them to a state and a stage armed with a process that we hope will work better than the one we have now, where in a matter of months they can negotiate an agreement — a freely negotiated agreement — that is different from the last five insofar as it didn't involve governmental interference. In the meantime we want kids to be in the classroom.

D. Thorne: By the minister's own admission, the bill that brought us to this crisis is not needed. Leadership is also about admitting mistakes and learning from experience, but every interaction that this gov-

ernment has had with teachers has been confrontational. In 2004 this government even overturned a Supreme Court ruling in favour of the teachers' position on learning conditions.

Does the Deputy Premier even begin to realize how using legislation to overturn the courts does nothing to help fix a broken bargaining system?

Hon. M. de Jong: Surely this member realizes the trauma and uncertainty that accrues in the lives of teachers, students and their parents as they drift further and further into escalating job action. There was a choice, and we made it. We made it armed with a report from a fact-finder that many of the members opposite have quoted from — some of them favourably, actually — which said there is absolutely no prospect of a settlement. We did so on the basis of 35 meetings that had taken place where the parties apparently couldn't even agree on getting a cup of coffee.

I said at the outset that no one is happy about the fact that we're here, but it's time to settle this and move on, to use the good services of Mr. Ready and construct a negotiating framework that stands some prospect of succeeding.

J. Horgan: This government is so concerned about class size that they've increased it right across the province. We've had confrontation in this province for the past four years, whether it be health care workers or whether it be teachers. Any organized group of individuals in this province has seen nothing but contempt and ridicule from that side of the House.

We had an election campaign where the result materially altered what this world looked like, and we thought on this side of the House…. The public thought that the government had heard what the people had said — that they wanted balance, and they wanted support for people in communities. This government rejected that. Here we are at the brink of the cliff as a result of this government's actions.

Will the Minister of Labour stand in his place and agree to meet tonight with the B.C. Teachers Federation, tomorrow morning with the B.C. Teachers Federation, and resolve this dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is a remarkable statement that the hon. member makes. In dismissing, as he apparently does, the over 130 freely negotiated collective agreements, I think he does a real disservice to the working men and women who actually agreed of their own volition to those agreements.

I've just had a meeting, and it was a candid and frank exchange. We certainly are prepared to continue that discussion, but as I said to the people at that meeting, it is difficult to have that discussion when the very people we look to, to set an example for students are breaking the law. That's not on, and that makes taking this discussion forward very, very difficult.

J. Horgan: I want to tell the minister about setting examples. I want to tell the minister about an individual named Mark Neufeld. He's a teacher in our community. He's a constituent of mine. He's not an activist. He's not a radical. He came to school on Wednesday morning, and he said to his cross-country team that he's been coaching for years: "I can't in good conscience continue to do this." He said to the basketball team that he coaches proudly: "I cannot continue to do this when the government that sits in this House disrespects and undervalues the work that I do."

What did that man do? What did that individual do? The example he set is that he started walking. He walked ten kilometres from Claremont School to this building to meet with the Premier. That's an example that I would be proud to show my children. Not yours.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I would rather have the kids in my house look to Mark Neufeld for leadership than Gordon Campbell. Where is the Premier…?

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Mark Neufeld walked to this place. He has been outside for 24 hours wanting to meet with the Premier so that the Premier will show leadership in this issue. The question is: where is the Premier to talk to this individual?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I appreciate the passion and commitment that teachers like Mr. Neufeld bring to their profession on a daily basis. That is why the Minister of Education actually did meet with him. There is no doubting that these are difficult, complex and at times vexing issues that we have to deal with, as they have been over the better part of a decade and a half at least. But I am still awaiting a clear indication from the critic, from the government benches, about where he and his caucus stand. Do they stand for a society governed by the rule of law? Or do they stand for the proposition that we have laws that you simply pick which ones you want to abide by and…?

Hon. M. de Jong: I do detect a growing feeling of discomfort on the opposition benches, because it is a difficult question to answer. Is it about abiding by the rule of law or, when a friendly organization is involved, simply looking the other way? On this side of the House, we stand irrevocably beside the right of students to be in the classroom getting an education.

J. Kwan: Conflict and confrontation is the approach that this government has chosen. The government ripped up collective agreements in 2002. This government stripped teachers of a self-governing body in terms of their ability to govern themselves in 2003. This government overturned a ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court to strip classroom support conditions from the bargaining table in 2004.

My question is to the Attorney General: is it one law for the teachers or a different law for this government? Which is it?

Hon. S. Bond: We believe class size is so important that we enshrined it in legislation with caps and flexibility for school districts. We've also said that while we believe class size is absolutely essential, and it is important we have those discussions, teachers need to be at the heart of those discussions.

But there is a role for parents and trustees and people who are involved in the lives of children every day in our schools to be involved in the discussion about class size. That's why we're going to create a permanent learning round table — to have those meaningful discussions to make sure that today we're saying to the B.C. Teachers Federation: come and sit and talk with us. Help us determine the terms of reference. Help us work together, but please, most importantly, let's keep our students in classrooms.

J. Kwan: Let's just be clear. This Liberal government overruled a court ruling by legislation, using the legislative hammer when it was convenient for them. They will change the law just like that, because it is politically convenient for them. Then they want to ask questions, and then they want to cast aspersions by pointing fingers and creating an escalating crisis today that will actually cause law-abiding citizens to engage in an activity that they may not want to but are forced to do.

I want to ask a question to the Deputy Premier: why is it so convenient for them to overturn a law when it suits them, when instead they could have chosen an alternate course — a course that would actually bring people together and ask the teachers, ask the educators, ask the school trustees, ask the people who have an interest in education, in improving education, to come to the table to address the issue of class size and class composition? Why didn't they choose that alternative and instead chose to break the law by overruling it?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, let's make it clear. There has always been an avenue to have a discussion about class sizes. The difference has been…

Hon. S. Bond: …that the union has suggested that the only place to talk about class size is at the bargaining table. We disagree. We want to now create….

Hon. S. Bond: We would like now, as I have just mentioned, to create a learning round table. We want to find a way to have that meaningful discussion.

But let's make it perfectly clear. What we're really waiting for here is to talk about leadership. Let's see the Leader of the Opposition stand with us today and say that this would be illegal and that we want you to stand beside us and keep students in classrooms.

C. Trevena: William Duboise is a resident of Campbell River who is waiting for a lung transplant. Mr. Duboise receives a person-with-disabilities benefit and has applied to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to provide him with a monthly nutritional supplement. The cost for these supplements is $165 a month. His doctor says Mr. Duboise's life will be endangered without them.

The ministry has denied this request. The reason? The administrator disagrees with the doctor's assessment. I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance: why can administrators overrule doctors on what are potentially life-and-death cases?

Hon. C. Richmond: I thank the member for her question. I am not familiar with this situation, so if you would please provide me with the information, I would be glad to bring an answer back to you and to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Member, it was kind of taken on notice. Do you have a different question?

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. I know of other cases. I would like to know whether, on principle, bureaucrats get a bigger voice than doctors on certain cases.

Hon. C. Richmond: I think the member is aware that I cannot talk about individual cases in this House, and if she has other instances, I would like to hear about them. We evaluate every request for assistance on its own merits, and virtually no one is turned away when they're in a time of crisis.

D. Routley: Recent reports point to the reality that homelessness is growing in both urban and rural communities. Thousands of British Columbians are slipping below the waves, but the Premier is planning to eliminate the provincial housing program by '07-'08,

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Will the minister explain to this House why such a successful program is being cut and why plans to address the need for increased social housing have been put off for another year?

Hon. R. Coleman: That is not the case. We are not cutting a social housing program. As a matter of fact, this government has done more for social housing in four years than the previous government did in ten.

Let's be aware of something. The opportunity existed for the previous government from 1990 to 2001 to do something about the SAFER program to help seniors in British Columbia — ignored them completely for ten years. We stepped up to the plate, and we have 7,700 more seniors eligible for support in the province just from our SAFER adjustments alone.

The Premier's Task Force on Homelessness is already announced and has committed $20.6 million in provincial funding for 533 units in 12 housing developments across the province for homelessness. We are working on a provincial housing strategy that will be so exciting and so good for people on the ground that you'll see more and more people being assisted by this government than any time in history.

D. Routley: Yes. I think we're supposed to bring a new tenor to the House, not only comedy.

Last week a fire broke out in an abandoned building in Duncan where a number of homeless people were living. Like many people on our streets, including those caught in the Duncan fire, the lack of housing is intimately linked to mental health and addiction issues. In Vancouver alone, 750 people with mental illness are on the wait-list for supportive housing. It is estimated that two-thirds of the homeless in Vancouver experience drug addiction and mental health issues. Will the Minister for Housing commit to increasing the number of supportive housing units for people with mental illnesses?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, what happened in Duncan was absolutely a tragedy. We are willing to work with that community to address the issues of homelessness in Duncan. Unfortunately, at the UBCM last week it was one of the communities that did not come to see me about housing as an issue that they wanted to talk about in their community, although a substantial number of communities did. We've committed to those communities to find ways for innovative practices to go into smaller and medium-sized communities for housing issues for them in the long term. That work is underway already, as a result of our discussions at UBCM.

In addition to that, like I said, we've already given 533 units of commitment in 12 housing developments across the province, including Vancouver, Nanaimo, Surrey, Victoria, Kelowna, New Westminster, Prince George, Terrace and Fort St. John. There's nobody in any community in the province who should ignore the issues of homelessness, mental health and addictions.

Hon. R. Coleman: …the first piece of leadership has got to come from here and that we tell communities: "Don't be afraid to stand up and not be NIMBYs and support projects in your communities so we can help the people at risk in your community."

R. Chouhan: Emelda Bain-Parten is a 78-year-old resident of Burnaby-Edmonds. Recently she was taken to hospital in an ambulance. Somewhere between the ambulance and the hospital, her dentures were removed to insert tubes. Somehow her dentures were lost. Instead of replacing her dentures, the government bought her a blender.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising the issue. It's the first I've heard of it. If he would like to provide me with the details of it, we would be very happy to see if we can assist.

I think one of the things we should not do, though — although I know some members opposite are prone to it — is try to blame a great health system for unfortunate events that sometimes occur in it.

Clearly, there are thousands of people in our health care system who care deeply not only about the seniors that they see. They care deeply about all the patients that they see. Every day they make difficult, sometimes heart-wrenching decisions about health care, and I support those people. I will not presume of any person who works in the health care system or, actually, anywhere in government that they operate with any bad intent. I am sure that something unfortunate has happened here.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member should not presume that the system is against that person.

R. Chouhan: Also, for the information of the Minister of Health, I do come from the health care industry. I

know how health care workers work there, how they take care of the elderly and the patients every day.

Imelda is a low-income senior. She cannot afford new dentures. Because she cannot eat solid food, she lost a significant amount of weight. In fact, she was so weak from her liquid diet that she is now down to 80 pounds. My question is to the minister. What are you doing to make sure that low-income seniors are getting the care that they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry. I apologize. I was so eager to respond to this question, I may have got ahead of myself. So I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker.

The issue, again, is an important one. If the member would be so kind as to forward to me the details about this particular lady's situation, I would be glad to see what we can do for her.

What I will not do is attempt to politicize the circumstances of an individual and try to draw conclusions about a whole system, as regards that. We have done a lot of things. I'm tremendously proud of what this government has done for seniors. I'm tremendously proud of the Independent Living B.C. program that benefits thousands and thousands of seniors across this province. I'm tremendously proud of the Fair Pharmacare program that ensures that frail elderly who need the support get it.

Finally — because I know we're running out of time — I'm tremendously proud of the recent changes in the SAFER program which, as the Minister for Housing pointed out, benefit thousands and thousands and thousands of seniors in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission, 2004.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 12 and in Committee A, for the information of members, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Community Services.

R. Chouhan: I rise to oppose Bill 12. Like many of my colleagues, I, too, come from a family of teachers. I have a sister, Jaswan Chouhan, who was a teacher all her life, and later on she became the principal of a senior secondary school. I have a sister-in-law, Jaginder Chouhan. She was also a teacher and became principal later on. She was appointed as director of education system. I have a sister-in-law who teaches in Burnaby, Toni Grewal. They all teach. They're all in this profession because they love teaching; they love students.

Teaching is a very noble and respectful profession, but by introducing Bill 12, this government once again has shown a total disrespect for teachers and their rights. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Labour on Monday, that they took no pleasure from introducing Bill 12. Well, if that's the case, if they're not happy, then do the simple thing: withdraw Bill 12. Utilize other options that are available. Negotiate in good faith with the BCTF, but don't sit here and pretend that you have tried. We know you have not.

The government may say that there were 35 different meetings with the bargaining committee of the B.C. Teachers Federation. For the last 18 years I have done lots of bargaining. I have done lots of collective bargaining negotiations in the last 18 years with the health care employers. I have taught hundreds of students in the last 18 years how to negotiate a collective agreement. One can have hundreds of meetings, but if your bargainers don't have the mandate to negotiate a settlement, then obviously no number of meetings would produce the desired result.

Time and again teachers have asked the government to meet students' needs. Teachers need adequate resources. The teachers' message is very clear. When the size of a class is so large, they cannot attend to all students. When students bring home the homework without proper class instructions, the parents are left with spending extra time with the children to complete their homework. God forbid if parents are not familiar with the subject. The student's education suffers even further.

I'm a parent. For many years I was the vice-president of the parents advisory council at the Cariboo Secondary School in Burnaby. I know how hard the teachers work. What do they get in return? Longer hours, lesser resources and a total lack of respect from the government.

Teachers have rights like anybody else, and those rights must be respected. The government tries to claim that it respects teachers, but how could that be when their rights are trampled upon? Show them that you truly value their work — not the platitudes. If we want our children to get the best education, if we are serious about the future of our children, then let the teachers have the necessary tools.

In 2002 government legislation stripped learning and working conditions from the teachers' collective agreement and now refuses to deal with them. The government demands that teachers stay in the classrooms and continue to uphold the high standards. How can that be possible? Despite the deteriorating working conditions, the teachers have done everything

In 2001 legislation was passed declaring B.C. teachers an essential service. The government changed the definition of essential service at that time. The previous definition was: "Necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." But to meet its political agenda, the government changed the definition to state: "The minister may direct the Labour Relations Board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious disruption to the provision of educational programs."

No other province has this kind of broad definition. In fact, no other province considered teachers as essential services. The ILO and the United Nations have found this legislation to be in violation of international standards to which Canada is signatory.

Over the last four years this government has closed 113 schools and has laid off over 2,500 teachers. The government tried to justify it by saying that the student enrolment was down, and therefore fewer schools and fewer teachers were needed.

Let's go over the facts. In my hometown, Burnaby, between the 2001 and 2002 school year and the 2003 and 2004 school year, student enrolment was reduced by 1.9 percent. But in contrast, the counsellors were reduced by 8.1 percent, ESL teachers by 17.6 percent, special education teachers by 11.8 percent and teacher-librarians by 9.1 percent. Teachers were reduced by 6.1 percent. These are the facts. This figure comes from the Ministry of Education itself.

Mr. Speaker, you can see clearly what this government has done to the education system, but this government is saying that all that was done to enhance the public education system. The government should be ashamed of what it has done. The facts speak for themselves. Over the last few days the government members have been falling all over each other to claim how much they value teachers, but the reality is different.

Let's see how the teachers see this. Listen to what the teachers in Burnaby are saying. This is a letter from one of the teachers in Burnaby. It says: "Last year I had 31 kids in my grade four class. It wasn't just hard; it was impossible to get around and help each child with their needs during lessons. I even had to set up a take-a-number system."

Another teacher: "More behaviour students are incorporated into larger classes. Each student gets less attention than they need. The students and I become frustrated. More exciting, hands-on lessons would be appreciated, but lack of room, materials, resource assistants — that's learning assistants — and librarians make it more difficult."

Another science teacher tells us: "The lab space is set up for 28 students, but now students are crowded three to a bench. It's a safety issue." I have a lot more letters and statements from teachers. Each one of them is telling me how difficult it has become to teach and how concerned they are about the ability of students to learn. All of the teachers want a negotiated settlement.

The government should withdraw Bill 12 and mandate the BCPSEA to negotiate with our educators in good faith. The government should start respecting the free collective bargaining process. This government did enough damage to free collective bargaining in 2002 when it introduced Bill 29. That was the bill which took away the rights of health care workers. Through Bill 29, the government ripped up a truly negotiated collective agreement between the health care workers and their employers. That agreement was accepted and ratified by over 82 percent of the health care employers. But this government did not care then, and it does not care now.

By doing what the Liberals are trying to achieve through Bill 12, they may please their rich corporate friends, but they will not help any student — or parent, for that matter. Priorities of this government are wrong. They can find millions for their rich corporate friends, but they have no money for more textbooks, special needs teachers, librarians and ESL teachers. This government has millions for its rich corporate friends but no money for decent wages for workers. If this government is really serious about helping students, then it must withdraw Bill 12.

In 2002 the provincial government legislated a major stripping of the teachers' collective agreement, removing significant provisions that set limits for class sizes and established staffing ratios for the provision of specialist teachers. It made it illegal for teachers to bargain class size, class composition or staffing formulas in the future. Now the government is pretending to fix a broken bargaining process. The bargaining process is broken because Liberals broke it.

The government has said it wants to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent, but on the other hand, the government has reduced the teacher-librarians. Between 2002 and 2004, according to the Minister of Education, teacher-librarian staffing declined by 25 percent. International research has shown a consistent correlation between school libraries, subject learning and information literacy. How do all these cuts put the students first? If the Premier is really serious about making B.C. the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction, then he will instruct his government to withdraw Bill 12 and return to the teaching and learning conditions that existed in 2002, prior to the contract being stripped of those provisions by legislation.

What we need is leadership — leadership that would truly enhance public education, not continue on the path of confrontation. We need the government to recognize that it had made a mistake in 2002, and now is the time to rectify it by engaging in meaningful and good-faith bargaining — not through Bill 12.

Bill 12 is a recipe for disaster. It will not foster harmonious relationships between the teachers and the school boards, between teachers and the students or

parents. Maybe that is what this government wants — to create a wedge between the teachers, students and parents. The time has come for this government to stop being cynical and start treating teachers as professionals. Teachers are concerned about the learning abilities of their students. That's why teachers talk about class composition. Why do they do it? Let me read from information that I received from a teacher on this issue of class composition.

That's why teachers talk so often about class composition as their biggest challenge. They support inclusion if they have the support to make it work.

In the extensive tearing-up of the teachers' collective agreement in 2002, not only were upper limits on class size removed, but the class composition clauses were also eliminated. That opened the door for much more difficult situations for both teachers and students. Students with special needs had less support. At the same time, attention to the other students in the class was reduced. That's what teachers faced when they had to deal with more special needs with less additional support. Eliminating the contract provisions had a negative impact on the teaching and learning conditions.

This government is responsible for breaking the system. The government has created unnecessary fear in the public's mind that the system is so unworkable that we have to bring in the law. But the public is not fooled. People understand who's responsible for that. British Columbians expect this government to show leadership, to come forward with a meaningful solution, not confrontation.

It's about time this government extended a hand of friendship to the teachers, to our educators, to show them that they really are concerned about the students and the parents. Sit down with those teachers and their organization, the B.C. Teachers Federation, and negotiate a collective agreement in good faith. Stop playing these games.

What we need is a meaningful gesture on the part of the government, not platitudes. The time has come for the government to show leadership, for the Premier to stand up for education, for the public education system, and do something about it. I sincerely ask and am hopeful that the government will withdraw Bill 12 and engage itself in negotiations.

This occasion is one that I'm not proud to be involved with. We have just witnessed another blatant attack against our teaching workforce and, I may add, the day after we recognized World Teachers Day. This is a sad day for students, a sad day for parents and a devastating day for teachers all across this great province.

We have the greatest education system in this province. We have the best education system in the world and the most dedicated group of stakeholders that we'll find anywhere. Our teachers, our valued teachers-on-call, are the most hard-working, conscientious and devoted group of professionals that you'll ever find. Their commitment to curricular and extracurricular activities is renowned throughout the province and throughout Canada.

Teachers work with and educationally challenge our most valuable resource, our children. Parents put their trust and their faith in educators to shape and mould their children as they embark on a life-long journey of learning. Trustees put their lives on the line to strive for the best education system for their respective districts. I thank and I compliment all trustees throughout the province for this difficult task.

Parent advisory committees realize the importance of a well-rounded school that has the necessary funding to make the school the best it can be. I thank all parents for their dedication to this end. Students throughout the province throw their hearts and souls into their own learning curve, whatever that may look like. They come in all different sizes and shapes, so much alike yet so different and unique.

One thing that all these stakeholders expect is that the government of the day will adequately fund our education system and work with our teaching force, not against them, so we can continue to improve education for our students. This government has let down parents, students and teachers. This is a sad day for all those concerned about quality education.

There was an opportunity for progress in this dispute, but this government chose confrontation and the option that will not effect any change in working conditions in the classrooms. That is shameful. This government could have chosen the path to discuss learning conditions but decided deliberately, in a seemingly preconceived plot, to go straight ahead in another forced settlement. It's yet another imposition, an imposition that will only create conflict and chaos in our education.

So why are we here today? The symbol of this government, Bill 12. The inability of the government…. It's a symbol of this government's incompetence to work with all of the stakeholders involved in our system and to bargain in good faith for an agreement that works

for British Columbians — one that would enhance and better learning conditions for students, one based on free collective bargaining where both sides sit down and discuss the issues to create an education system that works for students and for teachers, one that reduces confrontation and is based on listening and respect. This government had the opportunity to do this, and they blew it.

Teaching is a proud profession, and I'm so pleased to have so many educators in the gallery today. It's a proud profession, where educators can positively influence the lives and learning of their students, watching children gain that confidence, grow in their skills. Seeing the growth, the maturing into young adults, is something that makes it all worthwhile.

I know that feeling. I've been a proud member of the British Columbia Teachers Federation for 27 years. That is one of the many, many reasons that I'm in these chambers today. I not only witnessed a government that treated teachers without dignity and respect; I experienced a government that intimidated, chastised and bullied teachers at every opportunity.

As we all know, we're all taught to challenge and confront those who bully. How did we get here? Through this government's draconian ideology that we need to manipulate and control working people. In August 2001 Bill 18 was enacted. This declared education an essential service, which normally is reserved for where the life, safety or health of the population is at risk, as in hospital, police or fire services.

But don't misunderstand me. Education is very, very important, but it is definitely not an essential service. B.C. is one of the only jurisdictions, if not the only jurisdiction, in the world where education is essential, thus eliminating a key component of free collective bargaining: the right to strike.

This violation of fundamental rights, which are respected in democracies worldwide, was chastised by the International Labour Organization, which stated that this Liberal government should abide by international law. The ILO is a United Nations agency that sets international standards for labour relations, and Canada is a signatory to that. The ILO is not a union-run organization. It's jointly run by representatives of government, business and labour, and promotes internationally recognized human and labour rights. The ILO condemned this Liberal draconian legislation and recommended this bill be repealed.

On January 27, 2002, Bills 27 and 28 were enacted. These, once again, were condemned by the ILO. These had devastating effects in schools, in classrooms throughout the province. Bill 27 imposed a contract on teachers with a raise of 2.5 over each of three years, but this government refused to fund the forced deal, resulting in millions and millions of dollars that were downloaded onto school districts.

Recently on CKNW our Premier blamed local school boards for the ballooning class sizes, thus disavowing any responsibility. That's shameful. This week I had a local trustee from school district 52 contact me and demand that I bring this to the attention of the House and let our Premier know that it's not school boards to blame; it is this government and how they are defunding our education system.

This downloading resulted in 2,600 teachers laid off, where only 700 of them can be attributed to the infamous declining enrolment. And 113 schools shut down in communities all over the province, mostly in rural communities. The ILO indicated to this government that contract imposition, again, violates basic human rights and that "a unilateral action by authorities cannot but introduce uncertainty in labour relations, which in the long term can only be prejudicial."

What do we see today, 3½ years later? We see that uncertainty in this province, and this government is to blame. The government was warned, and they ignored that warning. It did not stop there. Bill 28 removed provisions from negotiated contracts that limited class sizes, guaranteed supports for students with special needs and set standards of service from trained specialist teachers. In other words, this government ripped up contracts that dealt with student learning conditions. The results? The results were devastating to students and to teachers. The impact on first nations students and on aboriginal programs and services throughout this province was severe: programs axed, first nations support workers laid off as school districts tried to meet the government's bottom line.

We certainly do need a new relationship in this province. Class sizes ballooned as the Liberals boasted that class size was enshrined in their legislation. I'll tell you what was enshrined: class sizes of 22 for kindergarten and 20 for grades one to three. It sounds reasonable, but there was no consideration, no regard for class composition and the number of children in those classes with special needs.

For grades four to 12 the enshrined class size wasn't a class size; it was a district average of 30 students. So a class with 22 students in one portion of the district could be countered with a class of 38 in another — as long as the average was 30. And again, no regard for class composition. Special needs support was drastically slashed as this contractual language gleefully ended up on the Liberals' cutting floor. There was a 28-percent reduction, with 740 fewer special education support positions over the last few years, and that's wrong. That's wrong.

Also cut were trained special education teachers by 17½ percent and teacher-librarians by 23 percent. We saw them in the galleries the other day. English-as-a-second-language teachers were cut by 20 percent. And how did our Premier react to this tremendous blot on Canada's reputation where he and his Liberal gang violated fundamental rights? He felt "no pressure whatsoever" to bring our province into compliance with an international convention to which we are all a signatory.

Liberal government officials characterized the accusations as frivolous. Teachers in this province, workers in this province, all those who believe in fundamental rights: we do not find ripping up contracts, forcing an

end to legal job action and gutting positions that uphold quality of education to be frivolous in the least — not at all.

I've seen the changes. I've seen the frustrations. I've shared the stories with these teachers, with those dedicated teachers on call, the parents, the administrators, the support staff in our schools. More importantly, I've seen it on the faces of our kids. It's not going to get any better with the introduction of Bill 12. It will only create more problems.

Now I was going to talk more about my experience in the school system and the exhilaration I feel working with kids. I was going to share some of my experiences of teaching at Kaien Island Alternate School in Prince Rupert, where I was the head teacher for five years and worked there for six years, but that was one of the schools in our district that was shut down. That closed due to lack of provincial funding, sending the most vulnerable of our students to fend for themselves in a system that cannot meet their needs.

I don't think I'm going to tell my story just yet. I've been cut off before, and I don't want to be cut off, so I might come back to me, but this is not about me. This is more about teachers that have contacted me, and I'd like to share a few of them from my own riding and my constituency. I have a primary teacher, 20 years' experience: "More students, more students with special needs. I no longer meet the needs of either the regular or special students. Currently there's a class of 21 in a K-one-two, a kindergarten-one-two class with 21 students and five IEPs. Bottom line: too many. Everyone is impacted negatively. I long for the good old days when we had class size composition."

Another teacher, all grades: "Classes overloaded with special needs students." Another teacher, a secondary teacher, 15 years' experience: "Class size and composition limit the effectiveness of my teaching practices. Some get left behind, and others are not challenged enough. I look at too many kids. Composition horrendous."

Here's an intermediate teacher in Prince Rupert, 25 years' experience. They have "seven students with special needs: two in wheelchairs, one vision-impaired, one hearing-impaired, one physically handicapped with cerebral palsy, one with a behavioral learning problem, one learning disabled, one student with learning disabled pending. This is unfair to the children. They won't get another crack at grade six when the government finally decides to fund education properly.

I have a teacher from Haida Gwaii who is teaching in a kindergarten-one-two-three class, a four-split class with 19 students: "The age and ability range is huge. The groups are huge. I'm burning out."

Another intermediate teacher on Haida Gwaii: "Students are suffering. So are teachers. Four grades in a classroom are too many. I'm trying to conduct a circus rather than a learning environment. When we know this is what works, it seems criminal that we're not able to provide learning conditions and class composition."

These stories are the stories that are occurring in all the classrooms throughout the province. These are not the stories we want to be telling; these are the stories that must be told. This government, the members on the opposite side, had the opportunity to listen, to see for themselves and find out what was really happening in our schools. They chose, as we've mentioned…. As they've mentioned, they made a decision. They chose not to listen; they chose not to find out.

They had the opportunity to work with the recommendation of the fact-finder. They chose not to do that. They had the opportunity to engage with teachers and all education stakeholders in an effective and meaningful dialogue regarding the critical issue of class size and composition, and they chose not to do that. This government has made many choices, like the choice to give huge tax cuts to corporations instead of putting it into programs that support children. I believe these are the wrong choices, and this government must accept the blame.

Bill 12 solves nothing. It will not get things better. The hon. members on the other side had a real opportunity to avoid conflict, to treat teachers with dignity and respect, to show balance, to sit down and work on solutions. They chose confrontation and disrespect. This is a sad day for quality education in our province.

Just one note. As draconian governments come and go, I know the resolve of great organizations throughout this province working together — organizations that respect contracts, that respect workers, that respect free collective bargaining — and I know that these organizations will still be here advocating long and hard for justice long after this Liberal government is just a faded memory. That's what's going to happen.

I pay tribute to all the workers in this province who have come under the wrath of this current government. I fear the battle has just begun. I hope common sense will prevail. I plead with my colleagues on the other side: sit down, negotiate — not only with teachers but with all workers in this province.

I'd like to take this opportunity to comment, as we've heard before, on a local Victoria teacher from Claremont Secondary School, Mark Neufeld, who I

talked to this morning with his spouse and his young child. I went out there as he was just seeing his wife and child for the first time, after he spent overnight, after walking ten miles to get here. He is camping outside there because he has to do something. That's why we have 33 members on this side up here talking about Bill 12, talking about how, hopefully, it will get repealed. Hopefully, this government will come to their senses, because we have to do something about that for the education system in this province.

Mr. Neufeld tried to get a meeting with the Premier but to no avail. The Minister of Education did have a meeting with him, did chat with him, but he fears his message will not be heard. So I will relate his message on the public record to the hon. members on the other side and to all British Columbians out there listening.

I'm optimistic about the future, but the future depends on what happens right here in this Legislature. I was pleased yesterday during question period when the Minister of Forests and Range, when questioned about softwood — and I would love to quote this from the Minister of Forests and Range — indicated: "We're going to be the ones that will negotiate in good faith. We're going to be the ones that will be honourable and accept the deals we make, and we'll stand up to and honour the deals we make" — and here's the clincher — "with the Americans in the future."

Now, I am hopeful that not only will this government negotiate in good faith with the Americans but that they bring it back home and they negotiate in good faith right here in British Columbia. I'm sure when the message gets out — that that's their stance as far as negotiating — that Liberal caucus members will reflect on these words and bring some honour back to our province and begin to negotiate in good faith, not only with teachers across the province but with all British Columbians.

Now I can get back to me. When I first started teaching, I taught in the special class in 1977 in Prince Rupert. I had a class of ten kids. My job description was: do whatever you want, but we don't want to see these kids. I was a first-year teacher, and I was in that school, actually, longer than I'm spending in this Legislature. I come to this Legislature about seven in the morning and leave about 8:30 or nine at night. I was leaving my school at 11 o'clock at night. My closest and best friends were the custodians.

I travelled around from classroom to classroom, finding out what teaching was about. I look back on those days with a lot of honour and dignity, because I had kids, and I started to integrate them. They were just normal kids, but they couldn't handle it in a regular classroom. I started to say: "Well, maybe they can be in the shop class or the PE class," or whatever, and then all of a sudden they were all farmed out — integrated into classrooms — and I nearly did myself out of a job, except they kept sending more in.

As we developed through the years, we had more and more kids being integrated into the school system, and teachers accepted that. We negotiated in those times, in those days, across the province with our school districts. We sat across the table and said: "This is what's good for education. This is what's good for students." We negotiated language that dealt with class size and class composition.

We said, "If you have a class of 27 to 28 kids, then three students with special needs would be appropriate," and we all agreed, because it worked, because we could take the time and the energy. When you have 30 kids in the classroom — and it's an hour class, if you're teaching at a secondary school — you do whatever you need to do in the front, do a bit of a lesson, and you may have 20 or 30 minutes left to deal with 30 kids.

When I was back at Charles Hays Secondary School last year teaching math 9, I had 31 kids in school and about seven, eight or nine of them really needed extra help and support. How much time did I have? I had maybe less than a minute with each student. Now, if I was distracted because somebody needed a couple of more minutes, then there was a handful of students that did not get any of my attention that day, and that's shameful. That cuts right to the heart when you know that there are students in there that want the help, that need the support, but you just can't get to them because you've got a handful of others that are taking up the time. They should be in classrooms where their needs are being met.

I went to Prince Rupert because I applied to be an alternate ed teacher, and after six or seven years I did make it. I made it to the top. I was at the Kaien Island Alternate School, and I was working with the best kids in the world, kids that don't fit into a normal situation in a school. Unfortunately — or in my case, fortunately — Prince Rupert has a high population of first nations students. My riding has the highest first nations population in the province. I respect their culture. It's so diverse, unique. I had a lot of good times working with students at the alternate school. It was shut down, as I mentioned. Students were distributed into the other high schools. One high school didn't have much support, and the other school created an afternoon alternate class that these kids went into.

Lo and behold, when I came back to teaching after my stint as the president of the teachers union in Prince Rupert, I went back to this school, and I was assigned this alternate school position. I was just so pleased, because I was back at the top again, and that's where I want to be. But I went in there, and I had poor kids that didn't have the support, didn't have the services. They had me. I think back to that, and it was one of the most

challenging years of my 27 in the teaching profession. I had to do something about that. I worked long and hard to create a program, but it was so frustrating trying to fit these kids, these round pegs, into square holes, because the facility we had and operated for many, many years was shut down due to de-funding of education.

I think back to James. James was the most challenging student I've ever taught, and I loved him dearly. He would always come in, and the sign on him was don't argue with him, because he'll always win. We'd go out in the hallway, and we'd argue. He always won, but that was fine. I'm in lots of arguments, and I let some people win.

But one day we had a fire in Prince Rupert. We lost an apartment building, and 50 people lost their homes. I was in the Salvation Army helping out at a building where stacks and stacks of clothes and furniture came in. I was volunteering my time, and the press came by. I wasn't even considering putting my name into the hat to get into politics.

I was in that Salvation Army helping out and working out. The press came along with the cameras. They took a picture, and I said something. I don't know what I said. But the next day, James came running up to me and said: "Hey, Mr. Buttons. How are you doing?" On the screen they had my name as Gary Buttons. I can say that. It's not my real name. Okay.

He laughed. Not only that, but he found out later on in months to come that I was putting my name into the ring. He was pretty astute, and he was saying: "So you're running for the NDP. I can handle that. If you need any help, let me know."

This was a student who came from five or six other school districts, passed around from classroom to classroom. Nobody could deal with him; nobody could handle the situations. Nobody had a designation for him. He needed serious help, and he was not getting it in the school system. I felt so frustrated.

On our TV system up north they do a week in review. About five days later they replayed me again, and he comes in Monday and says: "Mr. Buttons, you were on there again last night." I think back to that. When I go back home tomorrow, I'm going to drop into…. Well, I guess the schools will be under different operations tomorrow. But I'm going to give James a call and just let him know that I'm thinking about him, because that's what teachers do. They try; they try to make a difference.

Over my 27 years I feel that for at least 22 or 23 years, I have been making a difference. There are many teachers I work with right now who I actually taught — lo and behold — and that's difficult. But I'm proud to say that teachers do make a difference.

But it's frustrating. It's frustrating when we look at what's happened in this Legislature over the last four years, what's happened with teachers' contracts. I hope that this Legislature looks at Bill 12, decides to pull it, and works with teachers and works with stakeholders throughout the province.

D. Cubberley: I just want to thank the member for North Coast for sharing his comments with us and those from the heart. I think all of us have had the experience of teachers who have made a difference in our lives. Just listening to the member's comments about his own experience, it sounds to me as though he did make a difference in a lot of lives. Having been one of those kids who was round when the holes were square, I benefited from a couple of teachers who I guess recognized some innate capability of some kind that didn't necessarily show up on the standard grid and made some extra effort in my life. It has made a difference.

I'm pleased today to have an opportunity to respond to Bill 12, which was introduced by the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services earlier this week. It's a pretty bland name, and it belies the fact that this act terminates bargaining. Not only does it not settle the dispute, as the explanatory note claims, but it risks prolonging and inflaming it further.

Bill 12 is a short and deceptively simple act that arbitrarily extends a collective agreement that had long expired. In effect, it summarily puts an end to bargaining between the BCTF and the government's agents, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association. This act can only be seen as an insult to the collective bargaining process. It will, I think with justification, be seen as further injury to the teachers of British Columbia who were already aggrieved by government's reckless actions in 2002.

I know that the Minister of Labour took pains to characterize the collective bargaining process as nonexistent, dysfunctional, broken — whatever other term could be conscripted to legitimatize the government's actions — I think coming at a point which the government had long planned to get to, at least judging by the absence of efforts to make positive overtures to teachers over the course of a year and a half. I'm not just referring to the orchestrated nature of the public ad campaign that the government unleashed, coincident with its introduction of the legislation to suspend bargaining, a step it took without bothering, I think, to reflect deeply or publicly on the content or the implications of Mr. Connolly's fact-finding report, not just his conclusions, and a step it took without accepting responsibility for engineering the impasse that Mr. Connolly's report merely confirmed, and which I think should have led to sober reflection rather than draconian action.

I want to highlight a couple of points touching on the way in which government as an employer created, through its actions or its inactions, the kind of stalemate that was used in the end to justify the introduction of the act.

First was the very clear statement that due to the depth of feeling on the part of teachers about the importance of discussions and negotiations, not just about

wages but about working and learning conditions, that government needed to engage in a dialogue. A quote directly from Mr. Connolly: "As professionals delivering the educational services to children in British Columbia, teachers are seeking an opportunity to articulate their thoughts and knowledge on the learning conditions for students."

Clearly, teachers wished and needed and deserved to be able to discuss working and learning conditions with their employer. Just as clearly, the employer's representatives had firm instructions not to consider issues or proposals with respect to class size, class composition or access to appropriate supports such as teacher assistance. These had been deemed to lie outside the collective bargaining process. As difficult as that is to understand or make sense of, they were deemed to lie outside the collective bargaining process.

Of course, there is no mechanism, currently, for teachers to discuss these matters outside of bargaining, nor any history of that occurring with this government, nor were there any overtures during negotiations as to how that could actually work. It's not clear why teachers should believe that even if it could occur, it could translate into meaningful changes if the results of those discussions weren't set down in some form that's actually binding on school districts — like a collective agreement — as they had been in the past.

In this regard, the government is certainly being true to form, and that's not a compliment. Indeed, I think it was this government's paramount goal to sever not just the contract language the BCTF had negotiated around class size from the existing agreement in 2002, but to sever any linkage between working and learning conditions and the process of negotiations. It took unilateral action in 2002 to strip the collective agreement, while it hoped to obscure what it was doing or soften it by mandating a 7.5 percent increase to wages, which in turn, it substantially downloaded on to school districts, thereby ultimately worsening the very conditions the teachers' agreement had sought to protect against. Nice job, folks. It's a really cute trick, if you don't consider the bitter harvest that we're reaping today as an outcome of the seeds that were sowed by those acts in 2002.

The lack of respect shown teachers by the arbitrary removal of limits placed within their collective agreement began a poisoning of relations that continued during an entire term of office and carried right on through the last election campaign. We sometimes hear members opposite say — and I find without a great deal of conviction — that they respect teachers and the work they do. But, you know, as our elementary school teachers taught us, in the end actions do speak louder than words — far louder.

I heard the Minister of Education say this afternoon, for example, "We believe it's so important," — referring to class size limits — "that we enshrine them in legislation." We'll come back to that.

Engendering a climate of disrespect — the shameful attempt to mislead parents into fearing that teachers were jumping to a strike vote the day after the election was over, something the Premier himself launched — isn't a productive accomplishment in management terms. In industrial relations, if you care about outcomes, it's exactly what you're trying to avoid doing. You don't demonize the other guys. You don't provoke them. You know that your employees are your biggest asset and that they identify their work as deserving of dignity, however humble the work they do is. And they rightly expect you to demonstrate that you respect their commitment and their work. The relationship in collective bargaining can never be about sticking it to your employees or provoking them into doing things based on reactions — not if you're acting as stewards of the enterprise.

But confrontation with teachers and provocation around their issues and the bargaining relationship is something that this government is really passionate about — indeed, I believe, relishes. Never mind the words; look at the actions. The actions speak clearly.

The second thing the government, had it cared about outcomes in students' lives, would have reflected more deeply upon in Connolly's report is this statement: "The lack of dialogue on compensation led to a public media debate about the cost of proposals that only increased the tension and conflict between the parties and did not further understanding, clarity or opportunity to find agreement within a collective bargaining process." Now, to my ear, that's an indictment. That lands the responsibility right at government's door, because it was this government that called in the play that led to refusal to discuss compensation, and that at the same time chose to ramp up public emotion by circulating wild numbers that had nothing to do with tabled proposals — wild speculation used to whip up public emotions and misrepresent intentions.

When a government who claims not to be involved at the table, despite defining what can and can't be discussed and calling in the plays, interferes in difficult negotiations by ramping up emotions, it can only make matters worse. But that's apparently just what the government intended to do. Government's responsibility for damaging the relationship isn't just a matter of gutting contract language nor just the injury of handing the employer the right to degrade working conditions by taking learning condition guarantees away from teachers. No, to my mind, it's the gross mismanagement of the system that flowed from governments doing all of that while off-loading costs onto school districts with capped budgets.

The cost of the MSP premium hikes passed through to school districts. Costs for teacher increases that weren't funded put into the legislated contract and downloaded onto school districts. Costs of inflation that every large program has on a year-over-year basis. Anybody who's worked in government at any level knows that there are increasing expenses due to inflation on an annual basis. You cannot deliver the same program every year with the same amount of money. You're reducing the program you're delivering if you aren't covering off inflation. But this government told

the school districts: "Be quiet. Eat those costs. Just go find efficiencies. Go away. Just do it."

Well, economies in school services can rapidly trigger deteriorating conditions, and now the chickens have come home to roost. Thrusting those costs down onto the system, combined with the loss of class size controls, produces negative effects in schools across British Columbia.

We often hear members opposite offer declining enrolment as the rationale for the reduction of 2,500 positions across B.C., and the closure of 113 schools certainly played a role. There were jobs that went with the closure of schools, as did contracting funding in the decision to close schools. But the real driver was the new costs, the costs that resulted in higher class sizes and more demanding class composition.

That's just a phrase that we say in here: "More demanding class composition." On the ground, more demanding class composition is the challenge that teachers face — and fewer supportive resources to deal with those needing special attention. You know, when I went to school, there wasn't a phrase "people needing special attention." It didn't exist. As we will see, it is now a substantial portion of what teachers deal with in the classroom.

That was the reason we lost nearly a quarter of our school librarians and why the remainder of our school librarians now spend more time doing clerical library work and less time teaching students how to use libraries — because school districts reluctantly cut librarians and support workers in order to shave budgets to cover downloaded costs. In other words, if you think about, Mr. Speaker, the net impact of government's decisions was to force the system to begin to cannibalize itself, and that's what it's been doing just in order to survive and to continue to try to deliver an increasingly difficult program to students. It's a rather ugly image, but it's apt. That's what's come from government action, and that's the context for teacher bargaining — bargaining the government approached in bad faith with no intention of allowing any discussion of learning conditions.

I have two school districts in my constituency. In the Saanich school district the teachers wondered about the government's arguments on declining enrolments as the rationale for fewer teachers — because that's what we hear in the chamber — so they used ministry figures to determine that their enrolments between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 were down by a total of 41 students. Now, it's true they have some long-distance students and there may have been more decline in students in school and more students in distance education, but the total decline in students was 41. Then they checked on how many fewer people were working in the system, and you know what they found? They found they'd lost 33.2 FTEs. They lost 41 students, and they lost 33.2 FTEs.

Some of those, but certainly far fewer than half, were due to school closures, but the rest were positions like teaching assistants, which allowed teachers with multiple students with learning disabilities — which is what are showing up in class composition and/or other challenges, special learning prescriptions — to involve another teacher outside the classroom in providing them with specialized tutoring. That's the way we get efficiency in the classroom and the way we continue to allow teachers to have very high-level outcomes with high throughput. We take some of the problems out of the learning situation and we give them special attention, and we move those people back in again. Surprise, surprise.

What we hear anecdotally from teachers, and I'm going to read a little bit of it later, about their individual classrooms is actually reflected in the numbers provided by their own school district and runs against the grain of what the government is saying. Now that, to my mind, is something government should be interested in talking to teachers and administrators about.

That's something that does belong in collective bargaining as a discussion, because it represents a growing problem in the workplace that has impacts on morale, on productivity and on learning outcomes. But it isn't a discussion in collective bargaining, and that is because one assumes that government would find it inconvenient to have to acknowledge the problem it's actually created.

Damage was done by the government's actions, and the message was clear. The message to teachers was that working and learning conditions don't matter. How you feel about it doesn't matter. The message, as one teacher put it to me, is that teachers are not professionals worthy of respect, but rather worker drones there to do as they're told — to shut up and get on with the job, irrespective of the working conditions and the learning outcomes, treated like drones, not valued for their skills and their commitment nor for their volunteering countless hours in unpaid activities, some of which are integral to the job of teaching, like marking, and that contribute to the overall improvement and enrichment of children's lives.

I know that it's difficult for members opposite to hear some of this, and I know that when they respond to what we've been saying, they're going to return to some of the hollow generalities and self-congratulatory rhetoric of progress that they like to serve up for public consumption.

But, you know, this is about real teachers working in real classrooms, trying day in and day out to optimize outcomes for our children. How they feel about their work and the workplace is an important factor in the quality of those outcomes. It's time we all grasped that, if we want to be the stewards of public education, which is what our job is.

You know, teachers tell it a lot better than a politician standing at a microphone can, in their own words and reflecting their own experience. I think it's a good thing for all members to get a sense of what it feels like to be in their shoes. So I'll indulge myself with a little bit of what I've been hearing from teachers.

To give you another example, here's a teacher who writes from my school district: "I had a grade 9 linear class of English and social studies. I had 11 identified students and no TA support. I had a boy with Tourette's, one with Asperger's syndrome, two with ADD, one with ADHD, one working at a grade one level, and others had various more minor learning disorders. In that class I had five students working on an enriched program." This is in the same room. The class had approximately 28 kids in total.

He says: "It's impossible to meet the needs of all students when the range is so vast and the breadth of the learning disorders, for which you have to become an expert, is so varied." I can grasp that. As a lay person, I can grasp that. "In the end, after many complaints to my AO, I did finally get a TA. It was still extremely challenging to meet the needs of the kids."

One more just to give a sense that it covers a lot of lives: "I'm a teacher who has nine years of university training, including a master's degree in medical genetics, and I work very hard to educate the future scientists of this province." Good linkage there. It's not babysitting; we're actually producing the people who will contribute to our future productivity and allow us to expand our horizons and become the most literate and best-educated jurisdiction, not only in this hemisphere, but on the entire globe. "What I have gotten from this government? I got an unfunded raise of 7.5 percent." Here's the insight:

I've had some direct experience in collective bargaining. I can tell you that when you as an employer let things get to this level and your own people begin to feel that you don't respect them and that you don't care about the challenges they face, and you put your energies into denying there's a problem or provoking them or mischaracterizing their motivations to parents, you're hooped. You know you couldn't run a viable business that way. I know members opposite are close to business. You know you couldn't run a viable business that way. You wouldn't. You'd be out of business. I think you know deep down that you can't run public education that way either.

If you actually consciously set out to poison the well, it's almost impossible to unpoison it later. There are many examples of that in industrial relations. I would hope that this government would come to its senses and redirect itself to begin acting like a steward of public education, the steward it was elected to be, in a province with the goal of being the most literate and best-educated in whatever hemisphere it is.

I fancy myself to be a realist. I know that bargaining relationships are difficult and that the one with teachers has been anything but smooth or made good transitions or worked especially well at any time and that prior governments haven't made it work. We recognize that. I think we know our own history. But what you've done to damage the relationship with teachers during this government's time in office puts the entire undertaking at risk. What you're doing with Bill 12 isn't the beginning of a fix.

You have to recognize that it takes two parties to make a relationship work. The one with the greatest power — and that's always the employer — has the higher obligation to make it work. It can never work anywhere if one of the parties gives itself permission to treat the other party with disrespect. It's a downward spiral. If you begin to institutionalize disrespect, you're moving very quickly down that spiral. If you begin to approach the other party as though it needs to be taught a lesson, it's practically over. That's the path you're beginning to go down.

In a mature bargaining relationship — there's a lot contained in that phrase, Mr. Speaker; and you know that as well as I — the parties know how to express their disagreements and accept their differences. It's not the prettiest thing in the world, but it can work. When one party decides it's not worth taking the time for dialogue, doesn't want to hear any more and gives itself permission to act unilaterally, then the downward spiral begins. That's exactly what the government has engineered by its calculated efforts to politicize teacher bargaining.

I have to tell you that if that's your goal, you're definitely succeeding in politicizing our teachers. Maybe that's what you want. Maybe you want that punching bag. Maybe you want that so that you can knock it over and, in some misguided sense, be seen to be doing something for children and parents and sta-

bility and whatever. It's not just the BCTF; it's the whole body of teachers — people who are professionals, who have a passion for teaching and learning and a commitment to seeing individual citizens reach their potential by becoming lifelong learners, who simply want to practice their métier in a place that values and honours their service.

I've had them visiting me of late in my constituency office and here at the Legislature. It's quite moving, because these are people who are not political by nature. They're people who feel that they have to act because they're being pushed into a corner. I think it would be helpful, actually, if we could all try to understand how that dynamic works, because at some time or another in our lives we've all been pushed into a corner, and what you do when you're pushed into a corner and you reach that last resort is fight back.

These are people who are committed to being teachers, but they're pained and they're offended and they're insulted and they're disillusioned by what has gone on. They don't understand, because they aren't political people, why their calling in life…. They see it as a calling. They have to see it as a calling, because to put up with what gets thrown at them on a daily basis, they have to have a calling. You wouldn't stay. There are easier ways to make a living — far easier ways.

They don't understand why their calling in life is being politicized and their aspirations to do good things, the right things, for children in their charge are not being respected; why teaching and learning conditions are of so little interest to those charged with the stewardship of public education; and why class composition that can't possibly be handled by a single teacher is beginning to show up as a norm of school conditions. All that this can do over time, this denial about what's actually going on out there, is drive the good teachers out of the system. That is not a laudable goal, and I cannot believe for a moment that it is an outcome anyone in this chamber wants to see. But that is what will happen if we continue down the path.

Where I come from, you have to keep talking across the differences. I heard it from a very rough-and-ready labour leader very early on in my career. He's still very successful and, I think, has the respect of a lot of people, although he'd be a heck of a tough guy to ever come up against. Buzz Hargrove in the middle of a strike, telling people: "Even though we are at this point, we are talking." He said: "I keep talking to the other guy even when the other guy doesn't want to hear from me any more. I keep talking, because the only way that you ever come to an agreement is to keep the conversation going. The only way you do that is by reaching out."

D. Cubberley: I can't believe that I've already come to that point. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence….

D. Cubberley: I can't believe that the members opposite don't want to hear more.

The Labour Minister says that the system is "broke." Given that this is about education, I have to say it's broken. Nevertheless, I must say that there are a lot of words that I think I could spell a lot better a few days or a few years ago than I can today, so I'll cut the minister a little slack there.

On a serious note, this is, indeed, a dark day in British Columbia — the day this bill was introduced. I think it bears some reflection on the history that brought us to this point. Although we recognize — and I think that all members in this House recognize — that it has been and always is difficult to come to an agreement with regard to teacher negotiations because of the nature of their clientele. Their clientele are our children, our most valued asset.

Having said that, what I've seen — and I think that a lot of people in British Columbia have recognized — is that this government, since the time they were elected in 2001, has set the stage for a very unfortunate situation that we have today — a situation where our teachers…. It's not overstating the case to say that our teachers feel absolutely dispirited, and there's no way that that can be good for education. There's no way that that can be good for our children. There's no way that that can be good for our society, because without a strong education system, we're hooped. Our prosperity depends on well-educated citizens.

How did this come about? Well, I think any unbiased observer, if you look back at the history of what happened in this province in 2001, saw a government come riding in on what they felt was a white horse at the time, I'm sure, to rescue British Columbia. What shortly became apparent, unfortunately, was that they also had some very hard-nosed, punitive attitudes toward certain segments of our society. It became very apparent early on that one of those segments that this government had four-square in their sights was the teachers of this province.

You know, it's not very politically popular to criticize teachers, because parents recognize that their children depend on good teachers. A lot of those parents go to schools regularly themselves to help out in the education system. They assist teachers. They work with them. By and large, they know that those teachers are doing a very thorough and good job in educating their

children, so they're supportive of teachers. It's not politically saleable to attack teachers per se.

What this government has done, I have to say, is focused on the union that represents these teachers, the B.C. Teachers Federation. It's not overstating the case to use the phrases that have been used many times in this House already — that this government sought to vilify that body. They have tried in numerous ways to distance the B.C. Teachers Federation from teachers. In fact, that is exceedingly insulting. That's insulting to the teachers of this province, because their federation is the body that represents them. It's a democratic body, and they exercise their free and democratic right to collective bargaining. The B.C. Teachers Federation is the spokesperson — the spokesbody, if you will — for the teachers of this province.

We've gone through a succession of Education Ministers. Certainly, some of those have been particularly damning, I have to say, of the teachers of this province through their union, the B.C. Teachers Federation. No teachers in this province, I think, will forget — and I believe I can mention her name — Christy Clark when she was the Minister of Education.

This attack on teachers has been aided and abetted, I have to say, by media in this province. Week after week, month after month, teachers have seen their name, their profession dragged through the mud in the media in all different sorts of ways. One of the ways that I feel was most unfair was the attack on the College of Teachers.

Every professional body has an organization to represent…. They may have a union, as teachers do, to represent them in bargaining with their employer, but they have a professional body, as well, to do with ethics and standards and the like. In their case it's the College of Teachers. Almost without exception, so far as I'm aware, the members of that college are people from that profession.

What did this government choose to do? They chose to appoint people to that body in the majority, so teachers were left in the humiliating position of not having the majority of representation in their own college. Don't think for a moment that this hasn't had a profound effect on teachers. I've talked to teachers over the years, and they're just outraged. They were outraged at what happened to their college.

There have been a lot of developments of this nature that have led us to today. It's not an accident that we're here. Yes, the system needs some fixing, if you will. Although teachers have been legislated back to work in the past, I think it's quite safe to say again that…. I don't believe that the morale of teachers in this province has ever been anywhere as low as it is today. The reason it's so low, I have to say, is because of the attitude of this government — the anti-teacher attitude of this government.

I don't believe for a moment that all members of this House, by any means, are against teachers. I don't believe that. But what I have seen is that the leadership of this government — and the Premier of this province, of course, is at the top of that chain — has shown a profound disrespect for teachers.

The government always tries to focus it on the union. Most recently they've talked about: "Well, you know, the BCTF is such a problem that we're just going to bypass them. We're going to go talk directly to teachers." That's code for another insulting endeavour towards this profession. It's saying again that your union will not be recognized. Teachers are seeing that over and over and over again. It's part of the reason why we're here in the sorry state that we're in.

I want to talk a little bit about how education has changed, because I'm not sure that members opposite, in all cases, are aware of that fact. I remember when I was in high school. When I was in school — and a number of members are probably in the same age group as I am — things were different. Teachers were respected by students and parents. Sometimes that respect was brought in a pretty harsh way, but it was there. Today, teachers are dealing with an entirely different situation.

I was talking to a high school teacher the other day, and he was telling me about how, in his classroom, a student had come in and was eating a sandwich in the middle of class. The teacher asked him to stop eating the sandwich and attend to the lesson. He refused. He asked him again, and the student got up and told the teacher to "f" off. I obviously won't use the full phrase, but he used the full phrase, and he repeated it.

I have to give the teacher some credit. Teachers also are certainly different than they used to be. He actually found some humour in it. He said that because this guy got up and said, "'F' off, Mr. Jones," twice in a row, he thought: "Wow, he's still calling me 'Mr. Jones' despite what he's saying."

In my day, you would be gone from school and probably wouldn't darken the doors again. I remember that in grade 12 one of my classmates — he was a good student in a small country school — decided, about two months before graduation in grade 12, to go downtown for some pop or whatever. He wasn't drinking alcohol. He came back to school late, and he wasn't that late, either. He was suspended for the rest of the year. He missed his grade 12 examinations. That's pretty harsh, but that's the kind of atmosphere it was.

I think the way that teachers are handling it now is better. I think the way this teacher handled that situation is better. He explained to me how they would sit down and talk with the student and try to get to the bottom of what was going on, bring in the parents and so on. Conditions have changed; there's no doubt. That's only one of the ways they've changed.

We've heard a lot about special needs students. I'm not exactly sure why, but I don't think there's any doubt that teachers have a whole lot more special needs students than they used to have. In Maple Ridge, in school district 42, where I'm from, there seems to be a particularly large number of students with autism. I don't know the reason for that, as I said, although I know that our school district does focus a lot on special

needs and has done a good job over the years. I don't know if parents are moving there with their children or what. But I know that in our classes and our schools there are a lot of children with autism and Asperger's syndrome.

I don't know if members know what it's like to be in a class or to be a classroom teacher when you have children with those kinds of profound special needs in your classroom. A child with autism requires a very strict environment. They don't have the capacity for tolerating a lot of change, particularly quick change. A teacher is faced with having to be able to assist that student with their particular needs but at the same time create a varied environment for the other students. If you have two or three or sometimes six special needs students, it's impossible.

Quite frankly, it's impossible to provide good education unless they have support. They need those special education teachers. They need those assistants to be able to help them to give those children the education that they deserve, and they're not getting it. We've heard a lot about that, and that is having a really negative effect.

That's why you hear over and over again about class composition. We've heard it a number of times in this debate. That's why it's so significant to teachers, because they have profoundly behaviourally disturbed children, they have children with special needs, and they have an atmosphere where there's less respect for them.

In my community 65 percent of parents work outside the community. An average commute is probably two hours a day. They're tired and worn out when they get home. They don't have a lot of time, sometimes, to devote to their children's needs. There are a lot of single parents, not only in my community but in all our communities. Children do not necessarily have the supports they need to be ready for school when they get there. These are some of the challenges that teachers face.

Teachers are willing and able to meet those challenges given a fair and level playing field, but they don't feel that they have it. I have to say that I agree with them. They do not have it. This government has not provided the kind of environment they need to ensure that the children in our schools grow up to be successful adults. How shortsighted is that? If we don't have successful children becoming successful adults, our economy is going to suffer.

The members opposite are focused a lot on the economy, so they should understand. They say they understand the value of an education system, but I don't think they do. In dollars and cents terms, I don't think they get it. This is not good for the economy, never mind what it's doing to the hearts and minds, if you will, of these children and their families.

Teachers have concerns about the intent of this government. The government says their intent is to keep children in school. That's a laudable goal. We all want to keep children in school. But how is it that they're going about that? A lot of teachers I talk to don't believe that this government is supportive of the public education system. They, in fact, are concerned that this government is going to drive the public education system down. They look around. They've seen what happened with health care.

Notwithstanding what editorialists in the Vancouver Province might say, teachers are not irrational. They're not paranoid. But they're also not stupid. They believe that public education is under tremendous threat from this government.

What they've seen in health care is that health care is privatized. More and more of it has been privatized, and there have been a lot of problems with that privatization and the service that's being offered. They worry that the same thing is happening in the education system — that if the education system is driven down so far that it's no longer functional, parents will be forced to seek alternatives. Whether they want to or not, they will be forced to send their children to private school. Every time you take a child out of the public school system, you take a lot of dollars with that child.

We've heard a lot of words from this government over the last four years about education. We hear things like "choice." We hear words like "flexibility." We hear words like "accountability." It all sounds really great.

M. Sather: They are good words, but what do they mean in this case? Well, you might want to cast your eyes south of the border and have a look at the education system that President Bush is in favour of. You will see a lot of those words used there also. This is the kind of education system that…. This is a Fraser Institute model of education.

The government is really getting big on testing. Wow, what could be wrong with testing? I have a background in science myself. I've gone through eight years of post-secondary education, passed a lot of tests. I think that testing has a place. It does, and I believe that measurement, objectivity and looking at the scientific results can be of value, but it also can be misused. It also can be misused.

They have a concern — teachers I've spoken to — that there are more and more barriers, in fact, being put to education through this testing model. There have always been exams; there always will be exams. Now there are exams in grade ten that weren't there before. It's getting harder and harder to get into university. All for what purpose? Is it actually going to improve the education system, or is it actually going to divide the education system between the haves and the have-nots, the winners and the losers?

The problem is that all students need to be winners. We can't afford to have an education system of winners and losers. It's not going to work for our society. This is not a marketplace system, at least it shouldn't be. That isn't going to be the best for our society and the best for

our students at all. They have a concern that the running-down of the education system they see happening is a precursor to privatization.

I just got a letter recently from one of my constituents who's a teacher in the district, and she said her biggest concern is that the Premier's government is trying to privatize education. I hear that a lot. That's a concern they have, and I think, unfortunately, it's not unfounded. One of the schools in my district was privatized after it was closed by the school board, because they had no choice because of the downloading that's been thoroughly documented in this House already.

It's really galling, I must say, to hear the members opposite sometimes say: "What cuts? There were no cuts." It's completely disingenuous. They know there were cuts. They just got somebody else to do the cutting.

Well, this school that's been privatized in my school district is an outfit from Britain. They're offering reduced tuition for those in the local public schools who'll sign up in their school. One of the things they also promote with their school — and a lot of private schools promote, interestingly enough — is small class size. Class size — that's the other issue that's pretty big in this dispute. I think we heard the government say earlier today that they instituted class size because they are concerned about that. Only for primary did they institute class sizes. The others are averages. I'm sure a lot of the members opposite, most of the members opposite, are well educated, and they will know that there's a difference between averages and absolute numbers. It's the absolute numbers that count.

The same teacher I was mentioning earlier, who was sworn at by one of his students, was telling me that his classroom — and some of the newer classrooms are actually smaller than the old ones — doesn't have desks for all his students. Some of his students are sitting along the ledges along the window. That's no education system that we can be proud of. That's an education system in decay.

I believe it has been clear to everyone that is an unbiased observer, as I've said, that this government has had no intention to bargain in good faith with teachers. Now we hear that the Labour Minister has had some talks with Jinny Sims of the BCTF and the B.C. Federation of Labour, and let's hope that something more is going to happen. I'm not hopeful that it will, but it certainly needs to for the good of our children. It certainly needs to. All of this is absolutely no way to make British Columbia the most literate jurisdiction in North America.

I mean, it defies understanding how the government can go and talk about making British Columbia the most literate jurisdiction in North America, the world — I'm not sure where — and then make the conditions so unfavourable for the development of literacy.

I wanted to mention a couple of other teachers that talked to me about some of their concerns. One of them is a teacher who lives in my district and teaches in Mission. He said to me that there are four grade-nine math classes with 36, 35, 35 and 34 students. One of the grade-12 math students who worked on my campaign said: "We have 35 students in my class, and in math it doesn't work. We have to have the individual attention to learn, and we don't have it."

There are a lot of other examples that he gave me too: a wood shop class with 27, although it's designed with a safety limit of 24. Three science nine classes, with 29 in a lab designed for 24….

G. Gentner: It's with great pleasure that I am able to address the House today, but it's unfortunate under the circumstances why I'm here relative to this important edict that's coming down from this government opposite.

The member for Saanich South talked earlier about the IEP situation, the learning difficulties with children in our schools. Our teachers in my district are besieged with the same problem: late hours at night. There are other details I hope we'll have time to come forward with this evening or this afternoon, but I do have to ask this government to cross what is really motivating this whole agenda here.

I can tell you that in my district, we have seen the wholesale sale of schools that have been sold. We've seen the increase of private schools. We've seen subdivisions created out of school yards. When you look at this thing globally, you have to look at the end result. This government opposite certainly looks favourably to the end result of privatization of schools.

In 2002 the government took out of collective bargaining the right to negotiate classroom conditions and instead put such issues into legislation, which we now know as the School Act. The BCTF wants learning conditions to be reinstated as part of collective bargaining. As such conditions directly impact their working environment, the B.C. Teachers Federation wants to negotiate such conditions directly with the government.

On this issue the fact-finder report points to some opportunity for movement. According to the report, both the teachers and the province agree that educators should be part of any dialogue that sets policy guidelines on class size and composition. But Bill 12 is strictly based on subjectivity. Nothing is for certain in bargaining except meaningful dialogue. Communication is decent and productive in a democratic society, not a lash hanging over one's head — in this case, a big stick. Yes, Bill 12 is a billy stick — a big one.

Tyranny can be disguised in many different ways, but nothing could be as vulgar and hateful in a democracy than when it's under the pretence of the public authority. It's clear that in British Columbia, prison doors could be open for teachers, while this government has closed a door for them as well.

The B.C. Teachers Federation — let's get to the facts — bargaining team is and always has been available to meet with the employer to reach a negotiated settlement. When the representatives of the British Columbia Public School Employers Association met with the media on September 15, they indicated that they had costed the B.C. Teachers Federation proposal and had determined that it would be worth 35 percent of the total annual education costs. Their numbers included a salary increase of between 10 and 13 percent. This is simply not true.

To date, the B.C. Teachers Federation has not tabled a salary proposal. The B.C. Teachers Federation president has said: "That is simply a fabricated number with no connection whatever to reality. In the last round we tabled improvements to maternity leave. When the B.C. Public School Employers Association calculated the costs, they assumed every single teacher of child-bearing age would become pregnant within the three-year life of the contract. That was totally absurd."

Early in September the B.C. Teachers Federation received legal advice. Acting on that advice, the B.C. Teachers Federation lifted from the bargaining table the language that the government stripped from its contract in 2002. On September 16 the B.C. Teachers Federation tabled manner-and-consequences language with the B.C. Public School Employers Association.

When the Minister of Labour released the fact-finding report on the current dispute between the provincial government and the BCTF, it stated that the two parties were far from agreement, particularly with regards to the key issues at the bargaining table. Wages remain a key stumbling block, and the other issue involves the negotiation of class size and composition. The report states that the two parties involved in the dispute are far from any agreement. The report was completed by Rick Connolly, associate deputy minister to the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

In response to the release of the fact-finder report, our opposition critic for Education commented to the media with the following messages:

I think it's important that we do comparatives. I think we should even look at what happened last spring in Ontario, for example. The teachers got a deal. The deal included a sum, albeit paltry, of 11 percent, but they got a deal over three years: 200 minutes of prep time per week, the hiring of 1,300 specialist teachers and an early government announcement of $300 million to reduce class size, which will likely mean 2,600 more teachers hired for public elementary schools. It goes to show you that negotiations can work.

What it did, of course, was bring peace to Ontario's public elementary schools. The Ontario government brought the peace with the province's public elementary school teachers by handing out close to a billion dollars to local school boards. I want to look at Ontario. Before I do, it has to be said that Bill 12 is an edict of the Liberal government, a retro–restraint program to tighten up the belts of teachers.

You know, for many of us on this side, this is all new to us. But I have to tell you, we're also going through estimates, and this government hasn't even given us the courtesy to go to estimates and challenge the minister on expenditures and see where we can find the money. No, they had to ram this legislation through. A very sad day in British Columbia.

This type of edict ignores traditional wage comparisons, has taken out consultation of any kind, is duplicated countless times over and over again. I think we should look at the comparisons, and I have statistics from the Canadian Teachers Federation, which really has no bias with the B.C. Teachers Federation. It looks at a comparative example throughout the country.

Let's see where British Columbia fares on the wage scale. I'll give an example. In my school district, Delta, at the entry level teachers with no teaching experience begin at $35,000. I have to tell you that after all of the university costs, the tuition fees — the escalating tuition fees — it's not easy to live in one of the highest-per-capita areas, certainly, in North America at $35,000. When we look up at Prince George, of course, we can see it's $35,629. We can look at Surrey, across Scott Road from me — maybe $100 dollars more per annum, at $35,768. In today's world, that really isn't much money in British Columbia. With the price of gas and the escalating price of property values, it's not that much money.

When you look at Nova Scotia, the entry level for teachers there, believe it or not, is $35,906 per annum. I've been to Nova Scotia. It's a wonderful place. I've been to Sydney and to Halifax. I've done Cape Breton. It's a wonderful part of the world. It's a great part of Canada. They make more money there — and I know what the price of a house in that area is worth. It's al-

most half — at least half — the price of a house in the lower mainland. Think about it, Madam Speaker. Teachers in Nova Scotia at entry level are making more money than those living in Surrey.

Let's look at Brampton, Ontario — Brampton or Wellington, which are far removed from the urban hub of T.O. They, too, are comparable or are making more money.

Let's go a little higher in the wage scale — again, entry level. Let's go to the rich confines of Kelowna and Coquitlam. Entry level for Kelowna is $35,775. For Coquitlam it's $35,916. Again, for a professional in British Columbia that's a deplorable entry fee in my estimation — what you have to do in order to make a living in this province.

I want to compare that higher scale to the lovely province of New Brunswick: $37,132 — $2,000 more per annum. Newfoundland, way out there by St. John's — $40,000. When we go to Toronto — albeit it does have, of course, higher prices — they, too, are making far more money than are urban areas here in the lower mainland.

I understand the reason way up in the territories — Yellowknife and Yukon. They're up to $48,000, $55,000, and they deserve it with the bargaining and the area they have to live in. There's no question there.

I want to look at one of the highest areas, and it's the good bargaining position that occurred for years in the Greater Victoria area — one of the higher areas in British Columbia. Entry level is under $40,000. It's $39,473. Where do we compare that? It's almost comparable to little old Moose Jaw, Regina or Saskatoon. I have nothing against Regina. It's a lovely little place. I was basically raised in that area. But the cost of living in Regina cannot be compared in any way to the cost of living in Greater Victoria.

I want to talk about that bastion, if I can, that area of Alberta, which the members opposite ascribe as the wonderful age — new era — they're looking towards to accomplish.

Before I go there, let's look at even Manitoba. It's $39,473 in Greater Victoria. St. James, $42,958. Manitoba — think of the cost of living there to living here. Winnipeg, even more money — $4,310.

Let's look at the ivory-tower province that the members across ascribe to. Let's look at Lethbridge, $43,698; Red Deer, $44, 366; Edmonton, $44,195; and, Calgary, $44,266. So how can you compare? How can you deny the teachers a proper living allowance in this province when you look across the Rockies and see what they're getting? In light of the fact of the boasting that's going across from the other side on this great economy and the surplus, why are we denying professionals their due lot?

Of course, the interesting one, the highest of all, is the little town of "the Hat" — Medicine Hat. The southern Saskatchewan flows to it where the deer and antelope roam. Think about it: almost $45,000 for entry-level teachers.

I think it's absolutely disgraceful how this government is treating our teachers in probably the highest part of North America…. I think it's a complete slap in the face to those who definitely deserve better than that. Of course, we can continue to go on with, shall we say, part-time teachers.

Prince George hasn't been talked about. Let's talk about Prince George. Minimum annual salary with the minimum entry-level qualifications is $35,629. Let's compare that with Edmonton at $44,195. Incredible.

Now let's quickly talk about the maximum teachers' base in British Columbia. Let's even go to secondary education in Vancouver: $70,397. That sounds like quite a bit more. When you go back to Nova Scotia — Natalie MacMaster, by the way, great lady, great tunes, comes from Nova Scotia — 71,745 bucks. In London, Ontario, $73,502. In Peel, $76,000. They make a little more money there in London, Ontario, I guess, because the Canadian Auto Workers have that plant over there, and because they're able to negotiate, I guess people, too, want a decent wage there — far better than we'll see here with this government.

York — not quite Toronto; it's outside Toronto — is up to $76,265. Even Manitoba is making more. Teacher's salary, max, $74,000. It sounds a little monotonous, but it's overwhelming, what these stats say — isn't it?

Let's go back to the wonderful, incredible, free enterprise capital of Canada, Alberta: Calgary, $76,000; Edmonton, $75,321; Red Deer, $74,283; and little old Medicine Hat — bless them for living there; I've been through it in 20 minutes, blink-blink — $74,680. Think of it. Cost of living. We're going to deny the teachers the right to have a decent wage. You should be ashamed of yourself over there.

Now I want to talk about…. Let's talk about principals. Hang on, let's talk about principals. For the principals in Vancouver, the maximum is $114,000. In Nova Scotia they're $91,000. Isn't it interesting how the administrators suddenly make way more money in British Columbia than in any other province? Isn't that interesting indeed, how that works? I don't know. Saskatchewan, even little Saskatchewan, $99,256 for a principal. Edmonton — oh, they've got lots of money. The administrators there still make less than the administrators here — $104,000. And the same thing with Medicine Hat, although Medicine Hat makes slightly more. There you go.

In British Columbia we have one of the lowest rates of pay for our teachers and probably one of the most expensive places in North America to live, compared to the rest of Canada. Yet the administration side makes more money than anywhere else in Canada. Vice-principal salaries — I have the stats here. We can go through that too. But time is slowly running by us.

Similarly, if a public employer wants to fill a senior executive position by attracting an individual with special talents and qualifications away from private business or from university life, it often has to negotiate a mutually acceptable employment contract for him

or her. The fact that the government may be elected, that it may enjoy popular majority support, does not normally entitle it to conscript the assets of services of individuals or firms which the public would find useful.

Instead, it has to negotiate a voluntary agreement on terms which ultimately depend upon its relative bargaining position. That goes with management. You know where you get the best management, the most expensive per capita administrators in British Columbia? You've got to sit down and bargain with them. You've done that.

I've been on Delta council for years, and we've had to sit down and work with managers. We worked out salary benefits. We negotiated back and forth, all in good faith, and there were some trying times. We did it with CUPE, and we certainly did it with our management.

What I find interesting is when you look at — and this is all public information — the remuneration of deputy ministers. It's interesting that the deputy minister for education in total makes $236,000. That's equivalent to four teachers or 8,000 hours of special ed time. You know, that was negotiated. He came here, most likely, because of the package. The government negotiated a deal to get him here because, obviously, they felt he was worth it. I'm not going to deny that.

I will say that when you look at the sheets, the deputy minister is the third-highest bureaucrat in the province. In fact, interestingly enough, his salary is well beyond the loyal, dutiful bureaucrat of the Premier, Mr. Ken Dobell. Mr. Dobell, as we all know, has done a great job for many years. Mr. Dobell has, of course, been involved with the Premier in his stint as the mayor of Vancouver. Mr. Dobell was instrumental in the GVRD. He comes with great and wonderful credentials. He was also back there when the Premier decided to sell the fire boat, and of course, we know that the people of San Francisco picked that up really quickly.

The point is that these people come at a premium, and we do negotiate in order for them to be here — so whether a teacher or a deputy minister, we do negotiate. We do negotiate.

I want to talk briefly about Mr. Paul Weiler. Mr. Weiler was the chair of the B.C. Labour Relations Board. He was also doing groundbreaking analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada and also helped draft the Charter of Rights. His comments are simple:

My views — my bias, if you will — should be clear. In stark contrast to the United States, jurisdictions across Canada have extended the right to strike to the vast bulk of all public employees. These workers have tasted the fruit of that freedom, and it is unrealistic to think we can turn the clock back. To try to do so through massive restraints on the right to strike might well prove as futile as King Canute trying to stem the tide.

I do admit that the wish may be father to the thought. I do not think we should try to turn the clock back. We have proved that we can live with public employee strikes, although many people do not accept that. However exaggerated, their emotional responses are a fact of life with which the policy-maker must deal.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to speak to Bill 12, a piece of legislation that I don't think anybody is joyful about, certainly, on this side of the House or your side. But it's a bill that, in my mind, is necessary. We've reached that point, and I've heard a lot over the last couple of days' debate on this bill — issues that certainly we're here to have the open and free dialogue on. That's democracy.

I'm going to take the opportunity to lay out some factual information as I see it. I think that's what we all have the opportunity to do. There's no good feeling for anybody. There's no good feeling for government, for opposition, for the teachers, for parents and, most importantly, for our children to see us yet again in the position we're faced with in British Columbia.

Our education budget is something that I want to touch on. Listening to what I've heard over the last couple of days, one would be led to believe that we've cut the education budget, that it's been devastated. For those people that want to pay attention — unfortunately, some on the other side may not — they can go to the audited financial statements of this government and this province, and they can see what the real facts are.

We have the highest budget ever for education in K-to-12. In 2000-2001 — and I'll read these numbers for the public and for the British Columbians out there that are watching — $4.59 billion was spent on the K-to-12 system. Today we have budgeted $5.07 billion. That's a 10.5-percent increase. So nobody, even if they want to say it, could believe it in their heart that there's been a cut to education. They can qualify what they want to say, but I've yet to hear them qualify with a statement of fact. So I have a grave concern over that.

In 2005-2006 our province will spend $7,097 per student. It's an increase of $881 since 2000-2001, and we're at the highest rate ever. Again, good news for the students of this province.

A highlight this year: we'll invest and have budgeted $150 million to our education system, the highest increase in over a decade. Again, good news, yet some people will try and find something wrong with that. It's hard to believe.

On the capital side, I've heard a lot about schools having been closed. Yes, schools have been closed. I've had a couple in my riding closed. But I'll tell you, just a little common sense will go a long way. It makes very little is sense to me to run three schools at 30-percent capacity, where we can spend all the money on light and heat and so on, versus running one school at 90 percent, where the funding can then go to the children. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Again, I have no problem debating the issues and the facts, but it has to be based on fact. What I've seen over the last couple of days is scare tactics — talking to the camera, talking to the people of British Columbia about what's been going on. I think it's healthy to have good debate and to put the facts out there as we see them, but the word "facts" is the key, and we're going to push that.

On the capital side, I'm just going to point out a few issues since 2001 that our government has done. We've approved 139 projects. Those projects include 14 new schools, 26 additions, and 54 renovations and replacements. We've got 31 new sites and 14 seismic upgrades, and we're committed to completing the full seismic upgrade for all of our schools for the safety of our children, our teachers and the educators that work in the system. Again, that's good news.

I'm not here to talk about teachers and say: are they good or bad? I'm going to speak to that in a bit, because I have a great deal of respect for teachers. I heard the previous speaker talking about wages, and now I'm going to use some of my facts as well. The BCTF minimum salary and benefit package — let's not forget that, because far too often we can have a play on words; "and benefit package" — is higher than all other provinces except Ontario and Alberta. We can say that.

The other one, as well, is that right now the starting salary for a teacher with a baccalaureate degree is not $35,000. It's $41,663, with pay increases incorporated into that, which will take roughly ten years as they progress through to a wage scale of $64,489. That's what most teachers will earn after ten years in the system.

Again, I'm going to point out that I don't know a teacher that went into the profession — and I know we all have friends; I'm sure many of us have family that are part of this — of teaching to get rich. They went into it because they have a love of children and a love of their ability to teach our children. If money were what it was about, most people wouldn't be looking to most of the professions they're in. People do it because they work, and they enjoy that work. That's the key issue that I think we have to make sure we understand on that.

We aren't here as a result of something new in this province. There's a history to why we're here yet again legislating yet another contract for the teachers. I've heard a lot about this government, this bad Liberal government. I fundamentally disagree with that statement because I'm very proud. We should never lose sight of the fact — this is a good one, and I'll slide off a bit here — that British Columbia became a have-not province under the previous government, the NDP. We're back. No longer will that happen in British Columbia, let me tell you. That's embarrassing.

I'm going to just quote a few things from a piece of paper on the history of how bargaining went. Prior to 1987, the teachers union had no right to strike. Binding arbitration was used. Local bargaining dealt with the compensation issues. From 1988 to 1993 there was full bargaining and the right to strike locally, which resulted in 30 strikes and two lockouts and significantly increased costs. Since 1993 government intervention has been required to settle each collective agreement negotiated with the B.C. Teachers Federation.

There's no pleasure in standing here to say we're here yet again to do that, but there certainly shouldn't be any pleasure from the other side in trying to point out that it's this government. It's a systematic problem that we have, and there is a highlight. If we can find anything out of this piece of legislation, it's that we're going to keep the kids in the classroom. But more importantly, we're going to find a way so that we may never, as legislators in this province, have to legislate a settlement on the BCTF again, because they can be negotiated at a table. That's my hope.

I want to go over that point again, because many British Columbians may have not heard this over the last couple of days listening to the opposition, and again, I have the utmost respect. Issue your views. In 1993, 1996 and 1998 the teachers were legislated back to

work in these very chambers by the opposition, who was then government — the NDP. That's what happened.

I've touched on the bargaining history. I'm going to move on. We have a zero-zero-and-zero mandate. Is that something I think British Columbia public sector workers are happy about? No, I don't. But I can tell you that we've reached 130 agreements already with our public sector unions. So I don't understand why, when the BCTF came to the bargaining table, they thought they would be exempt from that while other government employees — brothers and sisters of theirs across this province — have accepted zero-zero-and-zero knowing that the zero-zero-and-zero mandate expires March 31, 2006. Then there will be the opportunity to negotiate wage settlements again in British Columbia. We will have the ability — not as government, but as British Columbians and British Columbia together — to afford those and advance them in a sustainable manner. That's a key issue.

The zero-zero-and-zero mandate that I talked about…. I guess if I was a worker out there in British Columbia right now, a government employee, and I'd accepted a package that included zero-zero-and-zero, which I want to point out under the situation we face with the teachers in this province today and the BCTF…. They're accepting zero-and-zero because the mandate expires on March 31 of next year. The third year is open for compensation discussion. I think I'd have to be somewhat dumbfounded why one group thinks they should deserve something when others haven't gotten anything, yet agreed to it — not been legislated, but agreed to it, 130 negotiated settlements. A key issue.

I heard a lot about our education system, and I'm a product of it. I grew up in Dawson Creek. I went through grade school and graduated high school there. I'm very proud that my daughters have attended the same elementary school and high school as I have. I have one in university; the other is still in grade 11. I'm proud of the ability that I have as a result of the teachers I had.

I give full credit to my teachers. I think people who didn't would probably be somewhat foolish. They're the ones who help us through tough times, as I've heard from the opposite side. Sometimes when we're having difficulty learning a subject, they're the ones that are there, and they still are there.

I want to touch on something, because I hear a lot about overcrowded classrooms, no desks, no textbooks. Well, in 1967, roughly when I started school, I remember grade one, grade two, grade three. There were years I started school and — you know what? — there weren't enough desks for the kids in the classroom then. But within a day or two — as class sizes and the composition, as we call it today, got worked out — they were there.

We shared books in 1968 in my elementary school. We shared books as I went through school. It's incredible. But certainly the opposition would have you, the public, think this is a new phenomenon. It's new, and it has been created. There is nothing further from the truth.

Student achievement. Let's touch on that, because that's really a goal and a mark that we should look at. How are our students doing? That's what education is about, at least in my mind. What's taking place for our students? How are they doing out there with their marks and in the world? Well, I'm going to point out some issues for you. Our completion rate in 2003-2004 was 79 percent. Is that very good? I'd like to see it at 100 percent, as I'm sure every parent and every person in this room would. But the key issue here is that it's up 3 percent, 3 percentage points, from 2000-2001.

That tells me it's moving in the right direction. Those are good numbers. Our aboriginal completion rate is up as well. It's at 47 percent in 2003-2004. Again, not numbers I'm proud of. I'm stating them because I'd love them to be higher, but the key here again is that they're up 5 percent from 2000-2001. That's good news. Student achievement is up, and according to the latest international test of 15-year-olds, no other country outperformed British Columbia in math or reading, and only Finland and Japan did better in science.

Good, very good. You know what? It's a direct result of our education system and the dedication our teachers have to their students. That's what that's a result of. It's not a result of the opposition talking about this bill or our government talking about this bill. It's a result of our educators and the care and love and the dedication and commitment they have to their children. I call them children, and I probably shouldn't. I mean, someone in grade 12 is not a child. They're a young adult getting ready to go out into life.

We talked about class size and composition, and I've heard a lot of concerns. I have those concerns. I don't think anybody would stand here and say that if there's an overly large class, it wouldn't be a concern for them. We do have to look at that. We enshrine class size in legislation, and I fully support that, because I don't believe class size should be bargained at the bargaining table. It's just not the place for it. Do I think teachers should have the ability to come to the table, though, and talk about class size, about composition? Most definitely I do.

Our government has said that all along. It wasn't that we took it out of the collective agreement and put it in legislation so that teachers, parents and educators would never have the ability to look at that again. Actually, what we've done is opened up the opportunity for educators, for teachers, for parents and for government to sit down at a table…. Some people will call it a parallel process, although some will relate that to the bargaining table, so I want to be somewhat cautious. We'll call it…. We'll sit down.

We'll sit down at the learning round table that the minister spoke about today and talk about the class sizes, and….

But there is a reality, and let's not kid ourselves. We can all think about it. This is a tough bill. I don't think we're sitting down tonight with the teachers and parents to talk about class size and composition. But I certainly believe that once this bill makes its way through this Legislature, we'd better begin that process immediately, because we care, just as you care.

I'm not standing here to say that you don't care. I'll address that a few minutes into my address here, because I've heard some comments that…. Well, I'll address that later. They amuse me.

Class size and composition. Again, you're right, and everyone in this chamber is right when they say it isn't just about the number. I believe some classes can be taught with 30 students — 32 even, 33. But you know who's going to have the ability to dictate that or decide? The teacher? The composition is what we talk about. Special needs students being included in those numbers is really what we want to sit at that round table and talk about. What's the number that works? I don't think it can be a hard and fast number, because I think teachers teach in different ways. I think the teachers themselves are going to have some valuable input as to where we're going to end up with those numbers.

So I look forward to that. Our government looks forward to that. I certainly hope the opposition looks forward to it, because it's a great bill.

We made education an essential service, Mr. Speaker. I stand here and tell you I wholeheartedly supported it then, I support it now, and I will support it in the future. I just won't change my mind. I'm here, and people….

We've heard the definition of essential service quoted. I can't think of anything more essential, in my mind, than making sure our kids get an education, making sure they're in the classroom being taught. I honestly don't believe, although we're here today debating this bill, the BCTF and the teachers in British Columbia want to take job action. Are they frustrated? I think they are, justifiably so.

But the other side again — I'll address this — would have British Columbians believe it's a result…. Since 2001 when this government was elected, they're frustrated. Well, I have to tell you….

They can clap, but for the people that can look at history — and I know many of you were there through the 1990s…. You did the same thing three times, and I don't think you did it with a smile. I would think that you actually had concern when you had to bring those pieces of legislation forward. I know many of you. Some I'm starting to get to know. I won't stand here and judge you, but I can't believe anybody when they presented those pieces of legislation through the '90s was smiling and jumping for joy. They felt it was the right thing to do. That's what we are here today doing, because we think this is the right thing. We know it's the right thing for children, for the parents and for our education system, and we're going to continue doing that.

I've also heard too many times from the other side — and that's one of the reasons I'm standing here right now to speak to this bill — about how we don't care about children, about how we don't respect teachers. You know, it's bloody awful to hear that out of their mouths. It's awful.

B. Lekstrom: That's unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker? Then it's just darned right awful. How's that?

You know what? I think most of us are parents. If we aren't parents, we've been part of the education system. But to have somebody sit on the other side who doesn't know me and probably doesn't know the majority of the members over here….

To have members from the other side, Mr. Chair, point the finger over here and imply that I don't care about children, I don't care about our education system and I don't care about teachers is dead wrong. I'll never accept it, and it is…. How did I put it, Mr. Speaker, so that you would accept it? I guess I'll just say they're wrong. They know they're wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves for saying it.

The job action that is scheduled to take place — it was announced — which everybody is waiting for tomorrow, is a decision that each and every individual teacher is going to make. The BCTF has taken a vote, and their members will do what they believe they have to do, although it's going to break the law. It's a violation of the law, and as was pointed out here earlier, we're lawmakers. It doesn't mean we agree with every law, but the sign of a good democracy is that you try and work within that system of law. If you disagree with it, you change that law within these chambers. You don't break the law on the streets of British Columbia.

I don't support their job action. Do I have the ability to respect an individual's choice as to what they're going to do? Yes, I do, and I'll let them live with the consequences. I'll let them take their decision. I believe that in their heart they believe they're doing the right thing, just as I know in my heart I'm doing the right thing by speaking to this bill, by supporting this bill and, more importantly, by looking for a future that teachers can have the ability to negotiate a contract in this province without having to be before this Legislative Assembly, which is now — for the fifth time — to have a legislated settlement imposed.

The other one is that there's a lot of blame. There's a lot of blame being pointed out here. I hear the other side talk about our leader, about how he doesn't care about education, about our children, about our teachers. I've worked with our Premier as an elected official

for a little over four years. I've known him for probably ten years. I can tell you that probably as I get to know you, I may have some of the same feelings. But I can tell you that I don't know a more passionate person about education than our Premier.

I'm not going to take a whole lot more time, because this isn't about talking about somebody is good or somebody is bad. We're talking about a bill that I think everybody has somewhat of a heavy heart having to discuss or present or vote on. I'm sure the opposition believes how they're going to vote. I know how I'm going to vote, and I believe our government certainly knows how they're going to vote on this.

I want to go back to the blame issue. It's always been, "We're blaming you, government; we're blaming you," which is a sad statement. I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to stand here today and put it the way it probably should have been put five years ago, eight years ago, ten years ago, two years ago. There's enough blame to be shared by all of us. There's enough blame to be shared by the NDP, who didn't fix this issue. There's enough blame to be shared by the BCTF. Yes, there's enough blame to be shared by us, our government here today.

It's interesting to hear them clap. When you talk about blame about the government, it's fine. Talk about blame on their side, and they're dead silent. Amazing. That is a sad state. I'm standing here saying that I think we can all bear a little responsibility for the position we find ourselves in here today — as legislators, as parents, as teachers. But the key issue is that we're going to fix it, I hope.

Forget what happened yesterday. Forget what happened in 1993, in 1996, in 1998, since we came to government. You know what? People say you don't want to forget. We can learn from it. But I'll tell you what. We better be here today debating this. Certainly, we have different philosophical views, but we better want to learn from it so that we can repair this system.

The key issue. The Don Wright report — I'm sure people have read that, taken the time — is a pretty in-depth report. I think there were some concerns expressed by the teachers. I've gone through it. I don't think it's a hundred percent the way I would do it if I was to write the result, but there are some good things in here.

I'm encouraged by the industrial inquiry commission that Mr. Vince Ready will head. I think he's a well-respected individual in this province. I think he has dealt with some very difficult challenges over his involvement through his years. I'm looking forward to what he comes with.

In closing, I'm going to go back again. I would hope that at the end of the day, the finger-pointing can quit. I want some strong debate. I want good philosophical debate, not personal debate. I'm going to judge not just this piece of legislation, I guess, but this entire issue. It's over 12 years old now.

I'm going to judge the success of not having to ever legislate a settlement in this chamber again on behalf of the teachers, because I'm hoping that the new system that we look towards, which is going to be brought forward, is one that can be accepted by both sides, looked at and worked in good faith on both sides so that we can put our children first and foremost again. There's no doubt in my mind — and I'll reiterate this because I've heard it far too often from the other side…. I do respect teachers. A great deal of them are good friends of mine. There is no doubt in my mind that when I go back to my constituency, we'll have some good debates.

The most important thing I'm going to tell everybody here is that we're going to remain friends, because losing friends over politics isn't the issue. Having a good debate is a healthy issue, and I encourage all of us to do that. I'm proud to be a member of this Legislative Assembly, as I'm sure you all are. We're going to get through this. I'm going to look to the future, and we're going to fix it so we don't have to be debating a bill like this again in this chamber.

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise on a point of order, and that point of order is to alert the House that the government intends to move for a continuation of the sitting beyond 6 p.m. I therefore do move that the House at its rising stand recessed for 35 minutes and continue to sit thereafter until adjournment.

M. Farnworth: I will respond to the motion by the member after Committee A has reported out.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the Opposition House Leader. I think Committee A is in a position to report out to the House.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

M. Farnworth: We will be voting against the motion. It is a sad, sad day when a government doesn't have the courage of its convictions to do the proper and democratic thing. They have said: "We want to adjourn the House until 6:35 and continue sitting." Why? What is the urgency? They have said today already that the bill that they want to pass…. They do not need to deal with the problems that they feel it needs to deal with. There are other mechanisms in place. They have admitted that. So rather than take the time to have proper, thoughtful debate, they are resorting to technicalities, to House procedural moves to be able to ram through, or attempt to ram through, a bill without reasonable considered debate.

We could adjourn at six like the rules of this House intend us to, and we could come back in a week's time and pick up debate where we left off. It would be a time for calm, cool heads to prevail, and we could do things the way we're supposed to do. Instead, we're being asked to recess for half an hour, to come back and to continue speaking on a Thursday evening and to possibly sit until many times, many hours into tomorrow. It stays Thursday in this chamber forever.

I suppose there's an upside to that, and that is that none of us will age. It will be Thursday forever. You are frozen in time right now. Oh, that's right. I forgot. I am too cynical. The government, we are told by many people, is doing this because they need a bill rammed through.

No, it is the hon. Government House Leader's birthday, and I guess he wants to stay the same age and never age. We wish him happy birthday — all of us.

M. Farnworth: The trouble, in speaking to this motion, is that we will continue to age, and birthdays will come. If this is an attempt to stop the aging process, unfortunately, it won't work. However, if it's an attempt to try and stymie debate and to make people become cynical about governments again, it has a good opportunity to do that.

You know, there were mechanisms that we could have used — section 81. Section 81 allows, in the confines or in the parameters that there is an emergency, for the House to sit extra hours and for debate to take place. That has been used in this chamber many times before over the decades, over the hundred-and-some-odd years since Confederation in 1871, and doubtless it will be again. It's used when a government says: "There is an emergency. There is an important issue that we have to deal with, and there's a standing order that allows us to do that."

But the decision isn't dictated by government fiat, by how many votes are on one side of the House or on the other. No, it rests in you, Mr. Speaker. It rests in our Speaker, whom we have confidence in. The government side makes its case as to why the debate should continue. The opposition makes its case as to why debate should or should not continue. The Speaker goes and deliberates, consults precedents here in British Columbia and in other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth and in the traditions of this House, and comes back and makes a decision. The interesting thing about that is that good Speakers, whom the House has confidence in, make their decision on that precedent and whether or not something is a true emergency and a true issue that needs the hours of the House to be extended.

That's why we are using this method — because we have a Speaker whom we have confidence in and who, if the reasons for this bill under section 81 were brought forward, would doubtless rule, though I would not mean to prejudge the Chair in any way…. There is a very distinct possibility that the Speaker could rule against the government, as was done in a previous ruling by another government who shall remain nameless, but I was a part of that government at that time. The Speaker told us: "Sorry, no. It's not an emergency, and you have to go back to the drawing board." That Speaker made a ruling, and we had to abide by it.

Here we are today, and we're not using that time-honoured section of parliamentary tradition. We are instead resorting to moving that we adjourn the House to 6:35 and that it sit thereafter on a Thursday afternoon. That's unfortunate, and it's unfortunate for a host of reasons.

It's not often that I go to written remarks for my speeches, but on this occasion I thought I would go to some written remarks about the problems with doing what we're doing this evening. I'm reminded of remarks that a member said. I'd ask some forgiveness if people see me with the glasses here, because I'm just getting used to using reading glasses, as unfortunately I can't freeze my birthday.

M. Farnworth: Very eloquent remarks, I might add, dating back to Wednesday, July 8, 1998.

M. Farnworth: Those, hon. member, are your words, not mine — in more ways than one.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. member. I take that as a compliment, because with these glasses, I now do.

It's printed on page 9724. I might add, by the way, that this was in 1998. Since that time, there have been some changes, and I would say they are positive changes, in terms of the sitting days of the House. They make members' lives more ordered.

It then goes on to enunciate the circumstances under which the House can meet on other days. I'll even read that, because it points to a feature that is embodied in the standing orders. It says: "The House shall meet on Wednesday if the government has so advised the House…."

That's one of the key things — "has so advised the House." Unfortunately, that has not taken place here this evening. This place functions when that happens. Anyway, here's an important part of those words of wisdom:

Well, Standing Order 81 would allow us to do that. Unfortunately, this way of doing it makes a mockery of that. What I get from that is the only reason we are doing this motion is because the government knows the bill is not an emergency, that they're not prepared to wait for proper debate to take its course, but rather they want to ram it through and to further inflame situations that may or may not occur over the next few days.

These words that I have spoken are from my colleague the Government House Leader. They were very appropriate back then, and they are very appropriate today.

In closing, I want to say that it is unfortunate that we are taking this approach. It's a shame that we did not have the opportunity to use Standing Order 81 to truly put the case of whether this bill is of such urgency that we need to resort to extra sittings and put our confidence in our Speaker to make that judgment as tradition and parliamentary practice would call for.

With that, I will once again reiterate that this side of the House will be voting against the motion to extend the sitting until 6:35.

A. Dix: This is indeed a sad and a surprising day. You know, in the 1990s when the Government House Leader spoke those words so eloquently, as he often did in the 1990s, they were different times. There were different responsibilities on government and different responsibilities on opposition. Significant changes have been made since then to our standing orders. In a sense, we've provided and given ourselves, as the House, a fixed parliamentary calendar. There are assumptions in that. In the past, in the 1990s when the hon. Government House Leader spoke those words, opposition had a lot of control over the timing of legislation. The member for Shuswap was there as well. He'll remember it well. They always used to say that the government opened the session and that the opposition closed the session.

That's changed now because the members of this House have agreed to a fixed calendar. That calendar for this week meant that this session was to end at six o'clock today. The government has introduced legislation which is extraordinarily important for British Columbia and for members of this Legislature.

Clearly, members of this Legislature have very different views about the legislation. I heard the member for Peace River South speak towards the end of the debate. He spoke very eloquently. I disagree with him fundamentally, but he spoke very eloquently in the debate. The majority of members of this House in the regular legislative calendar have not had an opportunity to speak in this debate.

So what does the government do? They cannot claim this is an emergency because in his rhetoric outside the House, the Government House Leader has said it's not an emergency. Instead, what we have, with all the efforts that all of us have made together…. I give all the credit in the world to people on the government side who have made some of these changes, working with us over the past few weeks. What we are left with is legislation by exhaustion. This is what it's come to in week three of the House.

They want to drive legislation through, but they will not come clean with their intentions. So instead of the House calendar, the House calendar that everybody agreed to in this House…. We all agreed to a regular calendar. It has huge advantages for the government that weren't there in previous governments, weren't there in the '70s and the '80s and the '90s, but

are there now — to have certainty around sessions, to have passage of legislation, to have automatic votes. They want all of that, and they want everything else.

This is fundamental legislation for the people of British Columbia. That's why we on this side of the House are going to be opposing this effort to impose legislation by exhaustion with this piece of legislation. It is fundamental to us. We think that members of this House should be able to deal with this legislation under the rules that we together have set. The Government House Leader is trying an end run around that.

What we are saying today is that we are calling that out. We are saying that is not the way we should operate in this House. This is a change to the way we operate, and I think it's a government that wants to have its cake and eat it too. Well, that's why we on this side of the House are going to stand up and vote against legislation by exhaustion in this case.

We will also, however, be encouraging members on the government side of the House to participate fully in any debate that might follow, because I would guess — unless I'm mistaken — that members on the government side may well vote in favour of the motion. The majority? I don't know. The Government House Leader is not sure, but we'll see, and there will be a debate after that. I can tell the Government House Leader that in spite of my objection to legislation by exhaustion, I will be here as long as it takes to debate this important legislation.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was here in the last four years when the government brought forward the new legislative calendar with much fanfare, I might add. The government said: "We are going to be civilized. We are going to have a schedule to follow. We will now know what we're going to do. We will now know how we will plan things, and then we'll move forward in an unprecedented way."

The government then went on to say we could have had that, long ago, before the last four years when it was put in place. Then they, of course, proceeded to blame the previous administration for not putting it in place. So we said okay. The government wanted to bring in the set legislated calendar with set hours, and we went with it. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Many, many members in this House from the opposite side will know that since that set calendar has been brought in place, the government has time and time again overruled its own legislative schedule.

It didn't matter that there were two members of the opposition in the House at the time or that now, as it stands, there are 33 members in opposition. The government will do what they will to suit their own political agenda. That's what this motion is about. Let us be clear about that. The government says today — with some indignation, I might add — insinuating about people who may break the law…. Guess what. This government has demonstrated time and time again that when it suits them, they will change the rules by which they want to play and how the game is played — when it suits them.

They have the authority to do it so that they can stand up and say: "I'm not breaking a law, but I can do this." Why? Because in this Legislature and the composition of this Legislature, the government has the authority to use the legislative hammer to hammer democracy in the way in which they want to. So they can stand up, all high and mighty, as though somehow they didn't break the rules.

Let us be very clear. They're not breaking the rules, because they're changing the rules as they go along and making new laws as they go along. I would love to know how the Attorney General in this House, who is an ex-judge, feels about that. If every citizen out there acted like this government — changed the law and changed the rules just because it suited their agenda…. Imagine for a moment in the very debate we're engaged in right now around the teachers…. Imagine for the very moment that if teachers got to change the rules in which the game is played, how would this government feel? Would they be in a position to stand up to accuse people and point fingers at people?

You know what? I, too, heard the member for Peace River South, who spoke very eloquently I might say…. I even like the member most days. But let me say this. I disagree with him fundamentally, and I will go into all the reasons why I disagree with him fundamentally on the issue around the bill that's before us.

That's not what we're debating. But the issue is this. I would hope that the member would see the notion of hypocrisy and how this government applies that rule and changed that rule when it suits them. That's what we have before us today.

The government is sidestepping a fundamental function of the Speaker, who actually represents all of us in this House — to make a judgment on the government's action, whether or not the government's action is on the right track. That is whether or not this is an emergency motion, an emergency bill that deserves around-the-clock debate. This government took that away from the very person whom everyone in this House has confidence in — that is, the Speaker — to make that decision by using yet another trickery of rules just because it suits them.

That is the nature of this government, and this government says to British Columbians: "Oh, but please trust us. We know best." Well, I bet you that they know what is best. They know what is best when it suits their political agenda, and that's what we have seen in the last three weeks in this House.

The Premier pledges that he would do things differently, that he would be civilized. Well, how civilized is it when the public is turning on the television and sees members in this House debating this bill at 3:30 in the morning? How civilized is that? Is that democracy? Well, as my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has said, that is legislation by exhaustion. That's what the government is hoping for.

But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Thank goodness there are 33 of us on this side of the House. Every step of the way, every single step of the way, our members will be here to hold the government to account, even with little things like trickeries — trickeries of procedural rules so that the government can get around proceedings.

The members from the government side may not want to hear this, but they must hear it. They must hear it, and lessons must be learned. They must actually talk to their own current Minister of Labour on the words that he used years before on exactly the kinds of tactics that were used.

The government said it was wrong then. Well, how is it not wrong now? Maybe the members can think about that at around four o'clock in the morning as the debate rages on. Maybe they will have sleepless nights here in this very Legislature and reflect on the actions of government. The member from Peace River, who spoke so eloquently, waxed eloquent about how people are blaming other people and there are hurt feelings out there. Maybe one will stop and reflect and wonder why that is. Not everyone is afforded the opportunity that this government has taken for granted and uses liberally whenever it suits them to change the rules of the game, just because they can.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? It isn't democracy. That's not the way we should conduct ourselves. That's not how we should do business in this House. We should follow the very same rules that people have set up and follow those rules and honour those rules. That's what tradition of the House is about. That's what parliamentary practice is about, and that's how we show confidence with British Columbians — that they can trust in us to make these critical decisions on their behalf.

I am sad to say I'm a little bit disturbed — actually, quite disturbed — about how the government can just do this so willingly and easily. They do it like it's a walk in the park. I suppose they've walked down that path many a time. But good grief, at some point in time someone over there on the horizon may just have some leadership and some capacity to step up to the plate and say: "For once, we need to do the right thing, and for once, maybe we shouldn't just use our legislative hammer, the power that we have, just because we're in government, just because we have the numbers to do that — to overrule everything democracy depends on."

Hon. M. de Jong: Believe it or not, I am obliged to the members who have made their views clear in this debate and very much obliged to those who chose to delve back into the annals of the parliamentary journals for some wise and sage words from another age.

Actually, I must say, members have an intent to prolong the debate. I will make these observations, though. By my estimation, 25 or 26 members of the opposition have participated in a debate that technically began on Monday and certainly acquired full steam on Tuesday. Others will have to judge whether that, and the debate that follows, qualifies as having tried to ram a piece of legislation through the Legislature.

I actually take — and the government does take — very seriously the role that all members of this chamber have in presenting their views, particularly when it involves a piece of legislation as fundamentally important as this one, irrespective of what one's views — support or otherwise — are for the legislation.

Well, I may not convince my colleagues across the floor, but others will have to decide whether that four days and the debate that follows qualify as government trying to irresponsibly ram debate through. It is true that….

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, the member from Creston's intervention has reminded me of one other point that I would otherwise have forgotten to….

Hon. M. de Jong: Let the member from Creston and I hope it is not a hair thing, hon. member.

It is this. I do actually appreciate the fact that members — some of them new members, in fact — have taken the time to study the standing orders and understand the provisions of Standing Order 81. I am still learning about the application and how some of these things happen, but I can advise the House that the invocation of Standing Order 81 would not have precluded the need for this debate. The standing orders are the standing orders. Notwithstanding the invocation of Standing Order 81, we would still be having this discussion.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says, "Different circumstances," and perhaps that is so. Nevertheless, the government is of the view that circumstances are such, particularly in light of some of the commentary that has transpired over the last 24 hours…. There are circumstances unfolding that require this bill to be dealt with. We would like to deal with it. At the same time we would like all members to know that their participation in the debate is not only welcome but essential and to understand that there is a significant difference of opinion.

I hope the debate will continue on second reading, and we, and British Columbians who are watching, will have the benefit of seeing that exchange of views. In the end, they will judge whether a matter of this critical importance was dealt with responsibly by the government and by the chamber and whether or not the government is in any way, shape or form trying to ram legislation through. That is not our intention, and we hope the debate will continue. With that, I do move the motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: At the risk of inviting a subsequent debate, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to offer to all members that the House stand recessed until 7 p.m.

M. Karagianis: I stand here to speak in opposition to Bill 12. I must say I am very conscious of the fact that B.C. is watching us now. That's very evident to me by the number of e-mails and phone calls that are coming to me personally and going into my constituency office. I'm very conscious of the fact that the citizens of B.C. are watching us perhaps in a more critical way than ever before.

What I'd like to talk about here in response to Bill 12 is the value of teachers, because I think that is at the heart of the debate here regarding Bill 12. It's very interesting and kind of serendipitous that there was a PBS program on TV last night which talked about the value of education in America and a program that has been started in response to the poverty and the high level of illiteracy throughout the U.S., especially in communities that seem to be having the most civil unrest, that have highest levels of crime and that seem to have the highest levels of impoverished communities. Many of them are ethnic communities.

The program went on to basically lay out the quality of education as being a key to resolving poverty. I think that actually is a very applicable value for us to think about as well. It seems that everywhere I turn, I see education and the value of teachers flashing in front of me as being a really important component of what we need to do here in this House.

I'm a bit of a movie buff. Many years ago I saw a movie, and there was a quotation in it that I actually marked down and kept written on my diary for a long time. I actually used it as an inspiration. The quotation was: "My life was darkness, and then because of you, in one small corner of endless night, I saw a patch of blue." In fact, that quotation was about the inspiration of a teacher. That quotation referred to the spark that was lit in an individual by an inspiring teacher.

The Vision channel right now is actually playing an old movie that has to do with teachers and education. This movie is from 1955. For anyone who likes lovely, old, quaint movies from that era, Good Morning, Miss Dove is the story of a teacher — a rather stern teacher, a rather demanding teacher, a teacher who had very lofty goals for her students. The story is about how this teacher's life impacted every single person in the small town and inspired many of the successful members of that community — taught them strength of character, instilled work ethic in them and in fact caused the entire success of the community she lived in.

Another favourite movie of mine — maybe some of the members here might be familiar with this; perhaps the Attorney General, who I see had a little smile on his

It's a famous film called The Corn is Green, which is the story of a teacher who found a way to liberate miners in Wales. This is actually based on a true and factual inspirational story.

Many of these things stick in my memory. They are favourite things of mine that I ponder on, and they're about education. They're about teachers and how the value of teachers is so important to crafting our entire life, and how one little flame that's been lit by a teacher can change the course of our entire lives.

When I look back, I think about the teachers in my life that inspired curiosity and inspired my imagination, which I have used my entire life. Throughout the course of my life, even in new situations where I wasn't entirely sure what to expect, I could imagine, because my teachers had also inspired me to read and to have a curiosity about the world around me. I have gone on throughout my life to live an adventurous and curious life because of those teachers. In fact, some of those teachers gave me skills in my life that I didn't even know I would use.

Recently, in doing some home renovations, I explained to my husband the value of a fulcrum in lifting some heavy objects. He looked at me and said, "How would you know this?" as I'm explaining to him that he needs a longer fulcrum in order to lift a heavier load. I said, "My science teacher. Physics in grade 11." I remembered the laws of physics.

I also had a terrific art teacher who gave me inspiration in my soul and gave me an appreciation of art. That has turned out to be a very significant aspect of my character as an adult.

When I think about my children as they've grown up…. Several of my children have been inspired by exceptional teachers who took exceptional time and care with them. I have a son who has a special need, and he actually had the caring attention of a fabulous teacher in the first years of his schooling. That teacher was very instrumental in giving him the skills and the confidence to have fulfilled himself into being a really tremendous young man who now works with the special needs community. His teacher, Avril Gosling, is a bit of a legend in my family.

My next daughter went through the same teacher's hands and was equally inspired. She began to develop a confidence that was passed on to another one of her teachers, Bob Belcher, who offered my daughter an opportunity to host her first one-woman art show in grade five. Today my daughter is an exceptionally talented artist and has graduated from UVic with an art history degree. Her teacher also inspired her to write and helped publish a novel for her in the same year, in grade five. That novel was bound, and she illustrated it, and to this day we still have her published first novel. Those kinds of values that teachers inspire in our students can never, ever be belittled by legislation.

I think, as well, about the teachers in my community that have created extraordinary circumstances for the students growing up in Esquimalt. The first one that comes to mind is a teacher by the name of David Flello. David actually created what is now an extremely well-known program, which is jazz at Esquimalt High School. This is a teacher who had the vision and the commitment, in his personal time and in his personal vision of what education should be like, who created a jazz program that has become the envy of schools across this country and has become a cornerstone in the reputation of Esquimalt.

Esquimalt over the years has suffered a reputation because of its relationship to the base — a lot of people coming and going, not a very stable community. It had a bit of a down-at-the-heels reputation. But this one teacher gave our children jazz and created a jazz program that became such a drawing card that students from all over the region wanted to go to Esquimalt High School because they wanted to take jazz.

A whole generation of young people have enriched their lives with music beyond rap, heavy metal and thrash metal and have actually picked up the culture of jazz and carried it on. Many of those young people, in fact, worked on my campaign. It's always a thrill to go out and hear them. They are now professional musicians, some of them moving into the professional world — all because of one teacher's inspired, creative approach to education and the value he brought to the system. There is no way that a teacher like that can ever be rewarded by punitive legislation.

Another high school teacher, Marvin Dodds, is teaching right now at Esquimalt High. He has inspired so many students that I was actually quite amazed. My first official duty when I became MLA was to speak at the high school grad. It was a great thrill because a good percentage of the graduating class had been people who worked on my campaign, most of them in response to high tuition fees and the $6 wage. It was a great gift that we all shared with one another, which enlightened and broadened our world during the campaign.

It was a great thrill to speak at the graduation ceremony, and I was particularly struck by one thing that stood out among all of the graduation comments. A large percentage of that class gave thanks to Mr. Dodds for getting there. This was a teacher who had dedicated above and beyond the call of duty. This is a man who had inspired these students by lunch-hour sessions where they discussed political science. He got them involved in politics. He got them thinking and feeling and becoming responsible members of society. That's a pretty devoted teacher. That teacher does not need to be rewarded with punitive legislation for all of the years of devotion he's had.

I received a call here 24 hours ago from my oldest daughter. She said: "Mom, I'm glad you're going to be there debating this bill, because your oldest grandson is in a class of 33, and he's having some problems. So you get in there and fight for Hunter and for all the kids who are in classes that are too full, that are burning teachers out, that are not allowing teachers to give them the education they want."

These are teachers, many of them like the ones I've just mentioned, who go above and beyond the call of duty to inspire and to devote a great passion to what they do as teachers.

I have an e-mail here that came to me today, actually, from one of my local PAC presidents. I'd like to read it out because I think she kinds of tells the story from a parent's point of view. This is the PAC president at Lampson School.

I think that's pretty tragic for a parent to have to state about the school system right now. Interestingly enough, history has shown us…. The great wisdom of history has, from the beginning of time, talked about the value of education. Diogenes said that the foundation of every state is the education of its youth. Aristotle said that all who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.

So standing here discussing Bill 12, it defies logic that all of this wisdom about how the youth is, in fact, the very key, cornerstone and asset — the prime asset that we as government need to focus on. Yet we have legislation that has cast our children into unhealthy educational environments where teachers are forced beyond their capacity and are not valued.

I would say at this time that there has never been a time when education is more important than it is right now. An article ran here in the Vancouver Sun yesterday, in fact, October 5. This is Heather Reisman, who is the CEO of Indigo Books. I'll just read a couple of things that she says here, because I think they're very pertinent.

Isn't it interesting that this sentiment echoes very much the philosophy that this government has put forward about their goals for the children of this province? The reality is that global technologies are changing the world in which we live. Ten and 15 years ago, no one would have imagined that information technology would be the huge economic driver that it is. In fact, a lot of us, instructing our children to go into school, still really relied on the old idea: be a doctor; be a lawyer; get a profession. Did we know to talk our children into: "Hey, get computer literate. Start an IT company"?

In fact, it will be the green technology of tomorrow, and it will develop so fast that you will need to create young people who are able to thrive and think on their feet and adapt to new industries like that. I know for a fact that among the members in the House, there are probably still a few Luddites that don't feel completely comfortable, maybe, with their computer, definitely with their BlackBerry. I've heard lots of that.

Yet we have young kids that need to be prepared to go well beyond that — to take us into the 21st century, not us taking them. In fact, the education that we provide — we as government, we as legislators — to our young people is so incredibly important that it humbles me to think of the responsibility we have in our hands.

Listen. Other countries are preparing. They're way ahead of us on this stuff. They're not sitting and discussing punitive and draconian legislation about class size. They are in fact swinging through the world, picking out the very best of the education system, taking it in, using it up and taking it back to their countries so that they can become the new economies, the new powers of the world of the future. Our kids need to have the best opportunities — not crowded classrooms, not lack of assistance, not undervalued teachers. It seems to me to be so logical that in some ways it seems absurd to be standing here speaking the obvious.

I read recently a report from Ontario where universities are now crying out about the fact that so many students are coming to them semi-literate. Semi-literate — the year is 2005. Why is this happening? Because, in fact, we are not putting all of our resources into those precious minds on the way up. Some of them are coming through the system, sitting on the sidelines, sitting in the back of the classroom, having to go through the system, be passed through the system, never quite able to function as highly as they should, while teachers break their hearts at their inability to turn out a brilliant child from each and every one of the students that comes through their hands.

Plato said that the direction in which education starts a man will determine his future life. I think that's a very useful piece of wisdom that's just as relevant

Listen. I agree with the Liberals — you know, their great golden goal here or whatever it's called. The first one: make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. That's a pretty big statement, and I agree wholeheartedly with them. That's why it's even more astounding that government is proceeding to this goal in the way that they are. Is this hypocrisy? Is that what this is? Is this the height of hypocrisy, or is this a government so disconnected from the goal that they, in fact, don't know how to get there?

The government says we want to go there — right? We want the best-educated young people in the world, on the continent. But everything they have done in the past four years has gone completely against that. They have reduced resources. They have overcrowded classrooms. They have, through a bit of a sham game, turned responsibility over to school districts who have not been given enough money. Frankly, I think it's shameful that we would squander our children's future in this way.

We are charged with caring for the assets of this province, and lots of discussion goes on in this chamber about oil and gas, forestry and fish, tourism and all the great assets that produce money. But we're missing the boat. Our foremost asset is our children. Their education and their opportunities are, in fact, our future.

Oil and gas — we all know that at some point that is going to change. Our futures there are going to change. Forestry is changing. Fisheries are changing. All of these things are changing, and yet our best and biggest asset is here, stable, requiring only sensible legislation, sensible judgment and sensible resources to the education system to keep it there for the rest of our lives — in fact, to provide for our lives.

All of us are going to be retired and living off what our next generation, which we're producing, puts into the system. That will in fact fund our pensions, our old age security, our care, our health care — all of those things that look after us.

All of that will be on the backs of the next generation. In fact, as we continue to diminish the quality of education and diminish its value, we're turning ourselves over. The fate of our future is being toyed with by our own lack of vision and lack of commitment to those resources. This government's preoccupation with privatization, with selling off public assets, seems to have clouded and overshadowed our real responsibility here, and that's to care for our citizens and to care for those resources.

John F. Kennedy was killed the year I was 13 — November 22, 1963. I remember it very, very clearly. Despite the stories that came out afterwards, he was an individual who inspired more than a generation of people, and he knew the value of education. JFK said: "Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength to us as a nation." It was a long time ago, over 40 years ago, that he said that. Yet you know what? It's a very relevant and truthful thing he said.

I spoke the other day in question period about a teacher who had called me at quarter after seven in the morning to talk about her class of 47 students, to talk about the fact that she feels the system has let her down and let her children down. She's a very dedicated teacher who has poured her life and soul and heart into teaching children and is so frustrated with trying to get a grip on a large class like that — impart any kind of wisdom, inspire anything in these children, light those sparks, keep those little fires lit so that they can ignite into creative and productive human beings — that she's ready to give up on the system.

She said many of her friends are ready to give up on the system because they feel the system has given up on them. You know what, my friends? That is our responsibility in this House. Because of the way we have treated the education system and the kind of legislative decisions that are being made right now with Bill 12, we are creating this undervalued situation.

In all of the arguments that have taken place here and in the debate over the last number of days, we talk about dollars. We talk about large amounts of money, dollars cut from the system, dollars replaced into the system. We'll debate back and forth. Was it enough? Was it too much? Have we done better than the previous government? In fact, all those big numbers are really meaningless out there to the children who are sitting in crowded classrooms.

They could care less if it's $150 million or $130 million or a billion dollars. What they know is that their classroom is crowded, that their teacher cannot get to them and that the system is letting them down. I think the primary things here that I am getting from all of the correspondence that's coming to me from families in my riding and families all over British Columbia is that they feel government has not delivered on what they promised.

I go back to these lofty goals that government has laid out for themselves and reminds us constantly of. I look at all of them, and you know, they're real big shiny words — all of them. They're really excellent goals. It's like Mom's apple pie. I don't think anybody will disagree with them. I've sat around municipal councils long enough to know that you create strategic plans and create vision statements, and you spend a lot of time doing that. I'm betting the government spent a lot of time coming up with these lofty goals — goals that all British Columbians read over the past number of months and said: "Wow. Yes, that's exactly the kind of province we want to create for ourselves."

Yet so many of the things that have occurred over the past four years, so many of the things that have occurred over the past few weeks, and in fact the very

nature of this bill, defy everything that's written in here. I guess I have to say: how do I look my constituents in the eye? How do any of us go home and look our constituents in the eye and say: "Yeah, we're doing these great and wonderful things here in the Legislature"?

Gosh, this is actually only my 12th day here, and already my sense of shame over what is happening to the education system here before my very eyes, right here in my hands…. It saddens me. I waited a lot of years to get here, to represent the children and parents and families in my community that work very hard every day of their lives to contribute to this economy. Some of them struggle to do that, but every single one of them wants the same thing for their kids that I wanted for my kids and that most of you want for your kids.

Yet if we are truly going to meet these lofty goals, then we really do need to rethink the logic and the common sense behind how we are doing it, because in fact what we're doing here makes no sense at all. We have thousands of teachers right now watching out there, listening to us, weighing up what both sides of the House are doing and saying, and our commitment to them. They worked very hard to keep up the level of education in this province despite cutbacks, despite changing attitudes about them, despite the rhetoric and the arguments that go on. There are schools being shut down. Their entire quality of volunteerism is coming under criticism. Frankly, shame on all of us. They deserve much better.

G. Robertson: I rise to debate the second reading of Bill 12. Some of my colleagues have pointed out the irony of the name of this bill, Teachers' Collective Agreement Act, and the fact that none of those four words apply in any respect to teachers.

I want to start tonight by thanking all of the teachers that got me here — all of my teachers through my youth, through my formative years, who inspired me, who motivated me, who raised me up good. I owe them a huge, huge gratitude, and I'm thankful to be standing here today on their behalf as well.

I want to thank all the teachers in my community — teachers who supported me, who helped me to be elected to this honourable office. I owe them my great thanks. I appreciate all the help that they've been, and I appreciate all the work that they do in my community.

My community has seven elementary schools with teachers at General Wolfe, Emily Carr, Edith Cavell, Simon Fraser, L'Ecole Bilingue and False Creek Elementary. These are outstanding schools in the city of Vancouver that really set the bar very high in this province, and indeed around this world, for what kind of education we want for our kids.

Those teachers make it happen there, and my heart goes out to them for the action that they're taking — really against their own will. I support so much of what they do for my children and my neighbours' children all around our community. My thanks to them.

In the spirit of that thanks and at the risk of offending the authorities here, I brought an apple in here — a symbol of my thanks to the teachers of this province, the teachers who raised me. I'm not going to eat this apple. Don't worry. It's a fresh….

G. Robertson: It's an apple grown by Martin Rothe and his family in B.C., on an organic farm — a symbol of my appreciation and thanks.

I want to talk for a second about what the government, on this bill, deems the explanatory note. The explanatory note reads: "This bill settles the dispute" — and I'll come back to this word — "between the British Columbia Teachers Federation and the British Columbia Public School Employers Association and provides for the constitution of a collective agreement between the parties."

Well, by my interpretation, there is no settling going on here. We have the opposite of settling right now. I come from the juice business most recently, where we use the apples of our teachers' eyes, and we do anything but settle. We blend them up, and everything goes crazy. Settling is when you let everything mellow out; cooler heads can prevail. This isn't about settling.

What we're going to see around this province tomorrow is not about settling. I take great issue with the choice of words — not only the name of this act but the explanatory note and how this government has chosen, ironically, to use words that don't mean anything, to use words that in fact mean the opposite of what their actions are. My colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin spoke aptly, I think, about the use of words and the misuse of words in the five great goals of the government of this province and how far off the mark they really are.

This bill, the explanatory note for this bill and all the goals that it's supposed to feed into are wrongheaded. They're the wrong words. I fundamentally disagree with that.

This is no settlement. Let's be clear about it. This is an impasse. The Liberal government is the architect of this impasse. Blame the teachers all they like, but the blame is clear, Madam Speaker. With the changes to the School Act in 2002 and the imposition of a contract that nobody wanted then, this government created this impasse.

This government took the single most important issues away from teachers by taking them off the bargaining table. They took class size and composition away from teachers. They took teachers ratios away from teachers. Teachers have been fighting to win these things to protect our kids in the classroom, fighting for the quality of our kids' education. Countless studies prove that class size matters to learning outcomes. I assume this is why the Liberal government thought it was important enough to put this in the School Act, this notion of class size. But even the Wright report says the process was careless.

They put class size in the School Act, but they made no provision to make sure that the guidelines were followed. For some grades of school there are no class sizes. Talk to the school boards around this province about whether class sizes can be maintained under the average dictated. In this province we have classes with four special needs students, 20 ESL students, and no extra help because the government cut funding for educational assistance.

This proposed legislation, Bill 12, is uncalled for and has now inflamed the situation. The government has no intention of settling this dispute. Teachers have been willing to bargain all along. They met with the shell employer, council, set up by this government 35 times — 35 times showed up in good faith. They wrote to BCPSEA after the fact-finder's report came down, saying they were still willing to meet.

They have been trying since May to meet with the Premier, who incidentally broke his promise to meet with teachers and resolve this matter. Apparently the kids, the parents and the teachers of this province aren't important enough for the Premier to meet with.

The teachers were saying until the last minute that they were willing to discuss class sizes for our kids with either the employer — the Public School Employers Association, which really has no power…. The fact-finder and Don Wright say that it has no money the government doesn't give to them; in effect, it's a powerless body. They were willing to discuss these things with the government. It is the government who is not playing ball here.

This is the government that, despite its claims of a bright golden decade…. None of that gold is destined for the people who raise our kids every day. This government announces $150 million for schools at every opportunity they can, after they close more than 100 schools. Where's the math there? This government has cut school funding back so much that districts like Vancouver, where I live, are forced to raise $680,000 from parent fundraising. Some school districts are unable to raise money from parent fundraising, and those school districts pay the price. Those kids pay the price.

There are all kinds of solutions. I want to move to solutions for a minute, Madam Speaker, for this government's impasse. Mr. Connolly's report points to solutions. Meet with teachers; start with that. Involve other stakeholders. For all the rhetoric, we have not heard anything about parents. Have parents been involved in this? No. Actually allow negotiations — Mr. Connolly again — instead of panicking at the first sign of trouble and intervening. Actually allow negotiations.

This government has a foul history of intervening and not allowing negotiation to take place. They are the contract-rippers. These are legislators, and they take that a little too seriously. They legislate before talking. This government has interfered with the rights of thousands of British Columbians trying to bargain collective agreements, to the extent that countless local, national and international labour organizations have condemned this government for its blatant disregard for fair and honest collective bargaining.

Is this government proud of its record? Is it proud of the black mark on B.C. internationally for its disregard for fair collective bargaining? I certainly hope not.

The hon. member opposite has suggested by this legislation that this bill is the only option to fix the mess the government has made of negotiations. "Here's the solution. This will settle it." The government has other options. Let's be real here.

Basically, the government has three options in negotiating with its public educators. First — don't jump too quickly on this — they can take an adversarial approach by instructing the BCPSEA, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association, to demand teacher concessions at the bargaining table. I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet. They have taken this approach, tying the employer's hands with a narrow and unreasonable bargaining mandate that has left no room for constructive negotiation or compromise.

The second option here is that they can take a legislative approach by imposing compensation and working conditions unilaterally through legislation. We've seen this before. Several days ago the government chose to take this approach by proposing Bill 12 and arguing that it has no other choice.

But the government does have another choice. There is a third way. They can take a cooperative approach to the labour relations process. What a notion — cooperation. They can operate openly and supportively, meeting with the B.C. Teachers Federation representatives directly, establishing the extent of the problems and challenges facing our education system, and jointly attempting to resolve those problems and overcome those challenges. We can all be grownups here.

This type of constructive, cooperative approach has been taken by New Democratic governments in B.C. It has been used in other provinces such as Ontario. The current Liberal government has the option to take this approach. This government has chosen to be confrontational. It has chosen to work against teachers instead of working with them. It has chosen to work against parents and against children instead of working with them. This government is not creative and supportive enough to use the process properly and negotiate.

I want to just ask a rhetorical question here. Why was there no progress at the bargaining table to date? Teachers bargain with BCPSEA — the bargaining agent for the school districts in B.C., the lone bargaining agent. The government controls the mandate that BCPSEA operates under very tightly. BCPSEA has made it clear that they do not have the resources or the mandate to address the issues that are paramount to teachers: learning conditions and a salary increase. The government and BCPSEA have stated that teachers must accept the net zero mandate and the fact that they

I want to talk about this net zero mandate, because I think it flies in the face…. Nothing is lost — the detail is not lost — on the people of this province when you say to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians: "That's what you get: zero-zero-zero."

"Oh, and over here, fine corporations doing business in British Columbia: you get a 12 percent increase that you weren't bargaining for. We're giving it to you anyway. You guys, zero- zero-zero."

Corporations — this was last week — get a 12 percent gain this year, $143 million a year now, and everyone else in B.C. gets zero-zero-and-zero.

The government has told teachers to bargain at the table with BCPSEA but has laid out a mandate that dooms this bargaining to failure. The government has said that it cannot interfere in bargaining between BCPSEA and the BCTF, yet it has repeatedly run interference in the bargaining, in public and in the press, saying that a deal can't get done.

Well, again I come to how the situation gets resolved. I talked about the options. It's all about the government taking the opportunity to sit down with the teachers directly and come up with a workable process — not force them back to work under the same conditions that were unacceptable and hope for the best in the months ahead, but sit down now and work it out. This has been the teachers' request of government all along, and it remains so. Parent and public support is solidly behind the teachers' goal to achieve a negotiated resolution. I've been hearing this for days. That's a solution that meets our students' needs and that provides teachers with a salary increase.

Four years of legislation aimed at teachers and the public education system has only resulted in more instability in the education system, worsening conditions in schools and a negative climate in school districts. It's time for the government to problem-solve, not to legislate more problems.

Let's be really clear here with some facts and some numbers about what this government has done to education over these four years. This Liberal government reduced the number of teachers by 7.7 percent. Enrolment declined by only 3 percent. That's a lot more teachers gone than students. It laments the decline in the number of special education teachers — 17.5 percent of special ed teachers gone. Teacher-librarians. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, 23.4 percent of the teacher-librarians were cut. English-as-a-second-language teachers — one in five gone. It maintains that the closure of 113 schools was necessary and warranted.

Enough of the numbers, though the numbers do speak the truth. I'm standing up here for teachers. Their passion and inspiration are really what sustains the system and what makes it exceptional. When you disrespect and demoralize the teachers, you lose those people. They take their passion and their talents elsewhere, and they pull the heart out of the system. The impact of the ads that this government ran on Monday was like a body blow to the teachers of this province. Everyone opening the paper, seeing those ads with partisan rhetoric, did the math — it wasn't complicated — and figured out that those ads were written and placed before the fact-finder even came back on Friday last. When you combine the deterioration of resources and the passion, when you demoralize teachers in this way, you doom our education system.

This government says they want to ensure that kids are in the classrooms. What kind of classrooms are you talking about? What kind of classrooms result from demoralized teachers who have had enough? I'm a parent. I have three kids. Do I want my kids to go into a classroom and endure whatever they face there, from whoever ends up showing up to do the work of the teachers? That's not right. That's not investing in our kids. That's not investing in our future. That's not being the most well-educated and literate jurisdiction on the continent. If you really want to put kids first, deal with class composition and class sizes first. If you really want to put kids first…

G. Robertson: …Madam Speaker, make the changes that parents and teachers have been calling for, for years on class composition. But deal with pay equity. Make sure the teachers are paid commensurate with their peers in other provinces. This has to be addressed. It's not rocket science. Pay equity for teachers in this country needs to be achieved here, or the teachers will go elsewhere — where they're wanted, where they're needed, where they're respected, where they're paid well.

For teachers to put their spark, to put their passion, to put their commitment into our kids…. That's what makes our schools what they are today. When you disrespect and demoralize these teachers, you put out the spark. You snuff it. Madam Speaker, you tear the heart and soul right out of our schools.

I want to just read a little note here from the Vancouver school board. The school trustees issued a press release several days ago, and probably a lot of people haven't seen it. The media wasn't as eager to pick it up as they should have been. I want to pass this along so that everyone knows that school trustees, who in years past have negotiated with teachers more directly, certainly negotiate with a lot of the other employees in the school district — successfully, I might add.

Allan Wong notes that settlements have been imposed on teachers for more than ten years. He says: "It's time for that to stop and for teachers to have the right to reach a freely negotiated collective agreement with the employer bargaining agent."

The Vancouver school board has worked tirelessly to try and make the situation better in Vancouver in the schools that my children attend, in the schools in the community that I represent. They deserve full kudos and praise for the work that they've done. They're at the breaking point. When you have school trustees at the breaking point, when you have the administrations, when you have the teachers, when you have the parents all at the breaking point, maybe the approach is wrong. Maybe it's time to rethink the approach. Maybe it's time not to legislate Bill 12 and to take a more cooperative approach.

I'd like to read from a teacher who wrote some very moving words to me yesterday, and this is a teacher named Natalie Pritchard. She says:

What a question. I wonder if the government has an answer to that question. How are they attracting young talent to our schools? How are they attracting the people who will teach the children of this province, who will build the economy of our future, who will build the communities of our future? How is this accomplished with this legislation? It's not, simply stated.

I'll read from another teacher. This is a teacher I know well, because he's my brother — Patrick Robertson. He teaches in the riding of the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi. He teaches at Westcot Elementary. Patrick says about teachers in West Vancouver:

The amount of communication that I've had from parents in my community, from teachers in my community, from teachers around the province — who are very, very disappointed in this government and the actions it's taking, legislating the teachers back to work — is unprecedented — the phone calls, the e-mails, the letters. Morale is at an all-time low, and the times are tough.

I don't see in the faces of the government benches across from me a whole lot of concern for the teachers and the parents and the kids of B.C. and what they're going to go through starting tomorrow morning. I don't see a whole lot of concern. I don't see them standing up to speak to this bill and saying: "You know, maybe this isn't the right direction. Maybe this isn't what we should be doing. Maybe we should be valuing the teachers and the parents and the students of this province. Maybe we should be building the most-educated and literate jurisdiction in North America. Didn't we say that's what we were going to do? Isn't that what we're committed to? Isn't that our vision?"

Back your vision up with actions. It's not difficult. These actions are actually very straightforward, and they involve clear communication, cooperation and a willingness to find solutions.

I beseech this government to reconsider the legislation that they're putting forward, to reconsider the impact that it's going to have — in fact, that it's already had — in destabilizing our educational system and destabilizing the trust right through the system and the impact that it's going to have around this province, starting tomorrow morning and running in perpetuity until this is dealt with, until there is a spirit of respect and cooperation, until there is a willingness to work together to find the solutions.

In closing, I want to harken back to my days in school in North Vancouver, where I graduated from high school, and the teachers there who I know treasured every moment of their hours spent with students, with me in the classroom, with me on the rugby field, with me on the stage where the band rehearsed and played. A lot of those things have been taken away. A lot of those things don't exist anymore. The support for music, in particular, and for the arts in those schools is a fraction of what it was when I was so fortunate to have that support. The teachers were so fortunate to have that support entrusted to them by the government of this province.

Again, this is about trust. This is about valuing. This is about valuing our future, valuing our kids, valuing the people that raise and take care of our kids. Invest in these teachers; invest in our kids.

S. Hammell: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill, because public educa-

tion is a fundamental service that the provincial level of government delivers on behalf of citizens of this province. When the separation of powers was discussed among the architects of our country, they decided that the province was the best vehicle to effectively deliver education to our children. Therefore, in the context of this debate, it is instructive to look back at the history of the public education system in our province. So in my remarks I will draw directly and often to a Royal British Columbia Museum publication called the British Columbia Education History Project of 1993.

When Vancouver Island was declared a colony in 1849, James Douglas, the chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, invited the Reverend Robert Staines, a Church of England minister, to become both the company chaplain and the schoolmaster to the children of the company officers. Shortly after his arrival, the Oblate mission delegated Father Honoré Timothy Lempfrit to teach the children of Roman Catholic parents.

As settlers arrived, Douglas supported other schools, most of which charged fees. Girls could be sent to a school for young ladies, but if parents could not afford it, girls stayed home. So the first schools were delivered by the religious institutions that were active and established in the colony.

Few of the textbooks from that time have survived, as the books were made out of cheap materials, and other things simply wore out. As we all know, the schools were sparsely furnished, and education supplies were considered a luxury in an economy with little cash. Things were handed down from parent to children and to younger children. The teachers at the colonial school in Nanaimo noted several times in the register that a student was not attending school because his or her parents could not afford to purchase the reader.

Now in our schools in some cases, students do hand down textbooks from student to student, and in some of our schools now, we don't even have enough textbooks for the students in a classroom at the school. We also have situations, and it has been mentioned in the House before, where students cannot attend a class because they cannot afford the extra costs the parents are expected to cover so that the child can take the class.

But I do digress. I'll go back just a bit to the history. In 1858 new settlers poured in, and the private and Methodist churches set up schools in competition with the Church of England and the Catholic school systems. It is possible that the competition for students in the fledgling city of Victoria contributed to a willingness to adopt new subjects and set high standards. In a letter in 1859, Bishop Demers says the parents of the children want to learn music: "Can we deny them this request? We must be up to date, and we must follow the trends."

By the mid-1860s, there was strong support for free common schools. The argument was led by the editors of the two leading newspapers on Vancouver Island and in New Westminster. Both men advocated free, public, non-sectarian education based on the principle of opportunity — of equality of opportunity — and both gained public support for their positions.

When the Common School Act became law on Vancouver Island, Amor de Cosmos, one of our Premiers — he became our Premier and was the editor of the Colonist — wrote: "We are not deposed to cavil at the imperfections of the bill so long as the two great principles, free schools and a non-sectarian system of education, are enunciated." And so came our public school system.

However, there was a glitch in the meantime, because Governor Seymour refused to support the public schools and withheld funding. At that time many schools closed, and they closed up to 1869, when another bill, the Common School Ordinance, was brought forward. The public schools again flourished.

In 1872 the Public School Act provided for education from the general revenues of the province and allowed the government to appoint a board of education and a superintendent. The object of the act was "to give every child in the province such knowledge as will fit him to become a useful and intelligent citizen in years after."

I labour through this just to make clear that our education system has grown over time from a commitment of the leadership of this province to provide a free, universal public education system, because they felt strongly that this was the best system for the citizens of our province.

They knew they had to "give every child in the province such knowledge as will fit him to become a useful and intelligent citizen in the years after."

Over time the curriculum changed and grew. The teachers grew stronger in number, and eventually the school districts organized so that we had what we have now: a universal, free education system.

Now that system is centralized yet localized, with school districts disbursing the money given to them by the provincial government. That is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, because in the '80s the power to impose taxes by school districts was removed. The funding then moved to the provincial government.

Regardless of that, what the past leaders of our province have clearly understood is that a quality, universal public education was one of the primary responsibilities of the provincial government. They understood that they needed to give that child the knowledge that will fit him to become a useful and intelligent citizen in years after. That's because a strong, vibrant democracy demands a quality, public education system.

One of the major responsibilities we have as an electorate and as citizens of our country is that we have to choose the government that serves us. To be intelligent and to make good choices, we need to have an educated population. A democracy allows us that freedom. It allows us the freedom to choose, and we choose who govern us from our neighbours, our friends and our families. We must choose wisely to

ensure that our country is governed well. Peace, order and good government are what our country is based on. It requires an educated population.

But a strong economy also demands a quality, universal public education system. We cannot nor should we rely on importing our professionals, entrepreneurs and tradespersons from other industrialized countries or from developing countries. Our children need to be educated so that they can compete for the jobs in the future, and those jobs are becoming increasingly demanding, with over 50 percent of those jobs requiring some post-secondary education.

A strong economy also needs to replace the people that are leaving. We in this country or in this province have a wonderful environment, but to be a strong economy in the future, we also need that strong, capable workforce. We all know there is a demographic bulge leaving the workforce. This bulge is positioned to leave in the next few years, and we need to replace ourselves with well-educated and literate young people who are prepared to support this bulge through a productive work ethic.

All of us need a strong education system that is developing that strong student who is prepared to step out into the workforce. Who have we asked to be the guardians of this education system? We have teachers that we have entrusted with the task of delivering these citizens in our future. We expect them to teach the basics and more.

I can go back into history and show you, as we added and added more and more tasks and expected our teachers to take on each task we asked them…. Not only that, we expect our teachers to have their students meet or exceed every single benchmark we put in front of them. To boot, we expect our teachers to volunteer their time for extracurricular activities.

We, as parents of these children, want the best for our children, and we know that good teachers will deliver the best. We want them to teach the skills to our children so that our children will be successful in life. We want our children to be the very best that they can be and realize their full potential. We want our teachers to help deliver.

Let me describe to you what those teachers are facing every day of the week, hon. Speaker. I have a sister that's a teacher. I have a mother that was a teacher. I have a sister-in-law that is a teacher. Let me talk to you about some of the situations that teachers in general find themselves in. There is a grades one-two classroom in Surrey. They have eight students in grade one and 12 students in grade two. In grade two, one of those children is reading a novel. They are in grade two, and they can read. Another one of those children cannot read at all and is extremely dependent on the teacher. That is just in the grade two classroom.

In the grade one classroom, they have a child who needs a care worker because that child has social behaviour that needs assistance. Also in that classroom is a child who needs a counsellor, who had counselling last year but is currently not getting counselling because there is none at the school. One child is developmentally delayed, and two children have ESL. I am talking about 20 kids in a classroom, and seven of them have some very special needs that need some kind of assistance and support. There is also a child in the classroom who's lost a parent and is very needy as a consequence — needs a lot of attention.

Another classroom that I can describe has 28 students. One of those students is epileptic. Another has Asperger's, which is a form of autism. That child is aware of his condition and is actually able to articulate the fact that he cannot control his anger at times but is aware that that's a problem. There is another child that is ADHD, gifted. That is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There is another child that is just ADD, which is attention deficit disorder. There is a learning disabled child who was born with a cocaine addiction and has low coping skills.

In this same classroom there is a child who is a musical prodigy, gifted and very bright, not necessarily someone that needs particular special support but who certainly needs a teacher that has enough time to meet the individual needs of that child. There's another child in this classroom who is organizationally challenged, who is very gifted in art but who has great difficulty keeping generally organized and has trouble with classroom routines.

There's another child with hearing problems and another child who possibly has an eating disorder. Then there are two ESL students. All of these children are in one classroom of 28.

Now, there is an issue with our teachers over the composition of classrooms. You cannot have a split grade with eight to ten particular children that need special attention. You cannot ask teachers to do that; it is over the top. They cannot do it. You must deal with class size. If a system is going to be created that meets the needs of our children, it has to hold at its core class size.

You cannot mainstream the children of this province, which everyone has agreed we should do…. We do not believe in a system that segregates and ghettoizes or isolates the children of this province. We are all in this together. Our classrooms have every single one of us — every shape, different size, every character you can believe — in our classrooms. We must give the teachers the support they need to deliver education effectively to these children, and you cannot do it with large class sizes.

I think that every single one of our children in our province is special. There is not one of them that doesn't have individual differences that we as legislators and the educators in our classroom…. There is not one of them that doesn't need special attention. They need individual attention, but they cannot get individual attention when you start having class sizes that start moving up into the 28s, the 30s, the 33s, the 35s, the 36s. It is not good enough for us here in this House to abdicate our responsibility and say: "We don't have

any responsibility for what the class size is in the classroom. We give that over to someone else."

Class sizes are our responsibility. If we are going to have small class sizes to meet the individual needs of the children in this province, we have to make sure that they are funded, and the funding comes from the provincial government. This chamber took away the right of school boards to tax the taxpayers in their school districts. We took it away — we in this chamber — and therefore we in this chamber are responsible for funding the education system.

If we looked into a perfect classroom, we would see a teacher who is able to cope with the individual differences of the children within his or her classroom. I did spend 15 — I think it was around 15 — years of my life in a classroom. I can tell you that one of the most critical factors in a classroom is that there are bumps. As a teacher, you are never away from the needs of these students — the voices, the touching and the need for them to have your attention to meet their needs.

Teachers do a very, very special job that many of us could not and would not do for a long, long period of time. If they are going to develop those citizens that we agree we all need, we have to give them the resources to do their job and to do it well.

Another area that I just find extremely distressing when we talk about the school system…. To be quite frank, it distresses me that one of the great goals is to be the best-educated and the most literate society, and we have the system in our schools where we have libraries that are closed up to 50 percent of the time. When I taught, we had a library that was available to our students all the time. You could send your child down to the library to get books. They could be sent down to the library to do a novel study. They could be sent to the library to be taught. They could borrow books constantly.

Hon. Speaker, our libraries are black. The lights aren't on. Half the time the libraries are closed. They are closed. If we genuinely want to — and I think we do; I think every person in this House wants to — ensure that our children are the best that they can be, we have to have librarians.

You know, I've always said to students that if they want to read well, they've got to practise. It's no different than going out and playing soccer or baseball, or any other skill. Once you've learned the basics, you've got to get in there and practise. Therefore, you need to have books. If you want a literate society, you have to have the students surrounded by and able to get books whenever they can. To close our libraries, to reduce our librarians is unacceptable. If we want a system that serves our kids, we fix it.

To kind of try to close this off, I want to touch on or think about it from the point of view of the teachers. I understand that it's easy to blame, and it's easy to point the finger and say who's at fault or to blame out or to do whatever we do when we don't want to assume some kind of responsibility. But the ball is in the government's court. The government has the power to come to some kind of resolution of this dispute. This ball has been over in that court for five years. It's the responsibility of the government to come to some kind of resolution with the teachers.

You know what? If we were in the private sector, you don't get to bring a bill in and bang, you got a settlement. The only place you can do that is in the public sector. I just don't think it's on. It's not good enough. We can resolve confrontation with skill and persistence.

I could not leave this without saying that I was around in the '90s. What I know is that teachers made a sacrifice to get smaller class sizes. Do you know what? I talk to my sister, and what can I say? In the '90s she made the choice that they would go with class sizes rather than a high or a strong wage increase. In fact, I think they took zero-zero-and-zero. The trade-off, the quid pro quo, was that they got smaller class sizes. That's how strongly teachers believe in smaller class sizes. They know the benefit.

In 2005 they are in a lose-lose. They were stripped of their ability to bargain class size. They got reduced support for the class sizes as they went up, and they didn't get a wage increase. I don't think that's quite fair. I think they came to the table. They were willing to make a sacrifice on behalf of the students of our schools — our future citizens — and that sacrifice was not respected.

Now we're at 2005, and we're saying in this House: "Go bargain." I've heard time and time again that they've been to the bargaining table 35 times, but I'm not quite sure what they can bargain. They cannot bargain working conditions. I mean, whoever heard that you cannot bargain working conditions? Only in the public sector. Nowhere else would you be able to say to a bargaining unit: "I'm sorry, you can't. That's off the table." Only when you have the hammer of bringing in a bill. It's easy. Bang — there's a bill.

You can't bargain your working conditions. Fair enough; you can't bargain working conditions. You know what else you can't bargain? You can't bargain your wages. Now, we have 35 meetings. I don't know what they talked about. Maybe they kept asking: can we bargain working conditions? No. Can we bargain wages? No. I'm not exactly sure what they could have bargained.

As I think about the situation, it seems to me the bottom line here is that in all of this, we make choices. A democracy requires that we do make choices, and what the government side has chosen to do is give the corporations a tax break. What we've decided to do on this side of the House is say that you need to revisit…. You need to go back to the table with the teachers of our province, because they are the ones who have the future in their hands. They are the ones that look after our children. They are the ones that teach our children, and they are the ones that we are deeply indebted to as we look forward to our future.

I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill. But I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed

that we're not in this House talking with our teachers and getting back to the bargaining table to come up with an agreement that we can all live with.

I know it's tough. Negotiations are never easy. There's all kinds of history. But the teachers of our province deserve our respect, and they deserve to hear that we value what they do. They deserve to hear us say that we're there and willing to negotiate with you.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak against Bill 12, which is now, as my colleagues have said and as the hon. member next to me said earlier on, legislation through exhaustion.

What I find quite interesting is that this government has said all along that they have the interest of kids at heart. So I would like to start my speech in opposition to this bill by reading a letter I received from a retired teacher in Campbell River. He writes:

I would like to ask members opposite how they do feel when…. That is the worst case, but there are lots of other, smaller cases where children's needs are not being met because of what has been happening. You often can't see it — collateral damage. It's a good term; it's a military term. The damage is there, but you don't see it. It is the innocent ones that get hurt.

I would suggest that members opposite talk to counsellors in schools, if they are still funded in your school district, and hear about the grade sevens who have depression and are suicidal because of the pressures of overcrowded classrooms. Or maybe the members opposite would like to talk to kids trying to get into university, who don't get the academic attention they need in classes of more than 30 — at a time when they need it most.

I would suggest that there is something very wrong in our society, where kids are suffering in our classrooms because of these conditions and where teachers are often too depressed because they have to try to deal with huge classes. Then, also because of government changes, they cannot get leave for that depression. There is no stress leave. They can't claim it under WCB. That isn't the case for this bill, but it is something that adds to their pressures.

Teachers are angry, they are frustrated, and they are depressed because they can no longer negotiate, talk about the learning conditions, the classroom conditions, their working conditions. As my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers mentioned earlier, their working conditions cannot be negotiated, because this government has stripped them of that right and because this government is refusing to negotiate. Instead, it is imposing the extension of an already-imposed contract.

I would suggest that we all do agree on one thing — that teachers are essential. They inspire our children. We have heard many stories from members about those special teachers in their lives, the ones who made the difference, who were there at a certain point in their education. Everybody has a memory of a special teacher. Those special teachers are out there. They lead our children. They inspire our children. They engage them, and they teach them.

Madam Speaker, you yourself have talked eloquently about this. I must admit I get quite frustrated, because what I hear from the opposite benches often appears to be platitudes about their commitments to education. What greater commitment is there to our children's future than investing in their education?

It has been said often in this debate that children are our society's future. I don't think anyone can challenge that. But a solid, well-rounded education gives them what they need to fully contribute to our society and to make our society a better society. It's not just the number of children who graduate, who leave school, who get through the various stages of school and pass the various tests. It isn't a numbers game. Education isn't about statistics. Education is about children, and it is about the way that we want to see our society in the future.

Our teachers recognize this, and this is why they're so frustrated. As I said earlier, we've heard a stated commitment to education from the members opposite, from this government — one of the golden goals. But teachers see huge classes, no support, and they see, recognize and know that there needs to be an improvement in the conditions.

Government's reaction? To bring forward this bill — a bill which destroys the possibility of negotiation, ends the chance of finding a mutually acceptable way of going forward for our children's sake. Instead, they're putting forward this bill, this self-declared settlement.

As the member for Vancouver-Fairview said before: "What settlement? Zero-zero-and-zero? What sort of settlement is that?" Not only is that an insult at the best of times — an insult which it's fair to say is directed at the public sector — but it's an insult where we've just seen the introduction of a budget with massive corporate tax cuts — tax cuts that were not expected, not asked for and, frankly, not necessary. We've heard from people on the street. I don't know if the hon. members opposite have been talking to anyone outside this House. But if they had, there have been many people talking in the last few days, as this debate has continued, about why that money is going to corporations and why we don't just resolve the problem with the teachers right now.

This so-called settlement that has been questioned throughout the debate also offers nothing for our kids. Teachers are realists. They're not just after the money. They also want to negotiate conditions for our children's best interests. That's why teachers have been wanting to see learning conditions in negotiations — class size and class makeup on the table when they bargain. Teachers are realists, and they can see, in the classroom, who is suffering.

It's our kids who are suffering. Our kids are not suffering at the hands of militant teachers but with teachers who are burning out, who are overstretched because the class sizes are just too big and the support is not there.

The members on this side of the House are not making this up. Again, I wonder how many teachers the members on the other side have talked to. I was talking to a middle-school science teacher the other day from Lake Trail Middle School in Comox Valley. She is a science teacher in a middle school. Think of the age. In her science class she has 32 children — one science class, one teacher. Among those 32 children are 14 with special needs. I would say not just that it's not providing good quality education; it's simply not safe.

How are they, or other children, going to get the education they need, the assistance they need, the ability to work that they need? It's so essential to have special needs kids in the classroom so we have every child. As the members earlier have said, "Every child is special." We need to have every child in the classroom, but we also need full support for them and for the teachers who are there to educate them. Otherwise, it just hurts everyone.

I was talking to a teacher in Campbell River earlier today who was telling me that there are classrooms — again, in middle schools — where there are kids in the position with learning disabilities who can't function. They don't have the support they need, the teachers don't have the support they need, and all the children in those classrooms suffer. This settlement doesn't offer support. It doesn't help get around those issues. It doesn't make the educational environment better for these children. There is no reduction in class size if we are not talking about class composition and about teachers' learning conditions.

Again, I will give members opposite some examples, because I'm not sure how many teachers they have talked to: Grade 12 math at Carihi high school in Campbell River, 42 kids in the class — 42. Bright students are going to survive. They're going to carry on. They're going to get challenged and just go ahead and work on their own, and maybe the poor ones will get some assistance. As a teacher told me, it is the middle ones that fade away. "They just get lost," she said. What can you give 42 children? Three seconds each?

Also, at middle schools — some of the most formative years for young people — the overcrowding is ridiculous. Because of cuts in funding, because of downloading, we have a lack of space in the classrooms. You often see kids in the hallways, eating their lunch, and in the classrooms, so many children.

Again, an example: I'll use Campbell River in my own constituency. Middle schools in Campbell River have woodwork classes — 30 students in a woodwork class in a middle school. You have tools in woodwork class. Like the science class example earlier, you have tools. It's the shop. How are you going to not only teach children in a middle school, but how are you going to supervise them adequately when you have 30 children in a class? A teacher there told me: "You actually get to hope that some of the kids aren't going to come to class." That is an indictment of this government's policies.

I can carry on with examples of overcrowded classrooms. The examples go on and on in every single school where I have been talking to teachers over the last many months. They all have long, long examples of their classrooms being too crowded to be able to teach their children.

This comes down to something that was suggested in the budget: that government has to make choices. School trustees and school boards also have to make choices. They have limited budgets, as the government said in its own budget. These trustees, these boards — these local representatives who have had the costs downloaded on them — have to choose whether they support a school librarian or the band program. What sort of choices are these? These are real choices. This was one of the choices made at Sunset middle school in Port McNeill. What are you going to do?

These are not frills in children's education. These are part of what should be a good, well-rounded education in our public school system. They're not luxuries; they're not frills. But those choices are forced onto school districts, because they've had these costs downloaded on them by the government. They now have to pay their MSP, pensions, hydro — there's a long list. It means a choice between having a teacher or a teacher's assistant working in the classrooms with our kids or paying the bills.

I have three school districts in my constituency. I have to admit that the downloading costs really hit rural communities very hard and maybe in a different way than in some of the urban centres. At one school there is a full-time counsellor, and 40 kilometres down the road the counsellor teaches halftime. One of them is a high school, so you don't have a full-time counsellor in a high school perhaps one of the essential times when you need a counsellor in a school. In another district there is only one full-time counsellor at one of the schools — out of the whole district, one counsellor in one school.

Then in other areas there are teachers trying to teach four different subjects in one classroom because of blended grades. Now, this might seem a very nice image of the old schoolhouse where everybody is in the room together and all are learning together, but let's look at this realistically. Imagine teaching grades four to seven in one classroom with one teacher and all the different needs of all those kids, the different areas and different levels. This is what teachers are trying to do.

I've seen the impact of classes not being taught in some high schools. I've earlier told the House about some classes not being taught in Port McNeill at North Island Secondary. Port Hardy Secondary School doesn't have grade 12 math. It doesn't have chemistry or physics 11 and 12. This is, obviously, a huge problem for children.

Then of course, there is — as many of my colleagues, other members, have mentioned — the issue of teacher-librarians — one of the keys to literacy, which, as I think we are all well aware now, is one of the great goals of this government. Teacher-librarians guide students. They guide them in reading and research. They underpin the work done in the classroom. They let students explore new avenues. We've heard the statistics of teacher-librarians down almost 25 percent across the province.

What does this mean in reality in local schools? Well, in the three school districts in my constituency…. School district 72, which is Campbell River and Sayward, had a 42-percent cut in teacher-librarians, and school district 84, which is Gold River and Tahsis, Zeballos and Kyuquot, a 50-percent cut in teacher librarians — halved. In that school district, by the way, the number of students went down by only 11 percent, but the number of teacher-librarians was halved. School district 85 with Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Alert Bay, Sointula and Woss — wide cross-sections of communities a long way apart from each other — had a cut of 60 percent. That's 60 percent. So much for the golden goal of literacy.

Yesterday, as we heard, was World Teachers Day, and it was very nice to be able to talk to the House about teachers. Unfortunately, it's such a sad time. On that day Heather Reisman, an entrepreneur, a businesswoman, had a piece in the Vancouver Sun about the importance of literacy. As we know, she runs a chain of bookstores across the country, and I quote: "Early literacy is the very basis of self-esteem and confidence. It's a clear indicator of future success. Yet many of the…school libraries and classrooms are in dire need, mainly the result of underfunding and cutbacks."

These are the issues that the teachers wanted to be able to address, wanted to be able to negotiate. They wanted to be able to negotiate conditions. They wanted to be able to make sure that they could ensure that our kids got the best possible education so that our kids actually did get the opportunity to grab the golden goal, to reach for the golden goal of literacy instead of being shunted aside.

This government really does not care. I just don't think that with this bill the government can care about what is happening to our children in the classrooms, because teachers aren't childminders. They are professionals. Even the Minister of Education recognized this, although this was after the settlement was announced.

Teachers share their knowledge. They provide educational stimulus. They are mentors. As was said earlier, we all have memories — often fond — of our teachers. They have guided all of us, and we hope that they will guide the coming generations.

How many teachers dedicate hours to their work beyond the school day — elementary school teachers in the classroom on weekends, getting ready for their kids? These are their children, and that's why they want to make sure that learning conditions are right in the classroom for their children. High school teachers work with students as they go through some of their most formative and most difficult years. They work voluntarily out of school with clubs and with teams. They coach. They work on drama projects or yearbooks. They lead band — that's if the band program hasn't been cut.

But teachers have been pushed to the limit by this government. They spend hundreds of dollars each out of their own money — out of the money for which there is no negotiation for an increase — for school supplies so they can make sure that their kids get the best quality education that is possible. They want to make sure that children's learning experience is as rich as possible.

In rural communities this is a huge…. Teachers work so hard at it. I know an elementary school teacher in Sointula, at the north end of the Island, who wanted to make sure that her kids got the supplies needed to carry out school projects. So she got on the ferry from

Sointula on a weekend and went over to Port McNeill. Port McNeill didn't have it — had to go to Campbell River. Campbell River didn't have what she needed, so she had to go down to Courtenay. We're talking about a commute on a weekend as well as a ferry ride, with the ferry fare increases — a round trip of about 600 kilometres — to buy supplies so that she, out of her own money, could make sure that her kids got good quality education.

This is the sort of commitment that we see across the province from teachers who are dedicated to their children. That is why imposing a settlement, as this bill does — this refusal to negotiate — is so wrongheaded.

If I may, I'd like to quote some examples from teachers. I've been getting, as I think many members have, many e-mails from teachers, much correspondence. I think one of the saddest ones I've had is from a high school teacher who has been working for about 15 years. It starts:

Teachers are concerned. Teachers are writing. I find it very dispiriting, because one of the things is that we are getting so many disillusioned teachers, so many teachers….I've talked to a number of teachers who have worked for many, many years. Some have retired, and some are on the brink of retirement. What is truly frightening is where are the young teachers going to come from? Where are the teachers going to come from when they can see how demoralized their colleagues are, how badly treated they've become?

If they see this bill being pushed forward, an imposed contract re-imposed, with the government acting like the bully in the school yard just pushing and pushing and pushing until they have their way, how are we going to get new young teachers in? How are we going to attract people to make sure that our children do get the quality education they need? Because what teachers know, what I know my colleagues on this side of the House know, and what parents know is that our children are our future. This is not said lightly. If we don't give our children the fullest opportunities, if we don't give them the chance to fully learn and to have the experiences and the mentoring, the leading — what good teachers can offer — we are going to be so denuded as a society, there will be nothing left.

That's why I, too, as the member for Vancouver-Fairview said earlier, implore this government to think again, to think about what it is doing, about how it is pushing people to a brink at this stage. Whatever happens at this stage, think of the next stage, think of how we are going to carry on, because I know young people, as well as talking to teachers about to retire….

I heard that the Minister of Labour says that he's sad and that he's disappointed that he has to bring this bill, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act, before us. I heard him say that he had no choice but to do this. He says that his associate deputy, the fact-finder assigned to meet with the employer and the teachers to see if common ground could be found to move negotiations forward…. Through that process the minister says there was no common ground to be found. The Minister of Labour says that the two parties had met 35 times and did not come to an agreement on one term or one item. From there, the minister and this government drew the conclusion that Bill 12 must be brought in, that the legislative hammer must be brought down, and that is the end of the concept of free collective bargaining.

Since the release of the report, the tabling of this legislation, I went back, and I went to look at the fact-finding report. I read it again with a lot more care, I must admit, than the first time I read that report. I must say, what I took from that report is that there is common ground. The fact-finder said both the employer and the teachers have priorities, and the common ground where the priorities meet is around working and learning conditions. Now, some may say: "What exactly are working and learning conditions? What does that mean?" You may ask: how does that relate to the best interests of students?

Let me just go through some of those items in this House. First, we've heard from other members that there is the issue of class size. Let's just visit history a little bit. In 2002 the B.C. Liberal government, the Premier, removed the upper class-size limit of 30 and made 30 the average class size for students in grades four to 12.

The government will have you believe that class size is not an issue. The government will have you think that the students' opportunity to learn will not be affected by class size. Well, I sat on the Education

Committee in the last four years. In 2001 the committee went out to meet with educators, students, parents, administrators and other British Columbians who are interested in the issue of education. We received many, many submissions from members of the public. They took the time out. They came and spoke to the committee — young and old, and people from all walks of life.

Now, at one point — as you can imagine, hon. Speaker — the issue of class size surfaced. As it happens, one of the members of the committee is a retired principal, the former member for Delta North, Mr. Reni Masi. Recognizing his profession and his knowledge base in the area, I asked Mr. Masi whether or not there is an optimal class size. People talk about it. I've heard all sorts of debate about it. I asked: "From your experience as a principal and a former teacher, what are your thoughts on that?" Mr. Masi responded by saying that yes, there is. So I asked: "What is the optimal number in terms of class size?" He said to me: "Sixteen." That's what he said: 16, 17 maybe. Some members might think it's funny, but that's what the member said. You can check the record, because what he said is on record.

I raise this point because all too often you hear from the government that…. When the issue of class size is raised, you are led to believe that those seeking lower class sizes are unreasonable in their demands, that somehow teachers who are fighting this fight are just doing it for some bizarre, selfish reason.

I know that some will say: "So what? This is anecdotal." Let me just say that Mr. Masi was a former member of the Liberal government caucus — not an NDP caucus member but a Liberal caucus member — who said the optimal class size is 16. Now, I didn't sort of just take Mr. Masi's word for it. I thought, okay. Here's what he said, and because everyone's talking about it and it is an important issue, I thought, you know, maybe I should just go look it up, maybe do some research, check it out and see what it says. The library — full of books out there, although underfunded as it is, dwindling as we speak…. But never mind that. So I went to check and see what the research says.

Let me tell you about a specific research project that was done that I came across in my reading: a project called student-teacher achievement ratio — for short, STAR. In the STAR project students and teachers were randomly assigned to various class-size conditions in grades K-to-three: small class sizes of about 13 to 17, regular class sizes of about 22 to 26, and regular class sizes of 22 to 26 with full-time teacher assistants.

The results show that students in smaller class sizes for the first four years of school performed better on nationally normed and criterion-referenced tests. Moreover, students who had been in small classes continued to move ahead of their grade level as they continued on through to grade 12. The study didn't stop there. It found that a greater proportion of those students wrote entrance exams for post-secondary institutions, that a smaller proportion of students who began in small class sizes were charged with criminal offences and that a smaller proportion of those students applied for income assistance.

Now, you may say that's just one study, Mr. Speaker. I might add and just point out for the members of the House that this is by far the largest and most comprehensive study that has been done around the issue of class size. It has been noted by the experts in the field that not one study since 1904 to the present contradicts this finding on the issue of class size. So what is the lesson learned here? Class size matters. Is it any wonder that teachers who enter the profession — whose hopes and dreams are to help young people maximize their potential, to see the flowers grow and blossom, if you will — fight this tooth and nail, that they put their heart and soul in it like you have never seen anything before?

You know what? It isn't just about the teachers or, if you say, their working conditions. It is also about benefiting the students in the class. At the end of the day if we invest in that now and believe in the study and the research that's been done, it will pay dividends for all of us in our society.

There are about 1,800 public schools throughout British Columbia. Every one of them is the heart of our community. We know how much young people benefit when parents, teachers and community members are all helping to provide them with opportunities to learn at home, at school and in the broader society. Teachers work hard. They work hard to meet the unique needs of all of our students. But you know what, hon. Speaker? They cannot do it alone, and they are getting tired in this process. They feel that they don't have the support that is necessary for them to do the best job that they know they can, that they feel they can and that they want to do.

They need resources, and they need support, and I am very sad to say that they're not receiving it from government. The government stripped from the last collective agreement the teachers' ability to ensure that there's certainty on the question of class size. We have seen class sizes go up in many districts across the province. The average class size for grades four to 12 is 30. But you know what? That's the average. There are many, many classes with more than 30 students in the classroom.

That's just one issue on the issue around learning conditions. Class size is not the only issue. The other issue is class composition. Now, I must admit before I entered into this Legislature, I didn't know what class composition was. What is class composition? Well, let me tell you. Simply put, class composition means the makeup of students in a particular classroom. Class composition is the other component that is vital for the educator and the student.

In today's diverse makeup of our community there are a variety of different students with different needs and different strengths. What that means for teachers is that they must develop an educational program that will meet the needs of all of the students in the class-

room. I have a number of inner-city schools in my riding, the riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and we have students from all walks of life. Some come to school hungry and scared. Some come to school with English as their second language and don't speak one word of English.

I was one of those students, by the way, when we first immigrated here. I walked into the classroom. I didn't speak a word of English — didn't know what the heck anybody was saying. Thank goodness for those teachers and the special attention I received that I have now learned how to speak English — some say not very well. Nonetheless, I've learned the language. But with English, when it's not your first language, you need special assistance.

Some come to school with a knowledge base that's above the average norm. They are specially gifted or talented in their own area, and they excel beyond the average student in their classroom. Some come with other special gifts, special gifts where they need special help — children with some difficulties, perhaps, in learning or processing, with developmental challenges — and they need extra assistance in that learning environment.

As you know, between 2001 and 2004 the number of special education professionals in our education system declined. As our communities are getting more complex, as the challenges are increasing in the classrooms for both the educators and the students, the number of supports specializing in assisting those children actually went down — not by one, not by two, not by three — by 740. That's 28 percent of the total reduction of teachers in our system.

Now, you will hear the government say: "Yeah, but enrolment also went down. The number of students also went down." Well, let me tell you this: the enrolment went down by 5 percent. I'm not a mathematician, but I can do simple math. A reduction of 28 percent versus a reduction of 5 percent of students is a huge difference.

What that means is that in the education system somebody is doing without. Students are not getting the attention they need, and that means their learning outcomes are compromised. That means they don't have the best opportunity to maximize their potential. That means the teachers who see this every day, the front-line workers, if you will, who see this every day — I know it breaks their hearts. They entered into the profession because they want to see the students and the children excel.

It is in this context that you will understand why teachers desperately, desperately want certainty in the classroom around class size and classroom composition. Teachers are expected to provide special support to students with special needs, the gifted children, the average children. These students need individualized education plans, those who need extra help. I believe that students with unique needs should get individualized education plans, because they are different, and we want to make sure that how they're being educated fits their exact needs.

I know that very well. I know of one youngster who needed that help. Because of the cutbacks and shortages in the education system, he had to leave the school he was accustomed to. He was in grade four. He had to move to another school and leave his friends behind because of that special need, because the school he had been attending didn't have those kinds of supports. Some schools now are forced to amalgamate their supports into one school in a region or area because they can't afford to ensure that kind of support is everywhere.

The student went there. You know what? The teacher who met this young student and the family was fantastic, and I've seen the development of this young person since that time. His confidence grew. He learned. He excelled. He learned that he wasn't a dummy but that he just learns differently. Now that school is offering it — not in his home school but somewhere else. Some children don't have that luxury, because their parents can't get them to a school outside of their district.

I know of another child who is in exactly that situation. Because that family has two kids, it was impossible for the family to manage having the two kids go to two different schools. As a result, the one who needed the extra help is not going to the school with the extra help outside of the district. That's a true story. It happened just this September.

Now, if you are a teacher in a classroom, as another example the teachers and educators and families have told me, where you have a split class…. Some people call it a blended class, which is that you're in a classroom that has perhaps two different grades, grade fours and fives gather in one classroom — a split class.

On top of that, you have some students with ESL needs. On top of that, you have gifted students who excel in their unique way above average and far above average in some instances, and then you have the other spectrum of gifted children who have special needs. They excel differently, and they have particular demands and teaching techniques that are required for them to reach average.

When you have a variety, a varying degree, of children in that classroom, you've got one hour to teach a lesson to two different classes, classes with a blended variety of children in their composition of learning capacity, and you as the teacher are supposed to come up with an individualized education plan and deliver this in one hour.

Do you think that's an easy job for a teacher to do? Do you think that in those circumstances the teacher could do the best job they can? Do you think the students get the attention they need? I don't think so. I've heard from parents who see that situation go on with their own child. I've heard from teachers who say: "I'm at wit's end, and I don't know what to do anymore." Some have said to me: "I think I'm going to go and find another profession, because this is just too hard, and I

can't take it." It's not because the work is hard but because they see the children falling between the cracks, and they can't take it.

So with fewer support workers, teachers are being forced to make very difficult decisions about the kids in their class with different needs. How many special needs students can a teacher reasonably be expected to teach in a single class? What happens to the quality of instruction when a teacher is forced to respond to special needs students? Let me be clear: teachers support integration. They want to see a variety of children, different children in the schools. But they also need the necessary supports, teaching supports, in the classrooms. The provisions for support for teachers with special needs students — that was a collective bargaining issue — were stripped. That means the certainty of what that class composition looks like is gone.

With fewer support workers, fewer specialists, fewer ESL teachers, teachers are being forced to make very difficult decisions about which kids in their class are most needy and how they go about doing their job. This government made that decision to take that certainty away. I heard the member for Peace River South say he supported that, and I think he said it with such bravado that it made me think he was proud of that. I hope I heard wrong, but I don't think so.

But I'll say this. When teachers are fighting for this issue, yes, some will say it is for them, but more importantly, we all believe — even though we have different points of view — in providing the best education system that we can. I would ask members before they speak with such absolute conviction on this decision of government that perhaps they step back and try their very best to look through these issues with a set of different eyes, and maybe they will see something different.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I want to thank the teachers for speaking up on the issue. They are raising the alarm because of the damage that is being done, and they see it before their very eyes. They're putting the needs of their students first. Make no mistake about that.

The government will respond that they have put more money back into the system, that the average all works out, and they'll cite examples of one student being left out of a classroom because of those limitations, because of those restrictions, in the collective agreement. They will say that, but in reality, we know that there are ways to actually address the one student who might not be able to get into a class because of bargaining-rights limits on class size. We know that, and there is flexibility already built in, even if you have class-size limitations and class-size compositions in the collective agreement. Members should know that. I've heard it from teachers, I've heard it from parents, and I've seen, with my very own eyes, how that works.

For people to say that there is no flexibility, that this must be done and this is how it must be done and why it must be done, that students somehow should not be the political football the government often accuses teachers of when they raise the issue of class size and bargaining in the bargaining process and composition in the bargaining process…. They are just using that as an argument. They don't have, in my view, the real facts to actually back it up. The reality is that there is already built-in flexibility to address those very things.

Those are the two issues I raise that teachers feel passionately about and that I saw in the fact-finder's report as one of two priority issues that they want dealt with. I can understand why they would want it dealt with. It makes complete, logical sense to me — because they know it matters in the lives of students. That is why.

I want to add another component to this picture, and that is the issue of funding. Let us be clear: the government froze the education budget in 2001. Yes, as a result of community pressure, as a result of parents speaking up, as a result of educators speaking up, the government has added a few dollars to the education budget on a one-time basis here and there in the last four years. But let us not forget that the government has also increased the costs of education — things like increased MSP premiums imposed by the government into the education system, things like increased fuel costs imposed by the government. I might add that fuel costs are continuing to rise with no sign of relief — not from government, not in the minibudget, not from anywhere.

School boards will have to bear the brunt of that. They will have to make those tough decisions of trying to figure out how we're going to get those yellow school buses running, the buildings heated, the classrooms warm and so on without having to take out programs. They will be stuck with that decision once again.

I know that the government side…. Certainly, the former Minister of Education felt very good about it. Christy Clark — she used to get up and say things like, "I'm not making those decisions; I'm funding students' education adequately," when we know very well that programs are being slashed right and center and that school boards and school trustees are at their wit's ends. As a result of that, some 112 schools closed.

Do you think those schools closed because teachers or educators wanted to close them, or because school trustees or parents wanted them closed? Absolutely not. They had to close those schools because they couldn't fund them and because the government wouldn't fund them.

Just when the government members are congratulating themselves, they might just pause and take a moment and remember the facts. The fact is that the government has underfunded the education system, and they continue to underfund the education system. More than that, what they're doing today — and what the government has done by introducing Bill 12 and by wanting to debate this legislation through exhaustion, by making members go into the middle of the night — is adding fuel to the fire. They're not trying to help de-

Just when the government members are congratulating themselves, we must pause and think back. Now, I heard earlier today that the member for Peace River South said that when he was in school, he had to share books when he was growing up, that classroom conditions weren't optimal, and that somehow why should we be so shocked today when we hear some of these issues because some of us grew up with that experience. Well, I have spoken with parents who remember that a class size of 40 was once the norm.

Let me say this. I come from a family where my parents sacrificed everything just so that their children — namely, me, my brother and my sisters — could have better opportunities than they did. My mother has a grade six or, at best, a grade seven level of education. My father has a grade 11 or, at best, a grade 12 education from China. My brother, my younger sister and I are the first generation in the Kwan family to have the opportunity to attend post-secondary education.

I now have a 2½-year-old daughter, and I wish and I work like crazy every single day with my husband and my extended family to make sure that she has the best opportunities in the world. I desire nothing else but the very best for my child, and let me tell you, I desire that for all the children.

I sure as heck hope there are enough books in the classrooms for all of the children. I sure as heck hope that the learning conditions improve so that it's better than what it was when I was growing up or when the member for Peace River South was growing up. We see the situation. Instead of improvement, we see things actually declining.

Now, it may be okay for the government to move things backwards, for that's what they have done in the last four years, and they feel very comfortable with that. We've seen it. We've seen it in the last four years. After all, we now have children as young as 12 working with very little regulation, and that somehow seems to sit okay with the government members.

We somehow think it's okay that people who are in greatest need don't get the help they need, and we see a huge amount of people become homeless in our communities. The government will say: "Oh, but we're doing more than anybody else." Well, there's a fallacy in that response, and I won't take time to go into that today, because it is a debate for another day. But it is false to pretend that homelessness is being addressed when the government's actions and policies have increased homelessness in our communities. Research after research has shown that.

Now, what we want on this side of the House is to see progress. We want to see things get better for the next generation. We don't want to see things move back in time. Isn't it interesting that for a government that is so zealous in their support for test standardization, so zealous that they're almost…. Let me just say zealous; it might be unparliamentary if I use the other word. They don't seem nearly as interested in standards for resources and classroom support. How is that possible? Why is that?

Let me just turn to another issue, and that is the issue of teacher-librarians. There are no set standards in British Columbia around this issue. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, only two percent — and let me repeat it so every member can hear this clearly: only two percent — of schools in this province have a full-time librarian. Put another way, 98 percent of the students do not have librarians. School libraries have had their hours reduced and their staff cut back. Meanwhile, this government proclaims it wants B.C. to be the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent.

Deputy Speaker: Can I remind the members that there's no comment when you're not sitting in your chair, and all comments have to be directed through the Chair.

J. Kwan: Between 2002 and 2004 teacher-librarian staffing dropped by 25 percent. Statistics Canada says that the budget for new acquisitions for elementary schools was $11.13 per student, and for secondary schools, it was $13.21 per student. I can tell you that you cannot buy much in a bookstore for $13.21 today. I was just in the bookstore the other day and bought my little kid a bunch of books. I walked out of there; I got three books, and it cost me 60 bucks.

Now, the government wants to spend millions to give students a book to take home — they say — yet they will not pay for someone to teach kids how to use and get the most out of the library system. Well, isn't that typical of the Liberal spending priorities, and isn't it interesting that the Minister of Finance would rather spend tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on partisan ads rather than investing those dollars in the education system?

Conservative estimation. I don't know how much those ads cost. The Minister of Finance won't tell us.

J. Kwan: Oh, I think she knows. I think she doesn't want British Columbians to know how much money at

this time the government is spending on partisan advertising. After all, before the election, they only blew $7 million overbudget on partisan advertising to benefit their political gain. They wouldn't want to blow the whistle on that — wouldn't want anybody to know that until after the fact, in the hopes that people might forget.

Well, let me say this. A conservative estimation of the cost of a day of advertising…. I'd say it's probably about $54,000 a day, keeping in mind those ads appeared in all of our major papers and the community papers across the province. It's a lot of papers. I don't know; I'm just doing a conservative estimation. It's not like me to do a conservative estimation, but I'm doing it right here, right now. I say $54,000 a day.

On the basis of the Statistics Canada figure on the cost of books, one could buy approximately 4,500 library books that will benefit 4,500 students at the minimum. Rather than investing in books, staff and the education system, the government would rather spend the money that will benefit their political gain.

Now, in my district, 30 percent of kids show up on the first day of school speaking not a word of English. Their parents are often not able to teach to them or read to them in English. Many of them are challenged because these families face their own difficulties: poverty, to name one; childhood traumas; addiction; prostitution. The list goes on. I ask: how will these kids have the opportunity to best maximize their potential? How will giving these kids a book and leaving them to their own devices help them learn by themselves?

Libraries should be an equalizer to help level the playing field between those kids who have resources at home and those who don't. But this government doesn't believe in levelling or equalling the field. For that matter, this government, I don't think, believes in libraries, in teacher-librarians and special assistants.

Across the system, stresses are becoming sharper and more pronounced. Illness and sick leaves are up, and people and teachers and students are doing their very best to cope. In particular, low-income families are struggling to cope, and the wave of cuts of social services compounds things. Community resources, which my office used to refer families to, have been cut back. Children are falling through the cracks. When we lose the opportunity to intervene in a struggling child's education in the early years, we know that the problems compound, and we know that it is much more difficult to fix later. These learning problems are magnified when the supports are not in place. A child's confidence and self-esteem are not easily repaired, and lost ground is not easily regained.

Then, there is the issue of the responses of the government. Was this the only way to deal with the issue — Bill 12? Were there other options available? It seems that there were other options available. The fact-finder report makes it clear that there is an opportunity to address learning and working conditions such as class size, classroom compositions, teacher-librarians and so on. By moving constructively on these issues, I believe that government would have helped to break the logjam. They could have sent a message to the teachers that their issues are important, that the government will address them, that the teachers do have an opportunity to respond and work with the government and really become a partner in the education system.

Parents would have known that the government actually cared about the issues that affect the quality of education, that the government has shown them with action that they actually care, and that they were seeing a government acting as a partner instead, as my other colleagues have said, as a schoolyard bully.

Instead, the government has chosen to pick another fight and to ignore the issues in the classroom that are getting progressively worse as a result of their policies. Well, I am sad to say that the government needs to stop blaming others. If the government takes on that responsibility for its record on education, we probably would have an opportunity to stem the crisis that's before us.

But maybe what the government really wants to do is to distract people from the issue at hand. If that's what they're doing, then I am sad to say that the reason why Bill 12 is before us is for other reasons than in the best interests of students. The government's attempt to pick fights, to blame others…. I heard members say: "Maybe we should stop with the blame." Maybe the government should show some leadership on that front and stop the blame and stop pointing fingers.

I think that British Columbians do expect more from their government. They expect their government to be adults here. They expect the government to bargain in good faith, to think of the public interest first in the longer term. That's where the government has failed to date. They have failed the children and the parents of British Columbia. The fix on Bill 12 will not address the issue in the long term. The pain will come, and we will see it. Sadly, we will see it in the children, because they lack the opportunities that they deserve.

You know, as a wise teacher once told me, failure is not final. It is a success waiting to happen. I do believe that there is a better and more respectful way to handle the teacher bargaining process and that Bill 12 is not the way. I believe we can tackle the challenging issues in our schools as partners and not as adversaries.

The motion that I move gives us the opportunity to do that, because it's asking us to not pass second reading at this time, and that, at least in the minimum, we defer it for another six months. Let's get out there and listen to the teachers who are hurting. They are hurting in every aspect. Let's get out there and talk to parents, because parents want us to solve this problem for the long term.

There is the possibility to do that. To do that we must show respect in this House, and we must begin to act in the direction that sometimes feels counterintuitive. For the government, that means: go against your ideological grain, and look at the bigger picture into the longer term and the opportunities that are before the government today.

I know that teachers want the dialogue. It is sad, I must say, that this government in the last four years under the leadership of the former Minister of Education, Christy Clark, who happened to not take the time to meet with teachers in her entire term as the Minister of Education…. In fact, it wasn't until just before the election that the new then Minister of Education, the now Minister Of Aboriginal Relations, met with the teachers. It is a shame that the government shows such disrespect for the teachers by poking a finger in their eyes, by saying to the teachers that they didn't have the right to self-govern their own profession. Every other profession has that right, but the teachers did not.

On top of that, as they were taking away the rights of teachers, they went and gave those rights to car dealers. They're saying to car dealers that they deserve the right to self-govern but that the teachers do not. Then, in that process, the government brought in legislation that says to teachers: "You know what? Our trust and respect for you has so much declined that the government decided that educators should not sit on school planning councils."

They put it in legislation to forbid that as though somehow the teachers are going to go in there and contaminate things. I find that shocking. Is that the way that we show respect? Is that the way we want to show people we want a dialogue? Talk about these ingenuous offers. The government says, oh, but there is the dialogue table now that we want to offer to the teachers. Well, after we stick our fingers in your eyes and poke you several times, and then we say: "Hey, will you come and sit with me and be friends…?" Guess what. That kind of approach is, quite frankly, not helpful.

That was the lesson I thought the government learned from this election: that we don't want to be confrontational, that we want to be consensus builders, that we want to reach out to work with people, and that we actually want to bring them together instead of dividing and pitting people against people. You know what? Bill 12 does exactly that. It pits communities against communities, and meanwhile, the government is saying hurray for us.

I can't tell you how dismaying it is. I have seen this movie played many a time, and the government will say: "Well, you guys did it too when you were in government." Well, let me say this and be very clear on the record: if the minister says that the system is broken, that we need to fix the system, then what the government should do is to bring forward a system that works, and then, in that process, invite the experts in the field to the table to talk about how to fix the system instead of alienating them and then, after the fact, saying: "Oh, but let's play nice together."

How could the government believe that is the right way to go? I move this motion because it gives us the opportunity to delay and to further do harm to what has already been done by the government's actions to date. I do not think it's too late. I think that the educators will come to the table. I think the government should stand down Bill 12. I urge the government to stand down Bill 12.

Now, I know that the Minister of Labour will agree with me, and let me quote this on record:

That was the comment from the now Minister of Labour, the then critic, on a bill that was tabled back in October of 1992, on the Labour Relations Code.

The principle that the government…. I know they have the logic to process the motion that I tabled. They could apply that logic they used when they debated Bill 84. They could do the same here today. We could use that very same logic that the now Minister of Labour used back in October of 1992 today as we debate Bill 12.

I urge all members of this House to enter into the debate about this hoist motion to delay action, to reflect back on the actions to date and to think about the future of children and what it could mean if we could stem the escalating crisis before us. Now, I will say this. I know it is difficult for this government to do that because, historically, they have taken the confrontational approach. The government has embarked on a course that at every turn shows that they didn't support the educators in our system and that shows they have other priorities at hand.

The government was elected in May of 2001. In August of 2001 the government enacted Bill 18, the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, which made education an essential service under the Labour Relations Code. And the government feels very proud about that. The members of government feel very proud about that.

Guess what. The International Labour Organization, under the United Nations committee in Geneva, condemned the B.C. government for this action. The committee said in March of 2003: "Recalling that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests, the committee concludes that the provisions of Bill 18, which makes education an essential service, are in violation of freedom-of-association principles and should be repealed."

Not only did they ignore that, the government went on to enact Bill 27, the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, and imposed a collective agreement and contract on the teachers. At the same time the government brought in Bill 27, they brought in Bill 28. The Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act they called it. Bill 28 essentially removed the ability of teachers to

Teachers could no longer negotiate class size, school days, assignment of courses, class composition or staffing ratios for teacher-librarians, ESL teachers, counsellors and learning resource teachers. And any provisions in their existing contracts that addressed those matters were ripped up.

The ILO condemned this action again. Here's what they had to say: "Such a unilateral action by the authorities cannot but introduce uncertainty in labour relations which, in the long term, can only be prejudicial."

Now you'd think this would be enough for the government to back down. Well, not so — another legislative hammer, another condemnation from the United Nations body and another blow to our education system, another blow to the teachers and their morale, another signal sent to the teachers.

Most recently the B.C. Court of Appeal agreed. In February 2005 the highest court in this province stated that class size is a "condition that affects the employment relationship." and the Hon. Mr. Justice Lambert of the Court of Appeal said:

After removing the teachers' right to negotiate classroom matters, the government then appointed an arbitrator to decide which contract terms would be stripped from the teachers' contracts. The arbitrator ruled that hundreds of pages of class sizes and composition provisions should be removed, and that was a flawed decision. Teachers took that to the courts, to the B.C. Supreme Court, and they won. Mr. Justice Shaw quashed the arbitrator's decision, ruling that it contained fundamental errors on points of law that are important to the education system in British Columbia, including to the teachers, the school boards and the students.

That's the history of it. This is why I say that the government will change the law when they feel like it, when they see fit. I really do wonder what the Attorney General thinks of that, because that's exactly what the government has done, and justices in our court system have condemned the government and ruled them in violation of the law. But the government proceeds, and they plunge ahead anyway.

In April 2004 the government introduced Bill 19, Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, which then overruled Justice Shaw's decision, to ensure there could not be contractual guarantees of class sizes and services to students with special needs or support from specialist teachers in the school system. That's what the government did. At every turn, when they're challenged, they turn around and write new laws to outlaw the Supreme Court decisions. They think somehow that's cool. Somehow that's okay. That's something we don't teach our children: to make up rules as you go along. But that's exactly what the government is doing, and you think somehow that's a good thing. I don't think so. I do not, I have to say.

Now before us is Bill 12. The government has shown after the election that they've learned nothing from the electorate. Conflict and confrontation is their approach. They rip up agreements, and you know what? To add insult to injury, they rip up laws whenever they can, just because that's their ideological belief.

It is time now that we set all of that aside and put students first — put the future of students first. It is time. And I promise I will not do this if the government stands down Bill 12: I will not say I told you so. I will simply offer, all of us — I'm sure every one of us on this side of this House will offer — our hands to the government and say let's work together to build an education system that will benefit the children, that will ensure families feel comfortable and feel good about our education system.

Let's make sure that the educators in our system are valued and respected. Let's send them a signal that it is time for a new partnership to begin. We can begin that today if the government stands down Bill 12.

R. Fleming: A few minutes ago I had an opportunity to meet with a number of students, parents and teachers from Greater Victoria schools — Claremont, Reynolds, Mount Douglas high school.

Virtually every one of them told me about the concerns they have about a year in education coming up — a potential year, following life after Bill 12 — a year of school where they'll have no sports, where they won't enjoy club activities or school newspapers, where large, overcrowded classrooms are the norm and are legitimized by the province and its actions on public education. That's what they're worried about outside this very institution tonight. I would encourage the members opposite, especially, to maybe talk to them and explain their rationale behind Bill 12 and their actions to date, their collective failure to resolve this dispute.

It's clear now that this government's plan for education bargaining, I think, is going just as was predicted and hoped for by the government's side. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy that they put into motion. Unfortunately, it represents politics at its worst in British Columbia. I'm quite sure the public affairs bureau has been updating the ministers responsible daily with polling information about how the government looks in the battle that they've set in motion, the battle that they've proudly stoked up between parents and teachers in this province.

You know, the members opposite have tried to display the position — to hide behind rhetoric — that they're in fact looking out for parents. But make no mistake. It's the government that's put parents through so much difficulty over the past 72 hours, and indeed, in the days and weeks to come.

This government doesn't want a secure, stable school system. Their actions over the past four years don't speak to that. Once again, they want to force their will and to impose settlements on teachers that will keep parents and students, yet again, in a state of limbo. They want to maintain the status quo of larger class sizes, fewer resources, less resources for special needs classes, with ineffective rules about class composition — all of those concerns that are legitimate and valid and just and are not able to be discussed at the table. They want to defend that state of affairs.

Well, let me tell you that this side of the House deeply regrets that we have to live through this situation. We regret the strain that the government is putting on hundreds of thousands of families right across B.C., on the children of those families, on tens of thousands of teachers — let's not forget them — on the support staff, the trustees, the administrators in our school system — the anxiety and strain put on all those people.

The government has almost made it a point of pride to admit over and over again the obvious: the system is broken. I've heard it from a number of ministers across the aisle. They crow on about it almost as if it's a bold type of admission. But it's not owning up to a responsibility. It's not demonstrating a commitment to fix it by saying that the system is broken over and over again.

Their actions over the past four years and in particular the past 18 months, in fact, demonstrate a lack of commitment and a lack of hard work to find solutions. Their so-called admission that the system is broken is merely a launching pad to attack and to assign blame to everyone else but themselves. They absolve themselves. They point fingers at teachers, at school boards, and most of all at the opposition, at previous administrations. They've done it over and over again. That is, in fact, exactly what has brought us to the brink of this crisis — that attitude.

At the heart of where we are today is the matter that teachers aren't being respected in this province. They aren't being respected as professionals. They aren't being respected as guardians of our children's learning, nor just as basic people who are dedicated, who on a daily basis put their lives into the love of teaching other people to learn. That really is it. Because teachers aren't respected by this government, parents and kids aren't being respected either. In fact, they're being used as pawns in a political game.

This government knows full well that it is disrupting lives, that it is disrupting families. What a cost to learning that is. What a cost to the economy, for parents who are busy right now, probably, and next week may be asking their employers for a day off to cope with the chaos in their working lives — the chaos in their lives that's caused by this government's failure to find any solutions at all, failure to even look for any kind of 11th-hour compromise that could have made this holiday weekend not a time of high anxiety that it will be.

Imagine the talk — maybe the members opposite would like to imagine this — around the table this Thanksgiving. You think anyone's going to be having thoughts for this government during grace? I don't think so. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of opinions about this government's calculated, cynical record and their recent actions on education in our school system.

If parents are taking days off, if they're asking for time off to care for their kids, if they're going to go through all that stress and anxiety and turmoil this week and next and beyond, you know, it would be nice if they could at least know that maybe there would be some good at the end of it — that it was for something, that maybe it will actually lead to a system that isn't broken, or that this government will actually do something to reduce the exacerbation and tensions in our school system. But they won't get that assurance at all. It will be all for naught, because this government has no commitment to fix this broken system.

Hon. Speaker, I would submit to you that this dispute isn't about the B.C. Teachers Federation anymore, if it ever was. It's gone well beyond that. The members opposite have said, you know, the more things change, the more they stay the same, and talked about movies seen before, etc.

But it actually is different this time. There are no bogeymen of 32 percent wage increases. The minister can't say that teachers are being greedy, and that's the root of this dispute, like her predecessor Christy Clark delighted in doing to no end. This dispute is about the desire to actually talk about teaching and learning conditions. That's the difference.

It's a cumulative process. This dispute is about four years now of disrespect by a government that has gone out of its way to dump on teachers, to strain and provoke our education system.

It's not 1993; it's not 1996. I've heard those dates repeated ad nauseum here in October 2005. I can't tell you how many times I have heard those dates this week from the members opposite. It's not even 1998. I took the liberty of pulling out an article about 1998, about the teachers' tentative agreement then, because 1998, while there were bitter feelings around that, to be sure, did create 1,200 new teaching positions as part of the agreement. It did include an additional $75 million for smaller class sizes for the kindergarten to grade three students. It did include $75 million toward restoring libraries, counsellors, support teachers in the system. That's a pretty significant difference to what we have on offer, here and now in October 2005, which is exactly nothing but a worsening education system.

It is indeed 2005, and for four years we've had a government that has gone out of its way to increase class sizes. It has expanded the workload of teachers

and laid off thousands of teachers. It has reduced the education workforce. I have some numbers around here somewhere. Between 2001 and 2004 the school system lost 2,609 teaching positions. Only about 700 of those can be attributed to declining enrolment, and 1,900 positions were simply reduced services to students through larger classes and fewer support teachers.

School districts have reported to the province that they're hiring 630 more teachers this year. The minister said that repeatedly. Do the math. That restores less than one-third of the number of teaching positions cut beyond those related to declining enrolment. That's their record. The government can talk about the past all it wants, but the people of British Columbia are going to judge this government on its own record, and it's becoming clear to more and more British Columbians that this government epitomizes disrespect to the profession of teaching.

We remember the government's fiscal framework that they set out at the beginning of the last mandate. They pointed to deficits. They pointed to the need to embrace restraints to get to better times, but now that we have a better fiscal position, now that the business cycle has come around and improved, the message is exactly the same from the government. Basically, the message is that in good times and bad, this government will not help fix education. Teachers don't matter, in good times or bad.

It would seem that this government has no capacity to change with the times — to change its policies, to change its priorities, to change its resource allocations and its budgets. Nor does it have the capacity to see beyond its solution to difficulties. They're using the same extreme legislative mechanisms today, again, instead of good-faith bargaining. They're still prohibiting discussions from the very people who are in our classrooms day in and day out — the teaching professionals, the administrators — about what it's like in the classrooms of this province and about what improvements could be made to have a better school system.

You know, in good times I think what this proves is that this government is squandering an opportunity to turn the corner on education in British Columbia. They've not even made any effort to find a compromise that most people could live with — teachers, parents and, yes, the government, a reasonable government, that they could all live with. That is an opportunity that is being squandered and it will be our kids who pay the price.

Who knows? Its impact may be felt for years to come. It will be. I'm certain of that. The kids I spoke to outside this building half an hour ago said to me they think this year is a write-off and maybe next year, because they don't see change from this government. They can't expect action on class sizes or improved resources in the classroom or in their libraries or extracurricular activities for themselves, but a lot of these bright young people articulated to me that they can at least hope that the kids coming after them will see that. That's exactly who they feel they're standing up for in this dispute.

Instead of recognizing the new opportunities, the new times, even the way forward that was pointed to in the Connolly report dated September 30, only five days ago…. The opportunity that was identified in the report for provision of a parallel table to discuss class sizes, to discuss teaching and learning conditions, is being squandered, and it's a shame. Instead of seizing opportunity, we have no dialogue. We have no real bargaining at all from the government and haven't had for well over a year.

There have been 35 pretty much useless meetings where the government's bargaining agents came to the table with an empty folder to present to the other side. Imagine that. The government wouldn't even empower their own bargaining agents to talk about basic classroom issues. What a waste of time and money. What an exercise in frustration and disrespect that is — to call that bargaining.

Real bargaining should start with a credible, sympathetic set of shared goals, a set of shared interests that can be articulated by both parties who come together and talk about what is at the heart of our education system: our kids. Real bargaining should start with the assumption that both sides can contribute to making relations, to enhancing the learning potential in our school system. Those would be some shared goals and assumptions that would really put the province on a different footing.

The minister has labelled her predetermined, inflexible position as one of tough choices. Tough choices. It's kind of a way of patting oneself on the back when they fail to find any breakthrough — to say: "Aw, it's tough choices now. Didn't do anything; didn't accomplish anything. It's down to tough choices."

But mature governments here and everywhere else in the world, in every other province and democratic jurisdiction, have to directly face the people who work for them all the time: the civil servants, the teachers, social workers, prison guards or what have you — all kinds of people who provide important services. And the most important services are to our kids, to our society. Mature governments have to do that all the time. It's a matter of course for any government, and B.C. would be a better place if we had a mature government that could do this, as well, could do what every other government does.

This government knew during the election last May that the situation we have today was in the offing. Of course they did. The teachers' contract expired in June 2004. I'm afraid it's now clearly looking like this government was looking forward to this fight all along. They wanted it. They've baited; they've schemed; they've cajoled for this preplanned outcome to take effect. They've gotten us to exactly where they want us to be tonight.

They have articulated, if you want to use that word, their vision of how best to act in situations like this. They've articulated, once again, that force always

Now, maybe the government side has an idea of what will happen next week, as we all wonder through Thanksgiving weekend exactly what's going to unfold next week. But the parents across British Columbia and the school children — they have no idea. They have no idea what this government's predetermined clockwork plan for provocation and conflict is. This whole dispute really is looking more and more like a deliberate, calculated distraction, hon. Speaker — a distraction.

Instead of parents being able to talk about class sizes, and they would…. After September it's a new school year. They are talking about that; they were talking about that. Instead of being able to talk about class sizes and about the learning potential of their kids to be improved, they're distracted into how their family is going to cope next week if the schools aren't open.

That's part of the plan, isn't it? It was part of the government plan on the other side, all along. The government may think it has hatched a clever, pollster-inspired plan to pit parents against teachers, but here's where they're wrong. There is going to remain a serious question for them next week and well beyond. The question that people are going to ask, if not already, of this government is: what are you going to do for the school children of B.C.? What are you going to do for the school children of B.C. families? What are you going to do to improve learning conditions and class sizes in our schools across this province?

Another question that will be raised right across B.C. is: what are you going to do with the demoralized and disrespected teaching profession that doesn't trust you? Yes, this government is going to reap what they've sown from their tough choices. They will indeed. Bad choices — that's what they are.

How is bitterness throughout the school system going to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent? That's one of the great goals for a golden decade. How is bitterness going to do that? This isn't a great goal. It's a purely cynical, political calculation and nothing more. It's another lofty bit of hyperbole that hopes to gloss over the quagmire that we're headed into. Next week, instead of lessons in school that would support the creation of a better-educated, literate jurisdiction, instead of those lessons in schools that would promote those goals in drama, languages, mathematics and reading, the lesson the government is providing to our kids is one of conflict.

They're going to learn about the use of power and authority to force an outcome, and they're going to live with the consequences, unfortunately. It's their education that's being affected. Kids are learning that the people they trust most in their lives — and those people are parents and teachers; those are the people that kids trust most in their lives — are being set against one another by the government.

These trusted people are the very people that school children need in their lives if they're going to succeed in school, complete school and do well. They're the very people they need to succeed in life beyond school.

You know, teachers are — and they remain, whatever this dispute will do — dedicated to students. They are passionate in their desire to see their students succeed, but our teachers, too, need our support, hon. Speaker. They need our support if we want, as a province, to create a culture and environment that allows and encourages our teachers to work the magic they do with our children. If we want that, if we want to try and achieve the goal that the government has set out and that I quoted earlier, then we have to teach teachers fairly and, most importantly, with respect.

Teachers need to know that they are respected. They need to know that the public, through our government, are there for them to back them up and help them with their jobs, but this government can't seem to grasp this.

This legislation undermines the very foundation. It attacks the heart of what is fundamental to a successful public education system. For that reason, it must be withdrawn. Again, I go over some of the facts — the tragic circumstances, I guess — around this dispute. In B.C., rightly so, parents expect the government to work with teachers, not against them. They expect the government to improve education for their children. The sad reality — the spectacle of Bill 12 — is that this government has let parents and their children down.

The government didn't need to take this confrontational approach. I talked about the new times we're in, which the government is unable to see. They're unable to see the failure of the logic they presented four years ago in so-called bad times, so they still continue to offer that up as the excuse for not finding a way through the impasse today, in 2005 — to not recognize the new circumstances we're in. They didn't need to take this confrontational approach.

This legislation increases the level of confrontation, and unfortunately, it does nothing at all to improve learning in the classrooms across British Columbia. It was there; the fact-finder did provide an opportunity for some substantial progress to get us through this week, and perhaps to have further, fruitful discussions next week, to maybe get some trust back between both the parties that there was encouragement for them to talk and things being talked about that were important to both sides.

The rhetoric on the opposite side is very good at times about the goals they have for this population. They should be talking to teachers — they're important stakeholders — about how they're going to put their resources in to make it happen. It won't. It's cheap talk in this House and elsewhere if the government's going to say one thing and do another. The unfortunate thing, though, is that this mandate so far is continuing on very much like the last mandate of the government. It is a government that, unfortunately, chooses confrontation.

C. Wyse: As I begin tonight, I am going to reflect very briefly upon a small part of my conversation with

the House from last night, which I would simply like to point out to the hon. members across from me, in case they were not in the House when I spoke.

I would remind the House that I am a retired school teacher of 35 years. The first year that I taught was in 1969. I taught seven classes that averaged…. Pardon me. They didn't average; there were more than 40 students in each one of those classes. I mentioned to the House that it was my opinion that no one in this House would describe that situation as an ideal learning situation for students. I did point out that that was 1969. I then went on and drew — through other pieces of correspondence that I received from Cariboo South — from a variety of different sources that were now reporting that those numbers of 40 students in classes had once more reappeared in the year 2005.

I mentioned last night, and I repeat it here tonight, that it has been my experience that if the teachers did not demand learning and working conditions for the students, no government — and I repeat, no government — ever offered to improve the classroom situation for the child. That was the bottom line. That was the end of the story, and there were no exceptions.

I speak in favour of this motion that we have in front of us. But before I go there and further develop this rationale, I would like to recognize the people that are in the gallery here tonight. At this particular late time, I find it interesting — and I draw the attention of my hon. members here in the House — that we actually do have people that are here following this particular debate. I would also like to recognize the people following this debate on TV.

Personally, being a rookie, I have been somewhat surprised at the correspondence in all the different forms and the number of people that, in actual fact, have been following the debate in the House around this particular issue. I did find it somewhat surprising, the great amount of scrutiny that the community here in B.C. does have us under as we go through the important debate here around Bill 12. I would like to invite the public to come down and join us here while we continue on with this important debate.

Now, I do wish to go back and discuss with the House why I'm in favour of the motion that is here in front of us. I accept the golden rule, number one, which the government has placed in front of us. I have listened to it many times over the last several weeks to months, and I am absolutely, positively convinced that the hon. members opposite sincerely and truly believe in the goal that they have set. It's their number-one goal, and I will read it: "Make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent." As I've mentioned, I am convinced that my colleagues here in the House do believe that, and I believe everyone around the table does. However, the situation we have here is the methodology with which we attempt to gain and achieve that particular goal, and that is where the difference remains, in my mind.

That's where the debate and discussion is here tonight. It is on Bill 12. I support the motion to remove it. I encourage the government to reflect upon the rationale for not proceeding further with this particular motion. I encourage us here to find ways out of this confrontational situation that we find ourselves in.

I would like to read some reports from two different sources that are reporting what is going on around this particular situation here in British Columbia. I have chosen one from Toronto, and I have chosen one here from Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I've taken a little bit of liberty here. I'm trying to learn the rules of politeness in the House, so I have chosen to remove some names that have been mentioned in the article to put it into what I understand to be the correct form here in the House. I do wish to advise that I have taken a little bit of liberty here as I put the direct quote into the record. If I've missed some, I very much request your guidance to make sure that I get back on the straight and narrow.

I was very pleased this morning to hear a report in the House from the Minister of Labour to indicate that, in actual fact, the teachers have shown a willingness to move in improving that particular relationship, and I will come back, later on, to why I believe it rests with the government to also move in that area.

If the teachers don't like what they're offered at the bargaining table, that's too bad. It's take it or leave it. And if they leave it, the government introduces legislation to impose the contract on them anyway. That is a horrible system and one that has contributed significantly to the present lamentable and quite serious state of relations between the two sides.

In the last deal the teachers signed with the New Democratic Party government, they accepted a zero-zero-and-two-percent wage increase over three years.

Now to Victoria, from the Times Colonist. The headline is: "Teachers, B.C. Government Locked in Ideological Warfare." My understanding is that as a member of the opposition, I fit somewhat into that phrase of "B.C. government," so I am here attempting to convince my hon. members across the table to change their position on what we are debating here on Bill 12 and voting for hoisting the bill.

Now, I mentioned earlier I was also going to introduce one piece of correspondence that I received from my riding back in Cariboo South. The intent of this piece of correspondence is to set the tone on why I'm in favour of this particular motion to have the bill hoisted. I read a letter that had been sent to one of our hon. ministers of the government that we share here. It reads:

Back to the motion on why I wish to encourage this government to support the motion. We require some time in order to deal with this situation. We require some time to address the issues that affect the conditions of the learning environment for our students. We require some time to provide for the needs that are requested by our parents of those very students that have elected us here to serve after these needs.

When we have a look back over the situation and why we're here, the responsibility for this crisis rests with the decisions that have been made by the government over the last number of years. As I mentioned yesterday, the government has, to now, chosen a method of solution, of conflict and confrontation, as the first option. For a number of years this government has deliberately pursued actions that provoke the conflict with teachers. I wish to mention four or five of them.

The contract was torn up in 2002. Teachers were stripped of their self-governing body in 2003. There was a B.C. Supreme Court decision overruled on classroom composition in 2004. The teachers were used as political pawns in the 2005 election. There was a refusal to meet with teachers when the Premier had a chance to make progress.

This legislation here, Bill 12, clearly, in my opinion, increases the level of confrontation with teachers and does nothing to improve the learning conditions in the classroom. That very much is my opinion. I have shared the experience with you, and I bring that most sincerely in front of you.

The government's record on education over the past four years has hurt education. I mentioned these last night, but now, in trying to convince my colleagues, I would remind once more of the 2,500 teaching positions and increased class sizes across B.C. as a result of decisions made here in this House, over 113 schools closed all over the province — a dozen of which were in single-school communities. If I have time, I am going to take this House to Cariboo South, and I will describe some of these communities to you, because I happen to be representative of school districts that, in actual fact, have many single schools in them. They had more of that type of a situation a very short time ago.

I'm hoping that I will have time to get there, but unfortunately, they've only given me half an hour to make my case. But I may get another opportunity to come back and discuss this further. I sincerely hope that I am going to have that opportunity, because this issue is important for us to be debating and discussing for as long as necessary in order to get this confrontation out of the discussion that is represented here in Bill 12.

Now, back to my case. I get distracted too easily. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I apologize for that.

Education funding was frozen for three years while the downloading of millions of dollars of costs onto the local school boards required the local school boards to make a number of forced cuts in programs to pay for the necessary anticipated costs in other areas, since they are not allowed to plan for a deficit budget. Makes sense to me.

The results, though, don't make as much sense to me. I wish to now remind the House of some examples of increasing cost pressures here. Teachers' salary increases that were legislated were not funded, and those are ongoing costs. They have to be made up by the local boards on an ongoing basis. I do know that many of the hon. members on the other side of this House, with their business experience, understand very clearly the significance of being given an inflationary cost that was never funded to begin with, and the liability that stays with a group right throughout each year. It is compounded as each year passes. The cuts become more severe in order to deal with that set of financial circumstances.

The ongoing salary creep that takes place as teachers move up their salary grid. MSP increases that were a result of legislation passed by this House here — a huge increase of costs that the boards had to pick up. Not minor costs of a few tens of thousands of dollars; we're talking of hundreds of thousands of dollars in this particular case. Again, a creeping inflationary cost that has an effect that goes on and on and on.

Utility increases. When I was looking at doing this, I wrote down "hydro" here. I have absolutely no idea what I was doing when I wrote down just simply "hydro," because where I'm from, the hydro in some of our places has to be made with gasoline in order to deal with the school. In a district like where I'm from and represent, Cariboo South, that becomes even more inflationary.

Then of course we have the transportation costs. As we are well aware here, as is everyone here in British Columbia, the price of fuel has accelerated extensively. Our districts like Cariboo South that have winters in

them that require heating costs are going to have further inflationary aspects that come into place.

I would like to come back to the situation around the declining enrolment coupled with the declining number of teachers. The student enrolment decline has been about 3 percent overall. However, the situation we have with the reduction in teachers is about 8 percent. That has led to over 2,500 fewer teachers now than in 2001. In specific areas there have been noticeable reductions. I mentioned those last night, but I intend to repeat them here once more for the record. Special education teachers are down by 17.5 percent. Teacher-librarians are down by 23.4 percent. Counsellors are down by 9.5 percent. ESL teachers are down by 20 percent.

Changes made by the government mean that there is no longer automatic reduction in class size when special needs students in the classroom reach a certain number. Combine this with the reduced number of special education teachers, and there's a real problem with support in our schools.

When we talk about class size and learning conditions, it is not simply an issue of the number of students that are found in a class. It also includes the mix of what the grade composition is, as well as the individual needs of the students that are contained within it.

I do not believe for one second that the hon. members do not understand that particular piece of information I share with them. But in ignoring it, with Bill 12 and the effect that it has upon the situation, the learning conditions for the students that are expected by the parents here in British Columbia no longer remain acceptable.

Bill 19 in 2004 — that's the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, 2004 — overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said classroom composition should remain as part of the collective bargaining process. This government threw that court decision out so it wouldn't be caught breaking the law.

It all adds up to bigger class sizes around the province and less individual attention for all students in the classroom. Through a freedom-of-information request, we know of the provincewide total of 487 science eight classes. I will give you that number again. Of a provincewide total of 487 science eight classes, 137 have 30 or more students. We're going back to 1969. I point out that year that nobody has debated. It was not an ideal learning situation. Of 454 social studies nine classes, 189 have 30 or more. Of 455 English 11 classes, 126 have 30 or more, and the list goes on and on and on.

These are some of the reasons. I hope I'm not running out of time. I'm just getting going. Madam Speaker, maybe you could help me here. Can I ask for somebody else's time? Apparently not, so I hope I've got a lot of time left.

Our commitment. I believe it's fair that we put a solution here in front of the House. We are committed to ensuring B.C. children's success in the classroom by such novel things as reducing class sizes to give students more support and attention; increasing teacher-librarians, counsellors and special education support; increasing funding for kids with special needs — I know the next one is very much within the tone and feeling of this particular House here, as we have heard in the throne speech — improving opportunities for aboriginal children and inner-city kids; stopping arbitrary school closures and creating a dedicated fund to help school boards deal with declining enrolments and large geographical disbursements; connecting high school students to apprenticeship and training programs while in high school.

C. James: I think you can hear the passion with which our members on this side of the House are here debating this legislation and debating the amendment to the second reading to hoist Bill 12.

I want to start off by talking about our education system in the broadest sense, because Bill 12 has a huge impact on our education system, and I think it's important for all of us in this House to reflect on what our education system truly means. Danton, the revolutionary French leader who helped give birth to the first French republic, said more than two centuries ago: "After bread, education." Danton's famous quote reminds all of us that education is the most basic necessity after those that are vital to life itself: food, clothing and shelter.

Education is key to our development, to our democracy, to alleviating poverty and to ensuring a future for our children, our families and our communities. Education truly is the cornerstone of our society, and the fact that we're here tonight to argue about the imposition of a bill, Bill 12, speaks to the fact that we can't take support for our education system for granted.

History's greatest minds have recognized the supreme importance of education. For John Adams, a founding father of the American republic, the liberty of a people could not be preserved without it. The American President John F. Kennedy said: "Liberty without learning is always in peril, and learning without liberty is always in vain." To Nelson Mandela, education is the most important and powerful weapon you can use to change the world. Around the world, a strong, accessible public education system drives positive social change.

That's true for economic growth as well. Education drives human and social capital growth and fuels direct economic advancements. "National innovation is related to spending on education," said Porter and Martin for Industry Canada in 2001. "Jurisdictions that invest in education will be the ones to succeed in this

We know that our education system plays a critical role in the social and economic fabric of our society. What saddens me tonight is that the critical role of education in B.C. is being undermined by this government and its confrontational approach to our education system.

In my first response to Bill 12, I noted the importance of the partners in our education system and how critical it is to make sure that all the partners work together to make our schools the best they can be. Locally elected school boards, administrators, support staff, parents, students and, yes, teachers all have a necessary role in ensuring that our system works well. What helps those partners work together? What are the keys to a successful team, whether it's in the education system, a business or an organization?

I'd like us to just take a minute to look at the needed ingredients for a successful team: clear goals, a vision, effective communication, address issues and resolve conflicts, and build trust and respect.

I want to focus just for a moment on the last item in this list: build trust and respect. If this government cared about supporting our education system and ensuring that all the partners in our system are working together to support our students, a goal we should all be working towards, then I have to tell you that they have a very strange way of showing it. This government has failed to meet that necessary ingredient for our education system in so many ways, and Bill 12, sadly, is one more example of that failure. Bill 12 has done more damage to an already damaged relationship between this government and teachers, a damaged relationship that this government has yet to accept any responsibility for.

I've heard this government say that they've supported education, so I'd like us to just take a moment and look at the facts. This government began their mandate in 2002 by ripping up the teachers' contract with no discussion, no debate and no conversation with the people who were directly impacted by that decision. What was the result of that decision? Some 2,500 teaching positions were lost around this province, 113 schools closed in just four years and education funding was frozen for three years while this government downloaded costs onto school boards.

I'd like to share with you just a few comments from teachers in the school district that I represent, which will show you the personal impact of these decisions. This is from a teacher of 25 years:

And another comment, Madam Speaker: "Too many students in each class with too many diverse needs, combined with too few essential resources like textbooks and too little support, is a disgrace. It's not fair to my students, and it's not fair to the families that we are accountable to. The changes I've seen are astounding, and the last three years, in particular, have been incredibly stressful."

Those are personal stories from teachers who know first hand the impact of this government's decisions. When we all know the importance of an education system, when we all recognize the importance of all the partners in the system working together…. This is the record of this government. This is the government legacy in education, despite what the government's throne speech documents say.

This government puts words to paper but doesn't seem to recognize that actions speak louder than words, and that people appreciate hearing the words, but the words don't help that student who isn't getting the assistance that they need. The words don't help that library with no teacher-librarian. Words don't help that student without a textbook or the student with special needs who can't attend school on certain days because the assistant time isn't there. Words alone don't do the job, and this government needs to understand that.

What could have happened, Mr. Speaker? If this government truly cared about education, what could they have done? I've heard the Minister of Education, the Labour Minister and other government members speak to the fact that the system has been broken for a long time and that they're sad we're at this place again. Well, leadership means facing a challenge and doing something about it. Leadership doesn't mean accepting what is. It means seeing the challenge and finding solutions — something that this government doesn't understand or perhaps doesn't wish to understand.

Teachers offered to meet with this government. Teachers offered to not escalate their job action but sit down with government and find a solution. Teachers offered to meet all day today, all day tomorrow, all evening and all weekend, if necessary, to find a solution. What's the result? We're here in the Legislature debating the only solution that this government seems to see, which is using the legislative hammer. That's not good enough for the students and the parents of British Columbia.

That doesn't build trust and respect, which I talked about earlier as being a key ingredient in building a successful team. That certainly doesn't support students. And it doesn't build the best education system possible. It's a sad day in British Columbia that the government is going down this path again. It's even

sadder when we look at what an amazing education system we have here in British Columbia, an education system that could be the best in this country, with some respect and some support from government.

I'm incredibly fortunate. I attended school right here in Victoria in this riding that I proudly represent. Both my children attended school here in Victoria in this riding that I represent. I was also a foster parent for 20 years, and many of the children that I cared for also attended school in this riding that I represent. As with all children, my children and my foster children had different strengths and different needs. Teachers had a huge impact on their lives.

I want to talk about the schools in my riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill for a moment. I think of the teachers at Vic West Elementary and believe they might have a thing or two to share with this government. The teachers at Vic West have established an amazing program with their students to educate them about conflict resolution — something that the government might want to pay attention to — training students in the art of mediation and resolving playground disputes before they turn into something more serious. It's something, as I noted, that the government might want to pay attention to.

I also think of teachers like Allan Guvender at Sir James Douglas Elementary School. He's just one example of educators who dedicate hundreds of hours every year to extracurricular activities. Allan can always be seen working behind the scenes, helping with the annual musical or organizing recess or basketball to help kids stay healthy.

Keeping kids healthy is something that the teachers at Margaret Jenkins Elementary spend a great deal of their time outside class hours doing, whether they're going on swim-club nights, early morning starts for cross-country practice…. I can tell you that living in the neighbourhood, you can see — and I'm sure many of the MLAs who travel to this Legislature every day will see — children out exercising early in the morning. We must remember it's a teacher who showed up on that early morning to make sure those students were out there enjoying themselves and getting healthy.

I admire our teachers at Central Middle School, who not only inspire our students academically but also encourage a strong sense of social responsibility in our students by encouraging them to give back to the local community, through projects like those in aid of the homeless. In the past few weeks many Central teachers have shown their sense of fun by letting the students dye their hair red and purple and green to raise money for Cops for Cancer — again, an area where our students are giving to the community. They're doing it with the help of our teachers in our school district.

The teachers at James Bay elementary school have also formed a true bond with their students and their community. James Bay elementary school is James Bay Community School, designated as a community school, one of the first in the province. A number of teachers, even having been transferred to other schools in the city, have continued to volunteer time serving on the James Bay Community School board. The teachers have done that because, as we know on this side of the House, teachers care about their community.

At George Jay Elementary School, a wonderful school in Victoria's inner city, teachers have had a dedicated focus on improving literacy. Teachers have worked together, changing lunch hours and recess breaks, to make sure that their students receive an uninterrupted block every day to have the whole school working on literacy. It's made a profound difference to student achievement. I also know that at George Jay Elementary we have a chess club where members from Rotary come in and work with teachers and students in the school to provide an opportunity for students that they wouldn't have otherwise — again, a teacher making a difference in the lives of our students.

At Vic High, teachers are passionate about increasing the graduation rate of their students. This school population is incredibly diverse, and it's a sad truth that a number of students in this school find themselves living on their own. That creates huge challenges for students who are determined to finish their education. Teachers at Vic High, many on their own time, make sure that their students are taken care of by ensuring that they are connected with the right community resources and counselling, and sometimes by the simple gesture of phoning them in the morning to make sure they're okay and coming to school.

Teachers making a difference in the lives of students — that's why we're here today. That's why we are here on this side of the House. That's why we'll continue to be here, because it's critical for all of us to remember that our lives have been hugely impacted by teachers. It is Bill 12 that is damaging the relationship with teachers and that will ultimately create difficulty for our education system, which we should be working to improve.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the teachers of South Park Elementary School, which is just a stone's throw from this building. In fact, many of the members probably walk by South Park Elementary School as they head to the Legislature each day. This school has a special place in my heart. It's a school that I attended, that my children attended and where I began my political career. I began my political career at South Park Elementary by taking the students out on strike in grade seven when students weren't allowed to wear pants to school on a rare day that it actually snowed in Victoria. The members on the opposite side have South Park either to blame or to thank for my political career beginning in Greater Victoria.

As I mentioned, my children attended there, and I was an active parent volunteer as well. It's a school where the children and the teachers work closely together, where parents have a direct impact on the lives of their children. This tradition continues in this school, and this year the school's curriculum at South Park has

In classrooms in Victoria–Beacon Hill and throughout this province, it's very clear that for our educators, teaching is more than just a job. Teaching is a passion and a commitment for students and the community. It's a culture of passion and commitment that must be nurtured, not trampled. We can do that in many ways. But there's one simple way, and it has been mentioned over and over again in the debate on this bill over the last few days, and I'm sure you'll hear it again tonight. A way to resolve this issue is to show some respect for our teachers.

The bill before us does anything but show respect. The lack of respect inherent in this proposed legislation is a direct attack on the culture that has helped encourage the wonderful success stories that I have referred to today.

I rise to speak to this amendment because I know from personal experience — in my own life, in my children's lives, in the lives of the foster children I looked after — the difference that teachers have made. I know how important it is to nurture the relationship of everyone in the education system.

As I've mentioned in this House before, I served for 11 years on a school board. I know the importance of supporting a team of people to make the education system work. This bill, Bill 12, does nothing to help build that relationship. It does nothing to improve the relationships that are necessary for the success of an education system that is, as I talked about at the start of my talk tonight, critical to the success of us as a society, critical to positive social change and critical to our economic success.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I would once again urge all the members on the other side of the House to take some time tonight, when they will have the opportunity to think, to think about a teacher that has made a difference in their lives, to think about the impact the education system has had on their own families and to think about their responsibility in making sure that we improve our education system and that we work together to make that happen.

J. Horgan: I want to thank everyone for that rousing applause for my leader and also for the beginning of my remarks on the motion before us today. It's been a long week. I recall starting this debate with the Minister of Labour on Monday. Here we are on Thursday, and as I was advised by our House Leader, Thursday will last until Thursday ends.

It's an interesting way to conduct business. We find ourselves in a situation where we're going to have legislation by exhaustion. I know, Mr. Speaker, you'll be with us to the end, and I thank you for your contribution and your steady hand — and that of Madam Speaker as well.

It's been an interesting week, and it's been a long week. We've had a lot of discussion, a lot of emotion. I want to take a few moments to comment on the words of the member for Peace River South earlier today. I have a great deal of respect for that member, and he spoke with passion and conviction about his personal perspective on this issue.

I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that he and other members on the other side of this place feel strongly about this issue. They feel strongly about education, about teachers, students and parents.

However, where we divide on this question in this Legislature is on where we should proceed from here. We've heard a lot about history. I was here for some of that history. I played a role in it. I'll acknowledge that — a minor role, but I played a role in it. What we need to do today, in unison as a Legislature, is look at the situation we find ourselves in.

At the start of the week the Minister of Labour introduced legislation to impose, for the second time in this government's mandate, a contract on teachers in this province. For the second time in the mandate of this government, the Legislature was asked to use a blunt instrument, when hard work, negotiation, tact and diplomacy would have produced a better result.

We are here this evening proceeding to legislation by exhaustion because those on the other side, although they speak passionately and eloquently about their golden goals, as we have heard so many, many times from this side of the House…. We share the view that education must be the highest priority of this Legislature and this government, and certainly we feel that way on this side of the House. But you don't do that by playing politics.

I see the member from Cloverdale. I'm hopeful that he'll be heckling me soon, because it'll keep me inspired over the next 20 minutes or so.

What we saw today in the Legislature was the Minister of Labour and other members on that side of the floor taunting us on this side. We're standing here. We're trying to instil in this debate some sense of responsibility for government to listen to what teachers are saying, listen to what students are saying, listen to what parents are saying and solve the problem. Blunt instruments are easy to use. Diplomacy, tact and hard work are a little bit more difficult.

We've had much time to do this. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I recall being in the hallway earlier in the week, and the media, as they will, were having some sport with one of the ministers opposite who was new to his file, new to this place and trying to find his footing. They were knocking him around a little bit, and the spinners at public affairs were running desperately to find ways to extricate him from the situation. I had some sympathy for him. He's a decent individual, a hard-working man. He just stepped a little bit too quickly into the deep end of the

I made a comment to someone who I had worked with in the past in this place. He spun to me, and he said: "We'll get you next week." The implication of that was: "We're going to bring forward legislation to bash teachers on the head, and it's going to be all your fault. We're going to blame you for everything." That's regrettable. It was a staff person; it wasn't a member of this place. But it's regrettable that the culture on that side of the House — stay in the message box, do what we say, the polls say things are going fine….

For those of you watching at public affairs, good evening. I'm glad you're still with us. I know you don't get overtime, but I'm sure you're working very hard. Those of you over there might want to reflect on those poll numbers.

I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80 percent of those polled who believed that the teachers are on the right track, that class size is a significant issue to student outcomes — the most important issue. Eighty percent. Holy cow. Holy cow, that's a big number. That's probably resonating. That might be why we saw all of the spinners running around today, all the staffers from public affairs. "What are we going to do? What are we going to do? Advance the ball. Do something."

You know what we should do, Madam Speaker? Roll up our sleeves. Sit down. Find a solution. Hard work. Hard work is what got most of us into this place — I'm confident of that — on both sides of the House. We're not here to cause strife and grief, but when we get captured by the spinners and the hacks, we're going down a slippery slope. That's what's happened on that side of the House.

I want to go back to the comments of the member for Peace River South, because as I said earlier, I sincerely believe that this is a difficult issue for him and a difficult issue for many others on the other side of the House. This is your opportunity. We'll all be tired. Come to your senses. Maybe the spinners have gone home, and you can be released from their captive spell and think for yourself. Think about what you're doing with this legislation. You're imposing a contract, for the second time in your mandate, on a group that is absolutely vital to one of your golden goals.

J. Horgan: Madam Speaker, one of the most important goals that you've got on your list of golden doubloons is education and literacy. You can't do that without teachers.

The Minister of Labour earlier today, during question period, said: "What a shocking example teachers are setting for students in this province." I want to tell a story. I mentioned it in question period today perhaps more emotionally than I should have. I met an individual. I've received hundreds and hundreds of e-mails — as have my colleagues — from teachers, parents and students from right across this province. One individual who happens to be a constituent of mine — I had no knowledge of this until I met him a couple of days ago — decided that on a principle he would demonstrate to his students that if things are not the way they should be in this life, you have options.

I've heard those on the other side say: "We have no choices in these matters. The thing is broken, and we can't fix it. We've got to move on. Oh, it's terrible. It was broken then, and it's broken now, but we're going to fix it. We're not sure how. We don't really have a plan. Since we got here, we just want to make you guys on the other side look bad, and we want to bash teachers."

This teacher picked up the newspaper one day. He said: "There's a debate going on at the Legislature. Maybe I should be participating in that as a citizen." So he got on his shank's pony, and he started walking to the Legislature. He walked here, Madam Speaker. He felt so strongly about it — the blunt instrument being used in this place — that he walked from his place of employment. He took money out of his own pocket to pay for a teacher on call so his students would be taken care of while he came down here on a point of principle to demonstrate that if you see an injustice in this world, you should stand up to it. That's what my mom taught me. I'm sure that mothers, on the other side of the House, taught you that as well. If you see injustice and intolerance, stand up to it.

Mark Neufeld, school district 63 educator, Claremont High School, constituent in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, walked ten kilometres in the rain to stand here for the past 24 hours so he could have his say to the Premier of this province — laudable, commendable and inspirational, Madam Speaker. As a result of Mark's efforts, there are 50 kids standing outside right now while we're in this place, and they're there supporting their teacher, because they believe in that principle as well. He has inspired 50 kids to come down here in the rain while we sit in here and pontificate.

I know that's a moving story for those on the other side as well. You can't help but be moved by that, Madam Speaker. We all have had educators in our past that have had an impact on our lives. I spent some several hours on that subject earlier in the week. Some of you may have caught the rushes. I'm sure the public affairs bureau has sent you the scintillating bits for regurgitation at some point in the future.

Nonetheless, I did speak about teachers that were significant in my life. I started in grade one with Mrs. Foster, and I made it to about grade three. My colleagues have been saying to me: "How far can we go, John? How many more? We want to go to grade four."

I will say grade four was a particularly interesting year for me, because I started with Ms. Fuller and ended with Mrs. Churches — the same person. Ms. Fuller got married during the school year and became Mrs. Churches. That in itself was an education for me. I

was eight years old. I didn't know how these things happened. How do you change your name? I mean, I'm quite serious when I say that. I learned something. So I've remembered Ms. Fuller and Mrs. Churches all these years because of that little bit of education I learned.

The following year in grade five was Mr. Davies; grade six, Mr. St. Clair, who I wasn't overly fussed with, but he did the best he could. He was old school, British accent — did the best he could. The other grade six class was Mr. Taft. I'd like to speak about Mr. Taft for a moment, because he coached every team in the school. He coached the soccer team. He coached the volleyball team. He coached the basketball team, the track team and on and on and on. Lake Hill Elementary was his first and only school. He retired a couple of years ago. We had a party for him. I'm sad to say that he looked marvellous — 55 years old, and he looked like he was 26. Fit as the day he was born.

He played Stuffy McInnis baseball here in Victoria. I'm sure the member from Beacon Hill will know who Stuffy McInnis was. That's the name of the fast pitch league here in Victoria. Mike Taft was a star in that league. He played. He didn't quite make it to the Bates team but was an outstanding individual. I didn't have him as a teacher, but I had him as a coach on the soccer team, the basketball team and the volleyball team.

Grade seven was Mr. Smith, and then I was off to Reynolds. I'll leave that for a minute and get back to Mark Neufeld, because that's the story that's inspired me this week. It's inspired my colleagues, and I know it's inspired some of the children. They're in the gallery today for the first time, observing the democratic process.

I have to give credit to the Minister of Labour for introducing this bill. Were it not for the draconian measures of this government, those children up there wouldn't have been observing democracy as we're doing it right now. I commend the minister for bringing in the bill for that reason alone and no other.

We've got 50 kids from Claremont school out front because of their teacher. Their teacher walked down here on a point of principle, and they've been sending us some notes. I want to read one here. It's from Tim Gratto and Fraser McMillan. It goes as follows:

Well, good for them. I'm concerned about the way things are being run as well. So are all of my colleagues on this side of the House, and I'm certain, if we let the public affairs bureau people go for a bit, that people on that side of the House will be concerned as well.

Wait a minute. That's not in the message box. In the message box from public affairs on that side of the House, they're saying: "Get the kids in the classroom." Well, there are some kids that are in a classroom, and they're saying that their firsthand experience is that it's not working as well as it could.

They're making a suggestion to the government. They made a suggestion to us. They're following the lead of their inspirational teacher, Mark Neufeld. They're saying: "Our practical, firsthand experience" — not the experience of those who haven't been in a classroom in a good long time, those on the other side of the House who are saying: "Well, we'll just get through this stage. We'll play a little bit of politics with students, parents and teachers. We'll make a little bit of a mark on the opposition because they're standing up for individual rights." They're standing up for the rights of teachers. They're standing up for outcomes for students. They're saying to parents, as parents are saying to us, that in order for your children to get the best education possible, they need the best and most highly motivated teachers possible.

There are kids outside this place right now confirming that. They're confirming it by saying: "It could be better."

In order to succeed to the best of our abilities — we all remember that, don't we? Our mothers and fathers, our parents, our families said: "We need to get the best out of you." How do you do that? With the best teachers possible, with the most motivated teachers and with teachers that are inspired by the work that they do.

We have teachers in our caucus. There are teachers on the other side. They were inspired to become teachers because they had a calling. Mark Neufeld had a calling, and thank goodness he did, because now there are 50 kids, some of them in here right now, watching democracy unfold.

They're probably saying to themselves: "What's this all about? What's the deal with that?" I bet they're saying to themselves: "It's almost midnight." It is just about midnight. All these adults are sitting in a room — a very nice room, an opulent room, beautiful wood, ornate lightbulbs. What are they doing? They're talking about us. They're talking about education. They're talking about lifting us up. That side believes they're on the right track. We believe they're on the wrong track.

The teachers who are outside, the students who are in the gallery — they concur with us that you're on the wrong track. A blunt instrument is easy to use. Diplomacy, tact, hard work, negotiation, give and take — that's tough. That's hard work. That's what this government could have done 18 months ago. That's what the government could have done 12 months ago. That's what this government should have done after the election.

They commissioned a fact-finder. I spoke about this earlier, and some of my colleagues have touched on this as well. They commissioned a fact-finder: Rick Connolly, a capable man. I've known him for some time. I'm quite comfortable with his report. He talked to both sides. Well, he talked to the one side. He talked to teachers and said, "What are the facts on your side?" and they laid out in significant detail, I'm certain, the situation as they saw it.

Then he went to the BCPSEA and said, "What do you think?" and they said: "We're not supposed to think. We're not supposed to talk about wages. We're not supposed to talk about working conditions. Everything's good on our side. We're ready to go. Let's negotiate."

It's easy to find facts when you're not allowed to talk about the two most significant components of a labour negotiation — real easy. I bet the BCPSEA meeting lasted about two minutes. "How's it going? What are the facts on your side?"

Well, we've had a little bit of a glitch in the message box. Outside of this place, in the media, the Minister of Labour is working very, very hard, taking that message box and spreading it through the media to as many people as he can that the parties had irreconcilable differences. Memo to minister: "You are one of the parties. You're the government of British Columbia. You're the one that's giving the mandate to BCPSEA."

Disconnect. Something wrong here. These kids are up there going: "Okay, let's see. There's the government, and there are teachers — two sides in a labour negotiation. The government says: "I don't want to have anything to do with that. Forget it; that's the BCPSEA's job. But BCPSEA, before you enter into any negotiations, be sure you don't talk about money and working conditions."

I look to my colleagues. What outcome are you going to get with that? Pretty difficult. I look to the students in the gallery, and I say: "That probably doesn't make much sense to you — a bit of a disconnect." It certainly is for me and for my kids. I left home today and said to my boys: "I'll see you later. I might not be home till tomorrow." The youngest one, Evan, said: "What's up, Dad? What's going on?"

I said: "We're having a sleep-over. The Minister of Finance is putting on the popcorn; we're going to have a little bit of fun, watch some movies, have a chat. I'll see you sometime tomorrow night." I missed the hockey game as a result of that. I'm prepared to miss things that are important to me, because what's important to this province and to the children and students in this province is that we get a resolution.

Now, I know that the members on the other side believe that this bill resolves the debate, that we're just going to fix it with this blunt instrument. I harken back to the member for Peace River South, because I know that for him, at least — and also, I believe, for the member from Comox — these are difficult issues. "Nobody wants to do this," say those on the other side.

Well, let's try this. Again, it's for the children and the students here in the audience. Let's try this: if you don't want to do it, don't do it. That's why we've introduced this hoist motion. Let's take this bill, let's throw it out for awhile, and let's call up the B.C. Teachers Federation and the BCPSEA and say: "Why don't we all get together and solve the problem?"

That's not the way they're operating on that side of the House. What a great opportunity they have. The Premier and the executive council won re-election — the right and the obligation and the responsibility to govern British Columbia for the next four years. That's daunting, and I know it's difficult. I recognize from my time as a staff person in this place that it's not easy doing your jobs. I understand that, and I respect you for taking it on. I'm genuine when I say that.

However, what I want to do, as a newly elected member in this place…. Shake it up a bit. Say to the spinners — you hired way too many of them, first of all: "We're not going to do that. We're going to sit down, we're going to take a look at the situation, and we're going to try and fix it, not with politics in mind, not with advantage in mind, not with outmanoeuvring the opposition, not with advantage with the media, not with advantage with any one group in society, but with everyone in mind." I say that because I've met individuals and read stories and testimonials for the past week and beyond.

It's individuals like Mark Neufeld that inspire me. He said: "This doesn't make any sense." He got out on the road. I grew up in this town; I know this place. It's a long way to Claremont. I wouldn't have walked it when I was 20. This guy's almost 40 years old. He put his pack on his shoulder and started walking down the street. Can you imagine that? He's so intent to make a point for students.

This guy is not a political guy. He's not a radical; he's just a guy. He has a two-year-old at home. He said to his wife when he got up to go to work that day earlier in the week: "What will I say to my son 20 years from now?" He'll be able to say proudly that when he saw injustice, he put down his tools, the tools of his trade…. He's the coach of the basketball team. He loves basketball — passionate about basketball and sport. He put those down and said: "I'm going to walk to the Legislature of British Columbia, and I'm going to sit out on the steps until someone comes to reason, until someone comes to me and explains why it is that all of us here…."

I don't know how many university degrees would be in this room right now. Imagine that. I've got two. I know the member from West Vancouver's got a handful. There are a lot of smart people in here — really, really smart people. But we can't figure this out? We can't sit down and find accommodation?

What message are we sending to those kids? Don't bother getting an education. It ain't going to get you anywhere — maybe into this room at 12 at night talking about something that is the most ridiculous thing you could ever imagine. So 79 adults — bright, intelligent people — come together and don't solve a problem. They say: "Get me the spinners from public affairs.

I need four pages to shoot on teachers, and then we can move on. While you're at it, make sure the NDP looks bad. Make sure we force law-abiding citizens to the brink." That's what this government wanted to do. I don't believe that as individuals they wanted to do that, but collectively they came to that decision, and that's why we're here today. That's why we have students in the gallery looking down on me yelling at you people across the way, through you, Madam Speaker, about the most inane of situations, the most ridiculous of conundrums.

We're adults, all of us brought up well. Our parents taught us all well, or we wouldn't be here. I'm convinced of that — each and every one of you on that side of the House. Particularly, I keep talking….

I don't want you guys to think that we're trying to encourage, or that I'm personally trying to encourage, the member for Peace River South to come and join me on this side, the side of reason. I know he'd like to be on the side of reason. He'd like his colleagues to say: "Yeah, you're right. You're right, member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. We shouldn't continue to play politics with children in this province. We should try and solve the problem. We should try and reach the golden goal of the most educated and literate jurisdiction on this continent, bar none." Oh, that's the environmental goal. I keep saying "bar none" because it sounds so neat.

Bar none. During the election campaign, the Liberal candidate running against me…. Every time we went into a debate, she had her little book, and she kept saying "bar none." I thought: why do you keep saying that? Bar none — what does that mean? Bar none. It's not like an Eat More. It's not an Oh Henry. It's a bar none. That just made no sense to me.

Anyway, I'm a little bit punchy, and I know my leader told me not to be overly punchy. I do, as I see the time…. I don't know the colours, Madam Speaker. I've mentioned that to you. You could maybe….

I mentioned Bob Denver and Gilligan's Island in my remarks earlier. As I said, my mother was widowed when I was a youngster. I came home from school, and I was babysat by Gilligan. After Gilligan came Get Smart. If I could note the passing of Bob Denver, I should also note the passing of Don Adams. Agent 86 had a significant role in my childhood. It helped with math. The 86, 99, and 44 was the guy in the mailbox.

Back to the point at hand. It's ridiculous that all of us here, with all of the education and all of the life experience, whether it be in business, in trade unions, in classrooms, on farms, on the sea…. All of the experience we have in this place, and we can't put our heads together and come up with a solution to this problem.

We can't all agree — as I agree with the member for Peace River South that we need to respect each other in this place — that we need to respect the people outside of this place who sent us here. We need to respect the people like Mark Neufeld, who walked here and brought with him, like the Pied Piper, students from Claremont Secondary School to watch democracy in action, to watch us do our work, to watch us listen intently to each thing that we say — as the ministers across are doing right now. That's the respect that they are teaching their students. That's what teachers do every single day.

We find ourselves, just before midnight on the Thursday that may never end, talking about Bill 12. We've suggested through our motion this evening that we take this bill out of here. Let's have six months to think about it, and in the interim, I would urge the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and the Premier and the rest of executive council to huddle up together a bit.

You might even have an open cabinet…. You don't do that anymore. That's right. I forgot. You don't meet in the open anymore. You just huddle with the public affairs bureau and say: "How can we get political advantage out of students and teachers and parents in this province?"

If you weren't doing that, you could get together and solve the problem. Get together. Set an example for the students that are in the gallery today. Set an example for the students that followed Mark Neufeld to this place this evening in the rain to watch democracy in action, to watch us work to make this world a better place, to lift them up so that we can have the most literate and educated jurisdiction in North America…

These are serious issues. We do take this seriously on this side of the House. Again I have to stress that there are solutions available. We've been pointing them out for some time now. I don't mean any disrespect to any member on that side of the House when I'm standing in my place. I know that in your hearts you want the best for this province, you want the best for the people in this province, and you want the best for students.

Where we differ profoundly is on where to proceed from here. The Leader of the Opposition and this caucus were elected on a platform of balance. We didn't come here to fight with you. You still want to fight with us? Well, we don't want to fight with you. We want to help you find solutions.

That's why we continue to suggest that you sit down with teachers, sit down with other people in the community. Talk to them. Listen to what they have to say. Incorporate their views and values in the policies of the government of British Columbia, and we'll all benefit from that, each and every one of us. It's not that big a challenge. We're bright people.

Again, the member from West Vancouver has a handful of degrees. He's got lots to contribute to this place and to this debate. All of us do. That's why we're here. That's why we ran for office. We didn't run for

office to make cheap political points on issues that affect the lives of students in this province.

Listen up, folks. This is really important. It's midnight. It's midnight on Thursday, in the 38th parliament of the province of British Columbia. We all have an opportunity tonight to hoist this legislation, get it off this floor, come in here next week with a fresh start, sit down with teachers, solve the problem, reach out to the leadership of the B.C. Teachers Federation, give a legitimate mandate to the BCPSEA, call in the school trustees and say: "What are we going to do with these windfall resource revenues that we're blessed with in this beautiful province? Let's put them into education — not into nice baubles and baskets, but into kids, into classrooms, into teachers."

That's what we need to do. That's our role. That's our function. That's why we're here. I appeal to each and every one of you on that side of the House. Listen to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who said: "Let's get this bill out of here. Let's start again."

We're prepared to do that — right now. Let's start again. Let's put the past four days behind us. Let's pretend it didn't even happen, and let's start again to find solutions…

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this motion. I look forward to speaking later on in the day, the Thursday that may never end.

L. Krog: Noting the hour, I was sort of hoping that some miracle might occur in this chamber, that I would look across and there'd be some sort of reverse Cinderella, and this government pumpkin would somehow turn into a carriage and transport us out of this ridiculous situation. Here we are in the middle of the night in the province of British Columbia speaking to a motion to do what any logical and sensible person would want to do, and that is postpone this ridiculous bill, which is designed to do nothing more than exacerbate the already difficult relations between this government and the teachers of this province.

The motion is to add a simple amendment and ask that this bill be read a second time six months hence. In other words, put it off. Do the sensible thing. Give an opportunity, now that this government has finally started to listen to teachers in this province, for the collective bargaining process to work. Obviously, it's too much to ask.

I would have thought today, after the somewhat fruitful meeting between the president of the BCTF and other leaders in this province and the Minister of Labour, that something might have been forthcoming. The government had an opportunity to reconsider its position, but it hasn't done that.

Instead, it carries down this path, which will lead us to absolutely nowhere — no prospect of settlement on the horizon, no prospect that the students of this province are going to enjoy the kind of peace in the school system that is required in order to enable them to move forward with their education so they can participate fully in British Columbia's society and so they will develop the kind of critical thinking skills that are going to be needed to ensure that when they have the opportunity to elect members to this House, they will be able to make wise and sensible choices.

We have spent too long in our society creating myths. There is the myth of the overpaid teacher. There is the myth of the teacher who arrives before class starts and leaves as soon as the last bell rings; the myth of the teacher who doesn't care about the students; the myth of the teacher who gets the whole summer off, who seems to be on holiday all the time. It's a myth that serves a certain political purpose. With the greatest respect, it doesn't reflect the reality of the teaching profession in this province and the work and the contribution they make to our society.

There is surely no more honourable profession in our society than that of being a teacher, of passing on from one generation to another the collected wisdom of our society, garnered throughout a difficult history, all done with an end in mind. The end in mind is to create a better world, a world in which intelligent people would not be sitting in a chamber at midnight, treating a group of its citizens in this way.

Why are we here? I come back to the myths. There are lots of myths. There are the myths that somehow the bargaining process is going to get better if we just jam the teachers into a contract till next year, if we say to them: "Notwithstanding that you've been trying to negotiate for months, notwithstanding that this government has had four and a half years to work on this problem, notwithstanding all that, we're just going to, essentially, force you back into the classroom regardless of what your feelings are and regardless of what your students think."

I must say, having visited outside tonight on the steps of this Legislature with some of the students, I was impressed with their concern and their care and their willingness to participate in our democratic society by showing by their support for the people who play such an important role in their lives.

I want to read something written by Natalie. She's from Claremont. This is what she says. I'd like the Minister of Education to listen very carefully, because we've heard so much about how much money's gone back into the school system, how we're going to solve the textbook problems, how everything's going to be rosy in the classrooms of British Columbia. "The grade nine and ten science classes at Claremont don't do many labs, as the teachers consider it a safety hazard to have 27-plus students moving around with chemicals."

Royal Oak Middle School had one portable the year she started there. Now they have five. "In the biology 12 enriched class" — listen carefully; these are the kids

we want to really do something for — "kids have to share textbooks, as we are short. The textbooks we do have were bought secondhand and have been highlighted from front to back. And to top it off, any student who wishes to take the bus has to pay $120 for the year."

Is this the best we can do in a province that this year has a government that has spent so much of the time in this House in the last two weeks bragging about — what is it? — a $1.3 billion surplus? In a province so rich in revenue right now that we can give a further corporate tax break to the corporate community, who not only didn't ask for it but were so shocked at receiving it, they were speechless. Is this the best we can do? I'd like to think we could do better. I'd like to think there was still some idealism left on the other side of the House.

Another student. He's a grade 12 attending Claremont. He said:My English 12 class has a provincial exam. We have 34 students and 31 desks.

That's 34 students and 31 desks — at least in this chamber we each get a seat.

Yet what we hear from the other side is that things are just so much better. If ever the cliché about rose-coloured glasses applied, it surely must apply on the other side of the House.

We have created a society, and quite rightly so, where we expect children who were formerly isolated in institutions to be integrated into our society to remain with their families and to be integrated and accommodated into our public school system. Some may suggest that's been a costly venture. I would suggest it is the hallmark of a civilized society that has come of age. But there is no sense pretending we have made any real progress if we do not provide the funding to provide teaching assistants and reduced class sizes. That will enable that great and noble step to be done in a proper way, to ensure that each and every student in the classrooms of British Columbia gets the good public education that they deserve.

We have asked more of our teachers than ever before. This is not the world of 30 and 40 years ago. This is not a world where we have stay-at-home moms or dads. The vast majority of people in this province who have children, in fact, work outside the home. We expect more of our school system. We demand more. In doing that, surely, we have an obligation to step forward, step up to the plate and provide the funding necessary to ensure good quality public education.

L. Krog: If the Minister of Education could be a little louder, I could perhaps actually hear her remarks across the floor. I'm past 50 now, and my ears aren't what they used to be.

L. Krog: Exactly. Not everyone in this province enjoys that privilege, and stay-at-home mothers and fathers likewise appreciate the opportunity to be satisfied that the children, when they go to school in this province, get a first-class education. That means we have to provide the kind of funding that's appropriate.

You know, you could arguably say that the motion put forward by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is, in fact, an act of charity on the opposition's part. There's an old saying in politics: "If your enemy's digging a hole, don't stop them." What we have done on this side of the House with this motion is to give an opportunity for this government to step back, stop digging the hole, reconsider their position and take the famous second look that W.A.C. Bennett would have been doing at a time like this. Sit down with the teachers in this province, and start making progress in order to move us forward.

L. Krog: Frankly, hon. Speaker, they've had four and a half years on that side.

L. Krog: I'm sorry, but this is not a history lesson. We are living in the present, and we need to get on with the job and the task at hand.

L. Krog: What that requires is for mature people to act in a mature manner and deal with fellow adults responsibly. We cannot pretend to believe in this myth that I discussed earlier…

L. Krog: …that there is, in fact, any real employer other than the province of British Columbia — and the government, which is now so interested in what I'm having to say that they're looking and up and paying attention. I'm delighted to hear their voices. I only wish they were so willing to talk to the teachers of this province. We'd have a better chance at getting a settlement.

What's really important here is that you have this opportunity. You should not turn down this opportunity to take a step forward to ensure that we can resolve this instead of continuing to exacerbate a relationship that has been destroyed through the efforts of this government. In the four and a half years you've had an opportunity to solve this problem, you now come before this House and say: "Oh, goodness. We've got an emergency. We've got to get this bill jammed through. We've got to keep the members of this House here through the night, and as long as it takes in order to ensure that it happens."

Yet the Minister of Labour earlier this day clearly stated that there was no emergency. That's why we're here debating this bill in this manner instead of under the standing orders. This is no emergency. This represents, I might suggest, some kind of petty revenge, perhaps, for what's happened in the past in this House, and I say once again that it's time to get beyond the past.

When this session started, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear, as did members on this side in speech after speech, that we were prepared to enter into a more cooperative dialogue with the government of this province in order to enhance the interests of all British Columbians. Instead, we have now in front of us the prime example of why that new relationship may, in fact, founder. We must not toss aside this opportunity.

I've heard a great deal about how well the province is doing and how it all has to do with taxation policy. I just want to commend to the other side of the House a rather fascinating article by Gabriel Yiu. He is an award-winning commentator, a broadcaster, a former columnist at the Vancouver Sun, Business in Vancouver and Ming Pao, and he writes for Chinese newspapers. It's an article about global competitiveness.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006 has just been issued — the World Economic Forum's report. It talks about the three pillars when it comes to formulating the factors that go into explaining the growth of an economy: the quality of the macroeconomic environment, the state of the country's public institutions and the level of its technological readiness.

Interestingly, this Geneva-based forum — which amongst other sources for its information pulls nearly 11,000 business leaders in 117 countries — has discovered that Finland is the most competitive country for three consecutive years over the United States of America.

The top ten countries are Finland, the United States, Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan, Singapore, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Australia. Canada is down at number 14.

What does the chief economist and director of the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness program, Augusto Lopez Claro, say? The Nordic countries share a number of characteristics that make them extremely competitive, such as very healthy macroeconomic environments and public institutions that are highly transparent and efficient with general agreement within society on the spending priorities to be met in the government's budget.

What are this government's priorities? You have a surplus. You have story after story that you've heard in this House over the last few days about the situation in our public school system. You are well aware of the figures as they relate to the relative incomes of teachers in this province compared to other provinces in Canada. You have all of the evidence and the information….

All of that information is, in fact, available. What's the choice that this government has made? It is to proceed with this bill. Responsibility for that, I suggest, lies squarely with the Premier and this government. They continue to choose conflict and confrontation as their first option. They've taken a number of deliberate steps which, frankly, in this new session after the election of 2005 could have been different.

How have they provoked conflicts with teachers in this province? They tore up the contract in 2002. They stripped them of their self-governing body in 2003 and overruled a B.C. Supreme Court decision on classroom composition in 2004.

Earlier today we heard the inference on this side of the House from the government: "Oh my goodness, those teachers are going to go out on an illegal strike. Isn't that just awful? That's a terrible thing. Of course, that opposition is going to be out there supporting them and doing something illegal." Yet this government overrules a Supreme Court decision.

I have a little lesson in law for the government side. The lesson is this. Laws in our system are made not just by Legislatures. They are made by court decisions. When you show no respect for courts, it should come as no surprise that there's no respect shown for teachers and public employees.

The teachers in this province were used as political pawns in the 2005 election. Now, having won that election, instead of showing some magnanimous spirit, some generosity, this government has instead chosen to forge ahead with an unnecessary bill to force teachers to accept a continuation of a contract that's now a year and a half out of date.

When I hear this government talk about the state of education and their record, and they talk about 1,600 new teachers this year across the province…. They cut 2,500 positions in this province. They will say, of course: "No, the school boards did it." It's just a little hard to accept that school boards did it, when the source of their funding comes from the provincial government. They closed 113 schools across this province, a dozen of which were single-school communities.

I don't know where all the members on the government side were raised. I don't know what their life experiences were necessarily. But I can tell them, coming from a rural community like I have, you understand intimately that when you take the school out of a community, you are essentially killing that community. Parents with children are not going to move to a community where their children cannot get an education.

That is the one thing that is absolutely clear. That was done for what? It was done in support of a ridiculously generous tax cut. This government will start harping, I have no doubt, at some point and say: "Well, it was that tax cut that's given us economic prosperity." We'll hear the same old myth again.

I come back to the theme of the great myth. What will happen in this province if the price for commodities drops? Will the government say that their tax policy is somehow not strong enough to save us from the drop in commodity prices? What will be their excuse if the economy turns sour and unemployment starts to rise? What will be their excuse then?

The fact is that for this government to take credit for the prosperity of the economy is as ridiculous for them, in fairness, to have to take responsibility for the economy if it turns bad. Governments in the modern world, unfortunately, have a very limited opportunity with respect to the economy to control their own economic destinies. Inasmuch as we have control over the budget of this province, this government had an opportunity to enhance spending in education, to ensure that school boards across this province receive the funding they need to provide good public education.

In fact, what happened is that they were forced to make cuts to programs. That included teachers' salary increases. There was ongoing salary creep, MSP creep, utility increases in hydro, transportation costs up — none of which were compensated for by this government.

We know that student enrolment declined only by 3 percent overall. Yet we have a reduction in teachers by 8 percent. Then I come to that statistic which other members have quoted in this House and which I want to repeat. I want to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it until everyone in this House remembers it: teacher-librarians down by 23.4 percent.

What are the great promises? The most literate and educated society. The last time I checked, in order to be literate, you have to read. I believe that's what the definition is — that if you're literate, you're capable of reading. I don't know how children learn to read or have the full opportunity to learn to read if they don't have access to libraries.

If you have libraries like you do in school district 68, in Nanaimo, the riding I represent, where you get a 0.6 librarian who has to service several schools, when they're not there, the library's locked. Well, I guess it must give children the idea, at least, that reading must be really important and that books are really valuable, because you lock them up. Maybe that's the government's literacy policy: if we lock up all the books, kids will get desperate, and they'll start to steal them, like junkies going after television sets. Maybe that's the real scheme of the government of British Columbia to encourage literacy.

You cannot continue on this path. You have been given an opportunity to pursue a different path. You've chosen to do something that I respectfully suggest to the government is not going to lead us to a happy and prosperous future.

There will come a time in this province in the not-too-distant future when the price of commodities around the world will drop, when the demand for our resources will drop, when we won't be enjoying the spinoff from the natural resources that this government had nothing do with — that none of us had anything to do with. If we, in the meantime, have not taken the prosperity that has been given to us…. I don't mean just now but through the last generation or two in this province. If we do not take advantage of that to ensure that we have built a decent and caring society, that we have funded public education properly and that we have created a generation capable of handling any change in the economy, any change in our world, then we will have failed them.

I guess that's my point tonight. This government, notwithstanding the offer, is prepared to jump over the brink. They are insistent, absolutely insistent, on ensuring that this bill is passed. They want to make sure that the teachers of this province remain angry. Perhaps there's some great desire to so abuse the public school system that we can force parents to reconsider public education, that maybe what they'll really want to do or feel they have to do or feel compelled to do is put their children into private institutions.

We, as a society — and when I talk of that, I refer to European society in the largest sense…. In terms of the drive for public education in this country, it didn't come out of nowhere. It came out of the common wis-

dom of the common people, who understood intimately that the only real chance for their children was to have public education, that it was not to be reserved for those who had connection to the wealthy landed classes. It was not to be reserved for only those who were extremely brilliant. It was to be available for everyone, like libraries.

Over time, we moved beyond the concept of public education. We wanted to talk about public utilities, the public distribution of water, public health care — all of those things which create the kind of society that surely must be the ideal of everyone of this House, regardless of their political ideology.

Where we are today in history is a place where the road, I suggest to this government, has come to the fork. We can make up our minds that we will race to the bottom, that we will attempt to compete with the cheapest labour economies of the world — where there is little or no environmental regulation, where there is precious little public education, where there is no public health care, where workers are exploited ruthlessly. We can go down that path and try to compete with them, and we will lose. We will lose.

The other alternative is for us to continue down the road that has been set for our society for several hundred years, and that is a move towards a world and a country in which everyone has an opportunity regardless of where they're born, the colour of their skin or the religion of their families. If they have an opportunity for public education, then the sky is literally the limit for them. When this government fails to understand the ramifications of what they're doing with this bill, I must say — I say this more in sorrow than anger — it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

The government can be and remain in its position of ignorance and pretend that this isn't significant, that this is just the opposition seeing if it can sit through the night. In fact, what we are doing here is debating something fundamentally important. You cannot talk the rhetoric of supporting public education when you're not prepared to put the money into it, when you're not prepared to respect the people who are absolutely crucial to the delivery of public education in this province — the teachers.

So I say to this government, in closing: take the opportunity, throw away the shovel, stop digging the hole, listen to the opposition, listen to the students who are on the steps of this Legislature tonight. Sit down with the teachers, withdraw this bill, and get on with building the kind of society we all want to live in. Don't take the wrong fork in that road.

D. Cubberley: Madam Speaker, I want to thank you personally for your ongoing resilience as a listener. It's truly inspiring to those of us who are speaking.

An important motion conferring an opportunity for government to take a sober second look and embrace a new chance for dialogue with teachers is before the House. I want to urge members here to support it. In doing so, I want to pick up where the member for Peace River South left off earlier today, when he said that what we're doing here shouldn't be about blame.

D. Cubberley: Was it? I thought it was this afternoon. I guess it's yesterday now. Thursday doesn't end — right?

Deputy Speaker: May I remind members that if they wish to speak, they must do so from their own seats.

The member said that it shouldn't be about blame, that everyone owns a part of the situation we're in now. He implied that we on this side don't accept our part and that government does. I just want to remind members that earlier today — or yesterday, as the case may be — I and others like the member for Nelson-Creston have, in fact, accepted responsibility for the failings of the '90s.

We certainly didn't get the bargaining relationship fixed, but then again, we didn't try to break it up, either, or blow it up. We didn't try to inflame the relationship with teachers, we didn't display disrespect for teachers and their aspirations, and we certainly didn't hide behind claims that we'd increased funding when in real dollar terms and on a program basis, the opposite is the case.

That's what I hear from members opposite, and the member for Peace River South said it yesterday. That's the message box. But I have to say we aren't fooled by that message box, and teachers aren't fooled by it. The parents who interact with their children's teachers aren't going to be fooled by it either.

I think it's more a question of taking responsibility rather than one of laying blame. Our idea of responsibility encompasses government's role in the bargaining relationship for the tone and the substance of that relationship, because in bargaining, everything's cumulative. Memory is very long, wrongs are always remembered, and nothing just goes away if it isn't, in some fashion, addressed and resolved. And it will ultimately be about blame if government doesn't begin to show leadership, take responsibility and begin acting like a steward of public education. No one elected any of us here to politicize and demoralize the teaching profession.

The member for Peace River South spoke passionately and eloquently yesterday, but he has this difficulty — and I think it's shared across the government — in recognizing that while we accept our history, those on the other side aren't showing any signs yet of accepting their own. We never gave ourselves permission to vilify the other party in the bargaining relationship, and we never set out to try and create confrontation. We never used the power of legislation punitively. I think it's important to remember that it was this government, and our Premier in particular, that

made a solemn promise in the 2001 election to respect signed agreements, and then turned around and ripped them up — tore conditions out of contracts and imposed new contracts.

In a real sense, that's the context for what's unfolding today. There was a promise of respect for signed contracts, and a collective agreement that's under renegotiation is a signed contract. But government had a serious desire to settle a score of some kind with teachers, a score that hinged somehow especially on the learning condition provisions in the teachers' agreement. The government had absolute power at the time — and you know the saying about absolute power and the temptation it presents to legislators. Government had to have it very quickly, unilateral action from the beginning of its mandate, and the teachers' agreement was one of the first victims of that use of power.

That wasn't lost on the teachers — not for a moment. They knew right away where things were heading. Provisions that provided protection for working and learning conditions, provisions that had been established through collective action and, in teachers' eyes at least, paid for with forgone wage increases, provisions that acted reciprocally to protect the teaching environment and the learning environment from certain kinds of abuses. Those provisions had been removed.

What kind of abuses? Arbitrarily high class sizes. Very difficult class composition. Lack of appropriate aides to allow in-class teachers to distribute their attention across the entire spectrum of learners so that every individual in their class got a share of the attention they deserved.

I'm sure that very few teachers were upset to learn that they had a 7.5-percent wage increase over three years included in the 2002 imposed contract as some form of recognition that their wages had fallen behind. But I don't think that any teacher could have been happy to learn that it wasn't, in fact, a real wage increase, that most of it was downloaded onto school districts, who were told to absorb it. "Find it within your existing budget."

Teachers know what the implications of that were. Over your government's first term, Madam Speaker, they watched in horror as conditions began to deteriorate. As one teacher said, "First I got a raise in pay. Then I paid for my raise in pay with damaged learning conditions, higher class size, an impossible student mix and no learning assistants."

That raise in pay didn't make him happy. I think I can understand why, given the professional motivation of teachers, it wouldn't make you happy to find that you got a marginal pay increase — not inconsequential, but a marginal pay increase — in return for a significant deterioration in working conditions. Because teachers are committed to learning.

It was precisely those protections in the collective agreement that prevented just this kind of thing from happening. It's a kind of black irony that this was done. There were already stresses and strains on the classroom in any case because of the increasing complexity of the society that we live in, its diversity — multi-ethnic, multicultural. There's a much higher commitment than when you or I first went to school to provide opportunity to people irrespective of the scope of their needs. Without the protections in the agreement, conditions began to worsen almost immediately.

I think I mentioned earlier today — or was it yesterday? — that the actual result was described by somebody quite accurately as "the system began cannibalizing itself to deal with the lack of resources, to deal with the downloaded costs." I know that members opposite have some difficulty admitting that. I heard it again today when a member opposite rattled on about how budgets had been increased substantially and cited a big global number. Despite the money they put back into the system, when the problems they'd caused by the downloading of costs threatened to spill over into the election window and cause problems, in no way have the downloaded costs been offset by the added funding.

Now, if we're talking about accepting responsibilities rather than laying blame, it shouldn't really be so hard to admit that there were consequences to downloading costs. As members opposite love to tell us, it's about choices and decisions that were made. They made choices, and they made decisions. You said there would be a 7.5-percent raise but not the money to pay for most of it, and that was your choice. You said there would be no learning protections in the collective agreement, and that was your choice. You said that school districts would have flexibility to rearrange the deployment of resources and that they weren't constrained to hire librarians on a per-capita or other basis, and that was your choice.

It would be really wonderful, indeed, if schools could simply deliver the same programs with less money available per unit of output. But they can't, because there's no magic wand. To give you an example of that, the actual impact of that decision, I have some Ministry of Education figures from form 1530 and from table 2 — FTE funded enrolment. What they show, in a very interesting way, is the effect of downloaded costs. The student-funded FTE enrolment percent change was 1.2 percent. The number of students over a period of three years, four years declined by 1.2 percent. The number of teachers declined by 9.5 percent. There's a disparity there, and declining enrolment doesn't explain it. What explains it are downloaded costs.

To make it more tangible, let's translate it into actual callings within the school system, the different skills that allow teachers to deal with class composition of varying nature. It cost the school district, in this case, 24 percent of its career program teachers; 29 percent of its librarians; 14 percent of its counsellors; 9 percent of its special education teachers; 64 percent of its ESL

teachers — now that's only two out of three, but two-thirds of those who were there practising; 16 percent of its special education assistants, who are the ones that allow teachers to deal directly with class composition; and 8 percent of its clerical and support staff. It was so bad, even 7 percent of its administrators disappeared.

Now, you could call those efficiencies, but I think from the kind of things that have been introduced in this chamber by members on this side, we know that the impacts in the classroom were severe. It would indeed be wonderful if there was a magic wand that we could wave to offset downloaded costs, but less money per unit of output ultimately results in worsening outcomes.

And that's what an unfunded MSP premium hike also dumped on school districts means. Outcomes don't fall out of thin air; they come from quality teaching — on the ground, day after day, in real time, dealing with the mix of kids that show up and the array of opportunities and problems that they present.

But there was no magic wand, and so instead of efficiency — which is presumably what the government thought it could force to occur by downloading the costs, if the government actually thought about it and cared about what would occur, and it isn't clear to me — your choices began undermining two things: the quality of the teaching environment and the quality of the learning environment. And that's what delivered the message to teachers — that you don't actually care about the sustainability of the process or the quality of the outcomes.

So there's the context that government, by its choices, created for the next round of bargaining: another legislative settlement, with a marked and angering deterioration of working and teaching conditions.

Earlier, I talked about the bargaining relationship and the importance of respect between the parties, and the higher obligation on government as the employer and the chief steward of our public education system, which it oversees in trust for all British Columbians, to proceed with respect and in a measured way and never to seek to provoke or inflame situations or to politicize or antagonize the people who deliver quality education in our schools.

You remember the last ten days of the election campaign, Madam Speaker, when the Premier and his advisers decided they needed to whip up some emotions with a little fearmongering around the idea of teacher strikes so that the B.C. Liberals could position themselves once again as the protectors of children's education.

I remember how they cooked up the issue and offered essential services legislation as the visible shield for parents' and children's rights, to be protected from the terrible teachers who would do this dastardly thing. Perhaps there was intoxication at the thought of short-term political gain; I don't know. Perhaps you didn't see, or didn't care, that doing it would reinforce and compound the lasting feelings of abuse and lack of respect, which in turn could only increase frustration with and from the collective bargaining process — the collective bargaining process that you, as it turns out, had no intention of approaching in good faith.

I think we've come to realize that it works for those on the other side. The teacher-bashing ramps up fears among parents, and it demoralizes the teachers. The heightened desire for remedy is checked by government's refusal to actually come to a table and negotiate. Negotiations go through 35 meetings without a single item being addressed because government negotiators won't hear a word of discussion on wages or working conditions. That allows government to reinforce the idea that the system can't work. That sets the groundwork for draconian legislation that freezes wages and working conditions and allows government to consult itself in the fullness of time about some sort of something to replace the system it has been busily undermining.

As the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said, it's all very convenient for the government's agenda — this kind of approach. But it can never be acceptable to teachers or parents or communities to see government abdicate its responsibilities to negotiate in order to be able to use its preferred means in this case, which is legislative force. All this can ever do is engender and reinforce a climate of disrespect.

Bill 12 represents intemperate action by a government determined to politicize teacher bargaining relationships and to make unilateral decisions about teaching and learning conditions that do not have the best interests of students and parents at the forefront. The government gives no compelling rationale for Bill 12. The government doesn't need it to protect its interest in the continuity of educational services, because it has essential services designation in hand.

The government doesn't need it to establish an industrial relations commission to recommend a new approach to collective bargaining. It has that power independently of Bill 12. It could have done it any time. Bill 12 doesn't mention it. Bill 12 has no bearing on it. In fact, if government had wanted to show good faith, it could have instituted the IRC process a long time ago. It could have used it to build bridges rather than burn them.

What does the government need Bill 12 for? Really, the only thing I can see when I look into it is that it allows the government to avoid bargaining in good faith by removing the obligation to bargain at all. It's nothing more, in the end, than an escape hatch from the sorry mess created by the refusal to bargain in good faith.

I said earlier today that where I come from, you have to keep talking across the divide, across the differences, and that you have to try to keep the dialogue going and that you have to reach out. It certainly isn't easy to get to yes, but you only can get to yes if, to some degree, you attempt to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

This government still shows no signs of wanting to reach out. Rather, I think I see the government trying to talk past the teachers with their commitment to the best

outcome for students and convince parents that somehow they are empowering choice, retaining continuity, when in fact what they're doing is negatively affecting the very conditions that determine their children's potential in school.

I recall, on the doorstep in the recent election campaign — which is still not a distant memory for me — that I wasn't hearing parents defending government's claim about increased choice and protecting the continuity of schooling. What I was hearing was ongoing concern about conditions at the local schools and, also, concern about government's intentions for public education, a system we all have immense pride in and a huge stake in. These are issues of trust that relate to choices — choices government has made, choices government doesn't seem proud of or even ready to own.

Those parents aren't feeling better right now about what they're seeing with Bill 12, because it reinforces the image of this as a government that's uncaring, heavy-handed and vindictive.

People aren't dumb. If you approach bargaining with zero-zero-and-zero and you refuse to enter into discussion of learning outcomes and teaching conditions, people are going to know that you're not actually proceeding with an intention to try to resolve a decent agreement, that you're not actually bargaining in good faith, that you haven't actually tried to find an agreement, that you haven't exhausted every avenue, that you haven't even looked for remedies.

Bill 12 looks, really, like what it is. It's an escape hatch from a situation, an impasse that's of government's own making. For this government to declare that the system is broken and have any credibility at all in making that statement, they would have to have tried, actually tried, to make the system work. Yet at every turn what we've seen is they've done everything to avoid trying to make it work. They've undermined the relationship with teachers at every turn, shown them the cold shoulder.

Now, Mr. Speaker, calling attention to this may seem as futile to you as howling at the moon, but I want to urge the government to reconsider its actions and to think about changing its course. It's never too late to be saved. It's certainly not too late to realize that you can't freeze teachers out of discussions about education that encompass teaching and learning conditions.

The Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and their government should be just as concerned about the deteriorating conditions that teachers are reporting to us and telling us are damaging their ability to enjoy their calling and to optimize the outcomes in our classrooms, as we on this side of the House are.

I think this Legislature is the steward of public education. But if this Legislature is, in fact, the steward of public education in the province that apparently aspires to meet the goal of being the most literate in the universe — I may have expanded the sphere a little, but it's good to have large goals and aspire higher — then you can't turn teachers into enemies and vilify them to the very parents whose confidence they enjoy.

Parents go to the schools. I'm a parent. I go to the school on a daily basis — not every day, because I think today is a day that I may not get to take my son to school in the morning. That's unfortunate, and I'll miss that. Parents go to schools every day, and they interact with the teachers, and they understand what the teachers are doing for their children, and they depend on them. They do have confidence in teachers.

I think government needs to begin reaching out. This government, especially, needs to begin reaching out. But it's going to have to overcome that habit of acting unilaterally. It got hooked on that from a term in office when it didn't have to talk to anybody but itself. That habit, in part, is the reason that we've come to the place we're at today.

But I don't think it's too late. I really don't. I think there are some reasonable people on the other side, and I want to speak to the better side of their natures. Government needs to reach out, build bridges, listen and hear, not throw punches, not burn bridges and not order teachers to work without the satisfaction of having their say in the matter.

This government could be spending its credibility in this regard very quickly at the outset of a new term. If you persist, it's going to be very, very difficult to ever get this thing back in a workable groove. It's already gotten very far off track.

D. Cubberley: I'm really encouraged by the enthusiasm being shown in the chamber for the kind of idea that I'm putting forward. The hour is late, but there is obviously passion for public education on this side of the House. I have the sense that we're near Vesuvius and that Vesuvius is giving stirrings and signs of being capable of erupting. That's very exciting.

D. Cubberley: Yes, the reference may be somewhat obscure, but the member behind me obviously gets it.

I'd like to close with a plea that if members opposite actually care for public education's future in British Columbia, that if they really have some connection to this great goal of literacy — and, indeed, it is a great goal — and to quality education, and that it isn't just a convenient slogan and a screen, then they understand that it's not too late to change course and to open a dialogue with teachers that provides them with a

That really is, I think, what teachers are looking for. I mean, it's a complex situation — bargaining always is complex — but they need to have a sense that they can have a say, and they need to be heard. The best place to do that is at a table of some kind, not in the public sphere, not in the media, not by dramatizing the issue and ramping up emotions. That makes it more difficult to get where we need to go.

What government really needs to consider doing at this point is seize the opportunity and, as the member behind me suggested earlier, stop digging the hole that government is working so hard to dig, and to join us by committing publicly to drop Bill 12 and go back to the table and addressing the classroom conditions that are undermining teachers' confidence in the public system we all treasure and that they, above all, love and are investing their lives in.

Hon. M. de Jong: My interjection into the debate will not be a lengthy one. I suspect members opposite understand that for a variety of reasons, the government is of the view that the hoist motion is misguided and will frustrate the intention of the legislation that's before the House — and that therefore the government will be voting against it.

I would not have interjected at this time, except that I wanted, in fairness, to be able to provide all members with a formal and on-the-record update of what has taken place insofar as applications before the Labour Relations Board. I can tell members that as of an hour or two ago the Labour Relations Board did rule on an application between the British Columbia Public School Employers Association on behalf of its members and the British Columbia Teachers Federation.

I won't read the entire order, but I will alert members to what I think are the salient portions. It is an order dated October 6: "Whereas the Labour Relations Board has received an application dated October 6, 2005, from BCPSEA pursuant to sections 1(2), 133, 134, 135, 136, 139 and 143 in parts 5 and 6 of the Labour Relations Code alleging that the union has declared and authorized a withdrawal of services beginning on October 7, 2005, contrary to parts 5 and 6 of the code…." There is then a series of recitals.

It's dated October 6. I can advise members of the House that the order has been, as of a few moments ago, filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It has been distributed via electronic means, I believe, to schools across the province.

I'm advised that it will then be served on the picket lines. In fact, the report I have is that in several instances, picket lines have appeared and that the order will be served on those and subsequent picket lines that may appear and that it will be the intention of the employer, the BCPSEA, to secure the necessary affidavits in the event that the order is ignored and to bring enforcement applications before the B.C. Supreme Court tomorrow.

By way of information about what has taken place thus far…. I have been following the debate in this chamber, and though I must say I have disagreed profoundly with many of the views expressed, I respect the fact that members in this chamber, for a variety of reasons, may have differing views than I about the nature of the legislation before us in the guise of Bill 12.

I am also mindful of the fact that members require up-to-date information on what the courts of the land have said. I think it is fair for me to provide this chamber with the information and to observe that the urgency associated with the bill, if it was not apparent before, is perhaps more readily apparent to members now as a result of what has taken place

I hope that during the course of the debate, to the extent that it may follow, members will reflect on that. I had occasion…. I don't pretend to be able to keep track of all such things myself, but someone had occasion to provide me with material relating to something the Leader of the Opposition apparently said to the media around four o'clock this morning. The Leader of the Opposition is quoted — hopefully, correctly — as saying: "Do I think the public and others, and teachers included, should follow the law? Yes."

Members of the House will, I hope, be able to rely on the information that I have now, in having a firm statement of what the law is, pending changes. I will undertake to provide them with any additional information as it becomes known to me. It is, I would suggest, extremely relevant. I think, as members of this chamber, whatever our political persuasions are and our regard for the legislation might be, it has been ably expressed during the course of this debate.

We must further reflect, or should reflect, on what our role as lawmakers is. Each of us will make our de-

cision, as will, I'm sure, the people who are confronted by both the requests of their union and the order of the court. That is the information. To the extent that I anticipated speaking to the hoist motion that is before the chamber — I would have done that later — I thought this was an opportune time to provide that information to members and to the chamber as a whole.

My last point, before I take my place. I am certain that it was inadvertent. Therefore, I will not submit this as a formal point of privilege. But the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I hope, will have an opportunity to review her remarks as recorded in Hansard at about 9:55 this evening — fairly lengthy remarks assigning certain comments to me. Knowing the member as I do, I am certain that she will — and I can make the comment directly — offer a correction on the record for the comments that she made at 9:55 erroneously assigning some fairly lengthy comments to me. I'm not sure who takes great umbrage, myself or the member who actually made the comments. He is no longer here to record that fact in the chamber, so perhaps the member would review those comments.

A. Dix: I listened with great seriousness to what the Government House Leader had to say. In great fairness, I think that I draw a very different conclusion. We've reached a point after four-plus years now, of a government that again and again and again and again and again and again — six times — has introduced legislation taking away rights from teachers, imposing conditions on teachers, imposing working conditions on teachers without negotiation. It's a government that has used education as a wedge issue in election campaigns, that has targeted teachers in election campaigns.

This isn't MLAs. This isn't some angry campaign official. This isn't some overenthusiastic volunteer. I'm talking about the Premier of this province who, during the last election campaign — four days before the last election campaign — made comments about teachers in this province, about their representatives in this province which, I think, lowered the standard of debate and were provocative in the extreme. I'd argue to the Government House Leader that it is time for the government to take a step back, for the government to support this hoist, for the government not to impose yet another bill on teachers, for the government to show a little respect.

Public education, I know, is important to all members of this House. It's not just exclusive to members of our party. I know it's important to all members of this House. It's important to all Canadians.

I don't think there's any other place in Canadian society where people are brought together in this way — people of diverse backgrounds. That's certainly true in my constituency in kind of a profound way. I have two secondary schools in my riding. One is Gladstone School. There are students who at home speak 40 different languages. English is not just not the most important language. It's not even close to being the most important language spoken at home. Teachers working with students at that school do extraordinary things.

We think of the world and the anger that sometimes comes in ethnic conflict, and then we think of the work of teachers and students and parents in our public schools bringing people together. That is the reality of public education as it's expressed in the lives of teachers in my constituency. It has nothing to do with the anger and the confrontation and the fury and the opportunism of the B.C. Liberal government with respect to education. It has nothing to do with that.

I have another school in my riding, Windermere School, led by extraordinary teachers and students. More than 400 students at Windermere School volunteer at the elementary schools in my constituency which forms the Windermere family of schools — 400 students. They are supported by teachers in those efforts 12 months of the year. At event after event after event I attended this summer that people from Windermere supported, teachers were there in support.

Teachers live a life of cooperation and respect. For five years in this province they have received none from this government. I want to take you back to the remarks of the Premier prior to the 2001 election. What did he say about education and competitiveness? He said: "You compete by recognizing that teachers should be valued members of our community, and they're going to have to be paid."

The Premier also said — we all remember it — some things to hospital workers before that election campaign. He said that they would be respected and that their contracts would be respected. No doubt we'll hear him speaking eloquently, like the Government House Leader, about respect for the law. We'll hear him eloquently about that. The Premier talked before an election about respect for contracts, and then after the election he led his caucus to tear up contracts. That is not the way to build respect for the law in this province.

I talked about six bills. Six times they've come to this House and used the hammer of legislation against teachers. Hon. Speaker, remember in 2002…. I just want to read what the member who introduced the bill in 2002…. He's no longer in this House. The former member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who was then the Minister of Labour, in introducing the bill in the House, the bills that, of course, stripped collective agreements of class size provisions, bills that led to every classroom in British Columbia becoming larger, that caused cuts to teacher-librarians, that caused cuts to ESL teachers in the very school, Gladstone School, that I think is a centrepiece of what public education should be….

The Minister of Labour said: "This bill settles the teachers dispute and provides a collective agreement between the parties. It also provides for the appointment of a commission to review the structures, practices and procedures for collective bargaining in the education sector." I think there's a quote — I forget who said it; something tells me it might be Groucho

Marx — about history repeating itself: first it's tragedy, and then it's farce. It might be somebody else; I don't know. I think those were virtually the exact same words that the Minister of Labour used in the House when he introduced this bill.

We're talking about using the legislative hammer to impose an agreement on teachers that hurts students and then having vague promises of a future that will be better. They didn't even do us the courtesy of coming up with something more imaginative this time.

Remember what those bills did. When we talk about the cuts and their impact to legislation, think of Bill 28, which eliminated the provisions with respect to class size, workload and support provisions. What was the effect of it, practically speaking?

Lots of people say this is about teachers. In fact, what it meant for students was profound. Special education teachers down 17.5 percent — that's what Bill 28 meant. Teacher-librarians are down 23.4 percent — one in four, almost — in the province. If you go to some communities, there's a virtual elimination of access to libraries. Counsellors down 10 percent, ESL teachers down 20 percent — that's what it meant. That's what they did. They did it without consultation, without serious negotiations. They stripped that collective agreement, and they hurt students while they did it.

Where did they go from there? What was the next step? Remember, when they introduced that bill, they said they were going to try and improve things. They were trying to make things better for the next time. They said, like they say this time, that the bargaining system is broken. They never take any responsibility for it. It's like they're witnessing an accident involving other parties. In this case, this so-called failed negotiation, they said to teachers: "You can't negotiate wages. You can't negotiate working conditions." Then, having taken away anything to negotiate, they attacked teachers for not negotiating.

That's their position now. But what did they do then? What was their moving-on idea then? It was to take away the professional status of teachers by changing the Teaching Profession Act. That was their next step: Bill 51.

I tell you, I was executive director of Canadian Parents for French at the time, and I visited classrooms all over B.C. and met lots of hardworking teachers. I think many teachers found this even more personally insulting to them than the previous bills had been. The fact of the matter is…. Just to show how ideological the bill was, how angry and divisive the bill was, at the very time they were doing this, they were creating self-regulating bodies in numerous other professions. In other words, they were saying: "In principle we like self-regulating bodies for professions. Whether it's car dealers or whatever it is, we love that. We think that's the right way to go. But for teachers — no. For teachers we'll go the other way. We'll give them special treatment — special hostile treatment." It's shameful. It's shameful to target a group in society that contributes so much in that way.

Then what happened? The Supreme Court of British Columbia made a ruling in favour of teachers, against the government's legislation. What happened then? What did they do then? Well, they came back in the House, and again without consultation with teachers, they took away their rights the second time. They took them away the second time. That's the history going forward.

Then we get, of course, to the election campaign and to the comments I've referred to that the Premier made earlier. On May 13, 2005, there was the Premier. He called a special news conference, the Premier did, to meet with reporters and to refer to "a duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike, only weeks before provincial exams, that would throw our school system into chaos." We're in this Legislature, and there are rules of decorum, so I won't characterize those remarks. But let us say, to be generous, that the Premier was mistaken. Hon. Speaker, he was more than mistaken. He is the Premier of British Columbia, and he, days before an election, decides to go after a group in society, a group he doesn't like — teachers — a group that he had legislated against already five times. He made these comments, which were, I think, proven to be not so.

Why did he do it? Well, in fact, the B.C. Liberal Party, his supporters, explained to us why he did it. B.C. Liberal Women's Committee president Irene Barr sent an e-mail telling party members to use media reports about teacher negotiations to "start a movement on this issue to stop the NDP." This contrived issue…. After four years of attacks on teachers and on students and on the quality of education, days before the election, the Premier — the person who represents, after all, everybody in British Columbia, not just those that support the governing party but everybody in British Columbia — was raising issues to divide, divide, divide. This legislation that faces us today is more of the same.

The Premier, who of course towers over this government, who is maybe the most powerful centralizing Premier in the history of British Columbia…. What did he say about this legislation? He said: "We've taken the lightest approach we could." Well, I'm reminded of what Art Buchwald said about the Nixon cabinet. He said: "I've always wanted to join the Nixon cabinet, but I was never light enough to make the team."

In this case, what the Premier calls the lightest approach is to not allow negotiations, to not discuss serious issues of educational standards with teachers for years and then to impose legislation on them by legislative diktat — not to meet with teachers. By the way, the Premier, in that summer of good feeling after the election, the Premier's summer of love…. What did he do? What did he promise? He said he'd meet with teachers. He said: "We've changed. We're going to be a different government." But did he meet with teachers? Did he keep his commitment to meet with teachers? He didn't keep his commitment to meet with teachers any more than he kept his commitment to treat them and

I think what we have seen from this government, over four years, has brought us to the brink of something serious, some of which was described a few minutes ago by the Government House Leader. I think it's time that the Premier and his MLAs take a step back. They have acknowledged — they've already acknowledged — with respect to this legislation that there is no emergency. They don't need the bill. They've already acknowledged that. They should accept that it would be helpful in this dispute to take a step back from legislation that imposes conditions on teachers that have never been negotiated, never been seriously discussed, by legislative diktat. They should take this moment to take a step back.

Instead, what we get from the Premier is more of the same. We get a little bit of misdirection. We get the lightest approach we could. We get promises of future negotiations sometime in the future. Well, every time you commit to future negotiations, to meeting with teachers, and you never deliver and you never have them, then how is anyone seriously going to believe you now? He needs not to talk about future negotiations with teachers. He needs to have negotiations with teachers.

In 1998 teachers signed an agreement with the government of British Columbia where they gave up wage increases in order to have lower class sizes, reduced class sizes, in order to have a lower ratio of special needs students to teachers and in order to have more teacher-librarians. They made real sacrifices in wages, true sacrifices in wages, in a formal contract with the government of British Columbia. They made that deal. It was a good deal for education. It was a good deal for students. It was a good deal for our public school system.

This government, by legislative diktat, stripped those conditions from that collective agreement. They didn't negotiate. They didn't talk. They didn't treat teachers with respect, and they took away things that teachers sacrificed to get for students. That's the record, hon. Speaker.

When the hon. members opposite talk about these negotiations in that way, they try and rewrite history. Negotiations take time. They take effort. It's easier for the hon. members opposite to come into this House and not work, to treat teachers with disrespect, to write a little bit of legislation — a little bit of legislation that says in the explanatory note: "This settles the dispute."

In 1998 teachers ratified an agreement with the government of British Columbia. That is a fact. That agreement involved real sacrifice for teachers and real gains for students and public education. What have we seen in the last few years? I've certainly heard from teachers in my constituency over the last few weeks.

Today I heard from a teacher, Jason Yee, who teaches at Windermere Secondary School. He makes an extraordinary contribution there. It's a remarkable school. In spite of all the challenges that students and teachers have faced there, they are achieving remarkable things. I encourage all members of this House to go to Windermere School and see those things, and so does Jason Yee. He writes: "I'm a teacher who lives and works in Vancouver-Kingsway, and I'd like to tell you what it's like to teach at Windermere Secondary. During the last school year I taught a math class with 32 students in which ten of the students had documented special needs." That wouldn't have been allowed in the contract negotiated in 1998.

Rather than coming to this Legislature with the hammer against teachers, this government should be standing up every day and thanking teachers, working with teachers and working with people like Jason Yee who believe in public education or making enormous contributions in the class. That's what they should be doing and not passing this bill today.

I think we've reached an important moment in this debate and an important moment in the history of education in British Columbia. The government truly has a choice. They can continue down this present path, where more and more teachers are discouraged, where the government has for years publicly presented a view that teaching is not a profession to be respected.

A. Dix: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson knows this well, because he goes to schools as well as I do. He knows these issues as well. We need to encourage young people to go into public education today. We need it.

As executive director of Canadian Parents for French, I can tell you that we need a net increase of 300 teachers just for French immersion in this province. You get there by praising teachers, by negotiating with teachers, by respecting teachers. You don't get there with legislative hammers year after year after year, Mr. Speaker. This is damaging to the long-term future of public education in British Columbia. The member knows it.

I ask members opposite to reconsider this legislation, to take a step back. The hon. member referred earlier to the LRB ruling. They don't need to add this bill to that fire. They could take a step back. They could not go forward with this legislation at this moment. They could show respect for teachers. They could go spend this weekend — the Premier, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education, the Deputy Premier, their MLAs could spend this weekend — working with teachers and entering into serious negotiations for once, because ultimately — and it's the reason these negotiations have failed — they set up a system of negotiations that is Kafkaesque.

You can't negotiate working conditions and you can't negotiate wages, yet they insult you if you don't negotiate. If you're not allowed to negotiate anything, then it doesn't matter how many meetings you have. It's the government that should be at the negotiating tables, the government that should be taking responsibility, the government that should insist on giving a serious mandate for the negotiations. They can step back. They can cool the situation down. They have the responsibility, and they have to start taking responsibility. Until they do that, this situation will get worse and worse.

I ask them to support this hoist motion, to take a step back, to give this some time, to meet with members of the B.C. Teachers Federation, to meet with teachers in their constituencies. I know this: if teachers who live their lives teaching respect in the classroom are given respect by this government, they will respond by negotiating with the government in good faith. I ask the government to go that way, to go a different route, to take a step back from year after year of legislation taking away the rights of teachers and, instead, build a new culture of respect that has to start today.

J. Kwan: I rise to make an apology to the Minister of Labour. I was mistaken when I quoted earlier in my speech, in moving the motion, that the Minister of Labour made the statement I quoted on record. It turns out it was another de Jong, a Harry de Jong, and that didn't show up in Hansard. My apologies to the minister, and I withdraw those statements.

S. Fraser: Yet again I stand here before you. It's 1:30. The night is young, with a few sleepy-looking people across the way, but I see they're waking up.

I stand here defending public education for our children, for our parents and for our teachers — the professionals that the Liberal government treats with such disdain and disrespect. I do so proudly, and I'll do it again and again, as long as it will take, as all of us on this side will. I've done a lot of all-nighters. Put the coffee on.

We on this side of the House will be the voice of conscience and stand up to this government's attempt to impose this draconian bill — impose it not by reason, because the bill is totally unreasonable, but by exhaustion. It's a low blow by anyone's standards.

I stand here supporting the hoist motion, the six-month hoist motion. Take this bill off the table. It's time to step back. Bill 12, this most divisive and inflammatory piece of legislation…. This government's priority is rewarding political friends and supporters with corporate tax breaks and paying for that largesse with cuts, broken promises and torn-up contracts. This government's priorities put students dead last. This legislation increases the level of confrontation and does nothing to improve learning conditions in our classrooms.

This is governing by spin doctors. It's ruling by slogan — golden decade indeed. The most educated and literate society in the world — oh, really? The number of students with identified special needs is dropping, apparently. Good news, if it were true. Ministry statistics say that the number of identified students with special needs fell by 6 percent, while overall school enrolment fell only by 3.7 percent under this government. The drop in special needs would be greater, except for the huge growth in students identified as being autistic — a 48 percent increase over the same years from 1,312 identified as autistic in 2000-2001 to 2,262 by 2004-2005. Does the drop in identified students reduce the pressure on teachers? Hardly.

The problem is that the students with special needs haven't disappeared. Many are just not identified. It's kind of a "let them eat cake" mentality from this government. Under the old finance system, when districts identified students with special needs, that brought funding to provide assistance. Under the new system, the Liberal system, that is the case only for the students with the most severe disabilities.

If you identify a student as having special needs, she or he must have extra service provided in the form of an individual education plan, an IEP that describes the needs and how they must be met. If no additional money is coming for the student, the incentive for a district to identify those in need is much, much less. But if students with special needs are still there, and they are, the teacher still has to do her or his best to respond to the individual needs under very difficult circumstances, often with resources, activities and approaches different from those that engage the other students in the class.

I did some research earlier today. In my constituency, Alberni-Qualicum, there are two school districts: 69, which is Qualicum, and 70, which is Alberni and the west coast. Special needs teachers in Alberni, district 70, have been cut by 14 percent under this government. In Qualicum — that's district 69 — special education teachers were cut by 22 percent.

I met with a group of aboriginal teachers today — about 15 from all over the province. They were in the gallery today. There might be some still here. They had a great number of concerns. I tried to make extra time for them and ran out of that time. We'll try to set up another meeting. They were explaining some of the difficulties they've been facing under this government, just under this Bill 12, being able to negotiate towards improving learning conditions for students. That ability is gone, and it directly affects first nations students. Class sizes affect first nations students — a weakening quality of learning services for kids. There's less small-group support; there's certainly less one-on-one support.

In dealing with special needs here, I again refer to my own constituency. In the aboriginal education, in district 70, the cuts have been 43 percent. In district 69 the cuts were 88 percent to aboriginal education. This government talks of a new relationship with first nations. I was honoured to be on the central region board in Clayoquot Sound for a number of years with Nuu-chah-nulth leadership. I learned some things there — a term hishuk-ish ts'awalk: everything is connected. All things are one. It has merit here. You can't have a new relationship with words. Education can't be cut to the bone, and we have words to fix that. It doesn't work that way.

The first nations teachers I was talking to today were talking about special needs issues: less money, no money to hire more educational psychologists to do the lengthy educational testing needed to acquire ministry designation of special needs. A category letter is needed to get special learning services in elementary and is also needed to qualify for special needs classroom programs in elementary and, most importantly, in order to qualify for special needs high school programs, for which there are extensive waiting lists right now.

The best-educated. The most literate. They're words — only words with this government.

There was an elementary school in Vancouver's east side. This school has to share an educational psychologist with four other schools. It's lucky to get four students in that school tested per year. At present there are five grade five students on a waiting list to be given educational testing in order to get needed support. They are all aboriginal students.

English as a second dialect is outlined by the Ministry of Education — ESL. It's unclear how services to these students are to be delivered and in describing who exactly qualifies for this service. Roughly, students whose academic writing is two grade levels below grade standards qualifies as ESD, or English as a second dialect, but they are not automatically to receive support for being below grade level academically.

Educational testing in order to get needed support. This doesn't even consider the other eight classes in the school I was just referring to. This school may have anywhere from one to five students in K-to-seven needing this testing also, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

Students in inner-city schools who are commonly disadvantaged due to socioeconomic challenges don't often have the two to three years of preschool book-reading experience of most non-poverty-level-income families — children that have. They need smaller class sizes and available small groups. The one-on-one support from K-to-seven is critical.

There's another Nuu-chah-nulth term. It's called iisaak. It means, literally, respect. There has been a glaring lack of iisaak by this government for our teachers, for public education and for collective bargaining rights. This government has been ruthless.

Public education has been in the Liberal sights from the beginning — gutted contracts; removing the ability of our educators to have meaningful say on class conditions, class size or class makeup. Our teachers are the people that know. They are the professionals charged with educating our children. It's our future.

The excuse by this government for 2,500 teachers cut was a drop in enrolment. The numbers never added up — a spurious argument at best.

One hundred and thirteen schools closed. There's a legacy. Downloading millions of dollars of costs on local school boards.

I received a letter from a secondary school teacher in Port Alberni, my constituency, a professional with almost 30 years' experience. As she is explaining here, basically, the whole system has been eroded. Class sizes are too large and of a composition that is not being supported. Weak students do not get adequate attention or help. She describes the condition in our schools for our children as "survival of the fittest."

As well, required support systems and infrastructure are failing — failing in cleanliness, failing janitorial standards, failing computer standards that have been mentioned over and over by my peers, with a lack of integrated support personnel, lack of prompt testing, lack of current texts and textbooks, cutbacks in libraries. Her frustration is palpable.

With the last provincial election, there was talk of doing things differently — positive talk: friendlier, more kindhearted government; bridging differences, not creating them; bridging historic animosity. These were only words. The mean-spirited attacks on public education have just continued. During the election this government began again by attempting to vilify teachers, setting the stage for the failed process we see here, leading to this bill that we are debating this week.

Looking back, the parallels from the previous election should have tipped us off. The new budget. Again, massive tax breaks to corporate friends and supporters, and again — how to pay for them? Exactly the same priorities as the last time. It's déjà vu all over again.

The rationale for Bill 12 is an impasse in negotiations. An impasse? No kidding, an impasse. This government ordained that negotiations shall not include things like wages or class sizes or working conditions. What kind of negotiations? What would it be like to be

The teachers participated in 35 sessions that led to an impasse. It's a credit to the BCTF negotiators to return 34 times to that. What a credit to our teachers. What an affirmation of their willingness to negotiate and make a better education system for our province, for our children and for our future.

When this government laid down criteria that would not allow negotiations to proceed…. Then we get a fact-finding report that says there is an impasse. B.C. parents expect the government to work with the teachers — that never happened — not work against them. They expect them to work to improve education for our children, not hinder it — not make it worse. This government has let parents and their children down, and then they've tried to blame it on the teachers. This government failed to recognize the value of our educators and continues to do so.

It's strange. They fail to negotiate — yes. They fail to recognize what true investment is — business-friendly government. It fails to recognize the value of a strong public school system with strong and meaningful input from the professionals, from our teachers. It makes a strong business case to listen to the people that know what they're doing, the people on the front line. To ignore them is arrogant, and it doesn't make good business sense.

The most educated and literate jurisdiction — society. These words, just words, are not reflected by cuts to special education teachers by 17½ percent. The most educated and literate jurisdiction will not be created by cutting teacher-librarians by 23.4 percent. The most educated and literate jurisdiction will not occur with a 20 percent cut to ESL teachers.

The most educated and literate jurisdiction. They're words. They're just words for this government — words like "negotiating in good faith," or words like, "We will honour negotiated contracts," or words like: "We won't sell B.C. Rail."

Education is an investment. It is the most important investment a government can make. It's an investment in our children. It's an investment in our future. To ignore that is at all of our perils, and maybe it's more important than Liberal corporate tax breaks. These negotiations were set up to fail, not to create the most educated and literate jurisdiction in the world — a complete lack of respect, a complete lack of iisaak, a complete lack of recognition of the value of our teachers.

The government didn't need a confrontational approach. The government should do the right thing tonight. The amendment — a six-month hoist amendment to second reading of Bill 12 — makes sense. If you put ideology aside, it makes eminent sense — for our education system, for a good workplace, but most of all for the students.

Increasingly in B.C., the government is choosing to abandon the negotiation process and instead is opting to make legitimate, lawful job action illegal. Whereas back-to-work legislation similar to Bill 12 used to be used as an exceptional measure, this government has, in the words of the labour relations experts, institutionalized — and I like this term — "permanent exceptionalism."

According to the labour relations experts, this government has institutionalized permanent exceptionalism by routinely ordering public sector employees back to work. It is confrontational, and there were indications that that would end at this election. Those indications have proven sadly wrong. During their first term, the Liberals imposed legislated settlements on at least seven occasions.

Such legislative measures effectively remove workers' statutory right to strike, a right that all unionized employees possess under the laws of British Columbia. As lawmakers, we must recognize that. By imposing Bill 12, the government is choosing to violate the rights of British Columbians. Well, shame on you. Your job is to stand up and protect the rights of British Columbians — all British Columbians.

An extraordinarily long time period between contract expiration and new settlements. A history of challenges in reaching a negotiated settlement. Recent disputes ending in legislative intervention. Starting to ring a bell, I'm sure, to everyone. It sounds very, very familiar to everyone in this province.

B.C. teachers are not the only public sector workers who have faced challenges in collective bargaining with their employer. But other employers have also cooperatively overcome those challenges rather than unilaterally imposing an unfair contract on hard-working employees, employees that do a lot more than they're recognized for professionally. It is recognized by the parents that know what those teachers do and the students that get that extra bit from their teachers.

For example, the city of Toronto, led by its municipal government leaders, recently negotiated a fair and balanced settlement with the city's outside workers. We don't need to reinvent the wheel; we should learn from this. To not learn is folly.

The outside workers had been without a contract for approximately eight months, had not reached a negotiated settlement with their employer since the late 1990s, a millennium ago, and had been legislated back to work in 2002. So there are a lot of parallels here. The collective bargaining process and the relationship between the municipal government and its workers appeared to be broken — another parallel. It's almost a quote from the fact-finder brought in last week, with this report. Yet in this case the parties, with the constructive and cooperative support of municipal government leaders, were able to agree on a fair and balanced contract without resorting to legislation or job action.

The Toronto experience and experiences in other jurisdictions where governments work with their employees rather than working against them are evidence of the possibilities and opportunities that exist through the negotiating process — still possible through this

negotiating process. The hoist motion is such an opportunity. Step back for six months. Meaningful negotiations will be in everyone's best interests.

By imposing a settlement on B.C. teachers, the Liberal government has chosen to discard those possibilities and those opportunities, opting instead for further conflict, worsened relations, deflated morale and an outcome that will not benefit British Columbians and sure won't benefit students.

This government has consistently blamed the parties — I think that's how it's termed — for the current impasse that we are facing in negotiations. But who are the parties? In B.C., although the Public School Employers Association formally represents the interests of the public education employers and school boards, its bargaining mandate comes directly from the provincial government. Labour relations experts refer to this dynamic as a phantom bargaining system, where the provincial government is actually the employer and the bargaining items are matters of broad public policy.

In other words, the government is, through the BCPSEA, a party to these negotiations. They are not separate. If anyone is to blame for this impasse, it is this government, which has tied the BCPSEA's hands with a narrow and unreasonable bargaining mandate that has left no room for constructive negotiations and no room for compromise. It could take a bold step and allow for that constructive negotiation and compromise to occur. It would be greatly appreciated by the people of this province.

The government basically has three options in negotiating with its public educators. One, they can take an adversarial approach by instructing the B.C. Public School Employers Association to demand teachers concessions at the bargaining table. They have taken this approach, tying the employers' hands with a narrow and unreasonable bargaining mandate that has left no room — no room for constructive negotiation or compromise.

Two, though, is that they can take a legislative approach by imposing compensation and working conditions unilaterally through legislation.

G. Coons: I am here to speak on the amendment to hoist Bill 12, as this government is out to pass this anti-teacher bill by the format of legislation by exhaustion. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as the evening wears on and the days wear on, this side of the House will not get tired of speaking up for quality education. We will not get tired of speaking out for the rights of teachers and all workers in this province.

This government has taken the extraordinary measure of changing the legislative calendar to meet their own agenda, to ram this archaic piece of imposed legislation down the throats of our teachers. Teachers in every corner of this province will take to the streets tomorrow morning to protest in a way that they see as necessary — not only necessary so they can say they stood up to the bullying tactics of this government but necessary for the good of our public education system.

Teachers were forced to make a tough choice, one that I know they will be able to sleep at night with. Although the walkout may be deemed illegal — and I know everyone supports obeying the law — that's not the question here. I believe British Columbians have seen the frustration, the aggravation and the way that this government has backed teachers into a corner to make the decisions they had to make.

I had the honour and privilege of going outside tonight and meeting and talking with a group of students from Victoria who were out there. If I can use a saying from my good friend, Nuxalk Chief Anthon Tsewalis, I would say: "That made my heart soar." That's what it's all about. We're here discussing what's going to happen to public education. We're talking about the future for our children, for our young adults.

I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to a young woman out there, a grade 12 woman, Katie Daer. She sent in a three-page letter. I'm just going to read a portion of it:

Mr. Speaker, we've got students coming into the gallery tonight, two at a time, to visit and see democracy in action. I'd like to welcome them all in. I don't know their names; I hope to get them. I'd like to welcome you here tonight.

Why are B.C. teachers taking a strong and courageous stance against this Liberal government? There are quite a few reasons. One, they've had no contract for more than a year. I must note that when "contract" is mentioned, it was not a real contract. It was imposed. It was an imposed piece of legislation — not agreed to, not signed off, and not what teachers see as a valuable piece of paper.

The last contract ended on June 30, 2004, and teachers are going into their second year of working without a contract in place. After more than 30 negotiating meetings with the B.C. Public School Employers Association, no progress has been made. The government representatives just repeat that their mandate from government is zero for salaries, no negotiated improvements in teaching conditions.

In the collective bargaining system the only pressure employees have to make gains is through withdrawing their labour when there is no agreement to the terms of a contract. Rather than accepting the invitation to open talks, to explore ways to improve the services teachers can offer to children in our public schools, the B.C. Liberals have once again resorted to archaic legislation to impose terms of teachers' employment.

Bill 12, the new piece of legislated scrap — and I hope I'm pronouncing it correctly — extends the terms and conditions of the current imposition — which ended on June 30, 2004 — to June 30, 2006. That will mean five years of imposed conditions of employment, no improvements to student learning conditions, and five years of being poked in the eye.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm using this term for a reason, obviously: because the Minister of Education used that term. She was quoted in the Vancouver Sun September 8. The minister said she had no intention of following a colleague's suggestion that the government pass a law making membership in the BCTF optional. One of the Liberal MLAs called for such an action during that month. "It's not something that's on my workplan at the moment," said the minister, then adding later: "I'm not interested in poking the BCTF in the eye every day." And that's it, Mr. Speaker. Not every day. Not every day is she poking the BCTF in the eye. But she continues, along with this government, to poke with confrontational legislation that every member of the hon. opposition here will oppose until the other side shuts us down.

Another reason we're in this crisis is the teachers' previous contract. As I mentioned, it was imposed by legislation. Teachers wanted to negotiate a contract last time, but again, in January 2002, this government simply imposed the contract by legislation. That contract had severe consequences. It eliminated existing provisions that kept class sizes under a maximum and that would ensure many support services would be there for the students that needed them.

The impact of gutting negotiated collective agreements was harsh on first nations students and on aboriginal programs and services throughout the province. Programs that catered to the rich, diverse cultures of many aboriginal students were slashed, and first nations support workers were laid off as school districts tried to meet the government's bottom line.

This government throughout their first term treated first nations with disdain — the referendum, the cuts to services. The list goes on. This government really needs a lesson in developing new relationships and reconciliation.

That imposed contract that I was just talking about also decreed a 2.5 percent salary increase over three years. However, there was a catch to that. That increase was not funded by the government, and nor were all the other increases in costs, such as medical premiums, other charges for government services and a host of things that were downloaded onto school boards. As a result, we've seen school boards cutting the number of teachers. Close to 2,600 teaching positions, nearly 8 percent of the teaching force, were eliminated by school boards that no longer had enough funding to keep students in place.

Many services have been lost for students. Obviously, governments cannot cut large numbers of teachers without negatively affecting the delivery of service in some way. With the protection for services eliminated from the contract, there were counsellors cut and teacher-librarians slashed. Learning assistant teachers and English-as-a-second language and special education teaching positions were chopped all over the province by school boards in order to meet the budget requirements. These were very vital services lost to students who urgently needed them.

Many of these supports for students and working conditions for teachers had been achieved as a trade-off for salaries in real collective bargaining — when there was real collective bargaining. We've heard it before from some of the hon. members on this side. Teachers accepted a smaller salary increase in order to have more colleagues available to offer these important services that also made the teaching job more rewarding.

That's a key issue. A key issue is seeking to restore learning and working conditions for students and teachers. There is no doubt — the research is there — that having smaller classes and sufficient quality support services available in the school makes teaching more satisfying. Improved working conditions make it possible to better meet the needs of students, and that is what teachers want, for the sake of both students and themselves.

Many teachers suffer severe job stress when they know they don't have the time and they don't have the resources to meet the needs of the students in their classrooms. This produces stress precisely because teachers do care about doing the best job possible for all of their students. That is so much harder without adequate human and material resources.

A Globe and Mail editorial said about class size: "It is a workload issue, but a legitimate one. A teacher who is always fighting fires is not teaching."

I commend all the teachers out there tonight who are watching the debate. I know throughout the province, believe it or not, there are people tuned in, and they're watching this. They're sitting there, and that's why we're here.

I commend the teachers and the parents who are phoning and e-mailing and who finally feel that they have someone who cares, someone who will listen and someone who will tell their story. I commend Abby and Darren for being in the chamber tonight, here at 2:15 — students concerned about education. That makes my heart soar.

I had a few e-mails and a few phone calls from people in my own riding — some teachers from Prince Rupert Secondary School, some friends and colleagues. When they heard what was going on, they e-mailed and they phoned, and they said: "Here's a story that's happening right now. I'm a law teacher, law 12. There are 40 students in my law 12 class. For the first couple of days, many students had to stand. Finally, students got kicked out of the class with a farewell of: 'Well, maybe if you complain enough, they might create another class.'"

That's what we've got to in our education system. If you complain, maybe they'll get another class going for you.

Another teacher in the same school, an English 12 classroom…. But since his course was mandatory, all the students had to remain in the classroom. One teacher marking 40 essays on a regular basis. This is simply absurd — an English class with 40.

We need to help and support teachers, Mr. Speaker. I got a note from a parent who is also a teacher: "My daughter is in grade 11 and was planning to take English literature 12. But at her school it's only offered every other year, and thank goodness this is the year. But she had a conflict with another class, and she could not take it this year. So she will not be able to take her English lit class."

Mr. Speaker, these are the stories that must be heard. That's why we're here, and we're going to be here for quite a few more hours.

Teachers are seeking improved working and learning conditions and a fair salary. They want to improve conditions for their students and conditions for themselves. They also want a fair and reasonable salary increase, as we all do.

A teacher membership poll conducted in June sent a clear message. A total of 98 percent of the teachers said it's important to have a collective agreement that protects learning conditions like class size and the integration of students with special needs. A total of 96 percent said it's important that bargaining rights are restored.

What is the way out of this impasse? Teachers have indicated they'll keep trying to find a process that will allow for negotiated agreement. They were committed to this before the strike vote. They're committed to this after the strike vote, and they will continue to seek that framework even if there has to be a strike to bring the issues to a resolution. Teachers want to reach a negotiated agreement and will continue to work for that.

The full responsibility for this crisis lies squarely with the Premier and this government, as they chose confrontation and conflict over raising and resolving issues.

What about the impact on students if there is a strike? Education does matter, and time in school is very important. Inconvenience for families is a reality. However, if all other approaches to make improvements are exhausted, sometimes it's necessary to withdraw services as part of the process of gaining improved conditions.

I know teachers are very reluctant to take strike action, and seldom have they been on strike. Because of all the media discussion of the issue, it may seem like teachers have frequently been on strike. The reality is that since 1993, when provincial bargaining was introduced under the NDP government of Mike Harcourt, not one single school day has been lost to a teacher strike — not one day. Teachers did have a one-day protest in January of 2002 after that infamous imposed contract that stripped guarantees on class size limits, stripped support for students with special needs and stripped the special teachers' support from the contract.

There have been some local strikes by school support workers, and in those instances, teachers have respected the third-party picket lines. But in the last dozen years, B.C. schools have never once been closed to a teacher strike.

When we talk about fearmongering…. We've heard it on that issue from the other side of the House. In fact, in a number of school districts, students regularly lose days in a school, but it's a result of budget restrictions, not strikes. Several districts have reduced school days to four-day weeks and nine-day fortnights. In the Terrace-Kitimat school district they're on a four-day week. It's horrendous in that school district. That was due to government cutbacks and the underfunding of the system. When teachers do end up withdrawing teaching services, it will be because they believe that any harm in the short term will produce improvements for students in the longer term.

Now, Mr. Speaker, was there another way of resolving these disputes? That's a question that comes up every time a strike is talked about. It's not fair or acceptable in a free society for any employer to be able to set the conditions of work with the employee having an obligation to work no matter what the conditions. There has to be some process of reaching agreement on what conditions are acceptable.

We've seen it all. We saw the full-page ads out there. The cost, we couldn't determine after 18, 19 questions. The Minister of Finance did not have an answer.

We did not know the answer. But in those ads, they mentioned that the government has restored conditions, with $150 million provided to school districts. These funds will make up some of the improvements this school year, but they don't even come close to restoring the stripped learning conditions that resulted from Liberal arrogance.

Between 2001 and 2004 the school system lost 2,600 teaching positions. Only about 700 of those can be attributed to declining enrolment. But 1,900 positions simply reduced many services to students through larger class sizes and fewer support teachers. School districts have reported to the province that they are hiring another 630 teachers this year. "Another good-news announcement" — that's what we hear all the time on the other side. Big smiles on their faces, holding up a piece of paper: "Another good-news announcement."

This hiring of 630 more teachers…. This restores less than one-third of the number of teaching positions cut beyond declining enrolment. In addition, teachers are being replaced in some cases by education assistants without professional training. While 2,600 teaching positions disappeared, boards hired 265 more education assistants in 2004. They are projecting another 507 this year to replace those trained specialist teachers. Special ed assistants have been hired to work with students with special needs instead of teachers with the training and teaching experience to provide a rich education that meets diverse needs in our integrated schools.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. Special ed assistants are very important. They're valuable. They're a valuable asset to our schools, and they're a valuable stakeholder in the public education system. But it's wrong when specialist teachers are replaced with just assistants. It's a travesty to our students.

My riding encompasses four school districts: Prince Rupert, Haida Gwaii, the Nisga'a school district, and the Central Coast. All are rural, and most are isolated.

I just mentioned about the cuts in special ed and how assistants were being hired to replace teacher specialists. There are a few facts and numbers I'd like to go through. In school district 52 in Prince Rupert, we had 7.4 special ed teachers cut, which is a 27-percent cut, and 8.8 assistants hired. So they cut 7.4 and hired 8.8 assistants.

In school district 50, in Haida Gwaii, there were three special ed teachers cut out of a population of 51 teachers. It was a 65-percent cut in special ed teachers. Not only that, but they had a cut in their education assistants. Now that doesn't make sense, to my analogy. They got cut in special ed teachers, and they got cut in their assistants. They also had a 13-percent decrease in enrolment, but an 18.7-percent decrease in teachers. Somebody help me with these figures.

In school district 92, Nisga'a school district, there were seven special ed teachers cut — that's 78 percent of their special ed teachers — and an increase of 6.4 education assistants. In school district 92, in the Nass Valley, they experienced a decline in enrolment of 0.9 percent — pretty steady enrolment. But their teachers were slashed 8.7 percent. Try to figure that one out: nearly a steady decline of student population, but 8.7 percent of their teachers cut.

I can just picture it: class sizes ballooning, special needs students into the classes. These are areas where the students are needy. This is what is happening with their education funding. As I mentioned, these numbers don't add up, except if you're punishing isolated communities and claiming that things are looking good throughout the province. That is what this government has done in the last four years to rural communities. That is shameful.

One reason that I am here tonight at close to 2:30 is for reasons like this — not only in education. It's in health care. It's in public services. It's what's been happening throughout rural communities across the province, and that's got to change. It's got to change this weekend. It's got to change with Bill 12. We've got to start showing respect, not only to workers and to the health care system, but especially to our public education system. This is not only an attack on teachers but also an attack on our whole education system by this government. That's the reason we must hoist Bill 12 off the table and start over to build relationships.

Teachers are frustrated and concerned. They want a settlement. They're prepared to take on this government and its attacks on fundamental rights. They are tired of being chastised and being bullied.

Here's a recent e-mail I got from a teacher in Vancouver. I've known him for quite a few years. It's addressed to the Minister of Education.

Deputy Speaker: Member, there will be no more reference to personal families in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, as we stand here tonight, that's what's happening throughout the province.

R. Chouhan: On Thursday afternoon in my speech to oppose Bill 12, I asked the government to adopt a more conciliatory and constructive approach, not confrontation. My colleagues, all 33 of them, have asked the government repeatedly to do the same, and ask the government to work with teachers, not against them. Again, at 2:30 in the morning, I'm asking the government, once more, to be more constructive and conciliatory and drop this path of confrontation.

After the election we heard from all the government spin doctors that it would be more conciliatory and not ideologically driven. But obviously, that was not a sincere statement. It didn't take too long to show its true colours. This government, when it comes to dealing with working people, has always adopted a very hostile approach. Be it health care workers or the teachers, the government has always treated them with total disrespect. The B.C. Liberal government always chooses conflict and confrontation as the first option.

Ten days into the last election the Premier deliberately used fearmongering about a so-called teachers strike. Teachers never wanted a conflict. All they want is a negotiated settlement that will help the teachers to have better working conditions and provide students better learning opportunities. For four years this government deliberately pursued action that provoked a conflict with teachers.

The B.C. Liberal government tore up teachers' contracts in 2002. By doing this, the government legislated the learning and working conditions from the teachers collective agreement, and now, rather than dealing with it in a mature and constructive way, it has once again chosen the path of confrontation.

When the government stripped teachers of their self-governing body in 2003 and overruled the B.C. Supreme Court decision on classroom composition in 2004, and when the Premier used the teachers as political pawns in the 2005 election, it proved that this government has absolutely no respect for educators. When this government says it has introduced Bill 12 to protect students' rights to be in the classroom, nobody can take this government seriously.

If the government is serious about students' education, then it should negotiate with teachers in good faith and not use the hammer of legislation. The government has lost its credibility. This government is only concerned about and cares for its rich corporate friends. It has no problem finding millions of dollars for the rich, who did not even ask for it, but it has no money for more textbooks.

In the last two days I have received dozens and dozens of e-mails from teachers. Listen to some of the statements that I have received from them. This is a primary school teacher, who says: "Not enough books, readers, texts and math manipulatives. We have to share resources between four classes. This is not acceptable." Another primary school teacher: "There seems to be not enough money allotted to purchase textbooks and keep supplies current and abundant. These are the tools teachers need to do their job."

Another teacher: "There are not enough up-to-date texts in math, social studies and science for lower elementary grades." Another teacher from intermediate says: "Not enough textbooks in French." Another teacher says: "We need up-to-date videos on drug and alcohol abuse issues, peer problems, teenage problems — on all issues. Everything is very old — 20 years old. Access to phone numbers, e-mail addresses for speakers and local film resources, written material — none available. Film catalogues are usually U.S.A. and scant in our schools."

Another teacher is telling me: "We have 30 social studies texts to share with about 120 students." That's what is happening in the schools, and they asked me to read all their statements.

Another teacher is telling me: "More resources are desperately needed in math and language arts. An up-to-date computer would be nice. We still do not have science textbooks for intermediate students. Our textbooks for science and math are very out of date. Our technology is very out of date."

These are the kinds of things that are happening in our schools, Mr. Speaker. How can we expect our teachers to give our students the kind of education they need when we don't provide them the tools they need? I have received a total of 78 e-mails just on textbooks alone. This government needs to set its priorities right and allocate an appropriate amount of funds to ensure that teachers have the necessary tools to teach our students.

In the last four years in Burnaby we have seen a drastic reduction in counsellors, teacher-librarians, career program teachers, special education teachers, continuing education teachers and ESL teachers. How does this help students? Teaching is a very noble profession. Teachers are pleading for help.

Class sizes have grown out of proportion. It has become a serious problem in the province. Again, listen to some of the statements that other teachers have sent me on the class size issue. I received 49 e-mails just on the class size situation. I won't read all, but I'll read some.

One teacher says: "Far too many special needs students in intermediate elementary classes. Quite frankly, many students are not even receiving adequate attention. I have 31 students and cannot keep up with the marking, reporting and demands made on me by special needs students. Also, I can see what special education resource teachers…. We have been pushed far too hard with undoable caseloads."

Teachers are not against inclusion, but they need support to make it work. Teachers have supported inclusion, but it is a lot more work to teach a class that includes students with special needs. Most teachers have supported a policy if adequate resources are provided to do a good job, but the current situation, as is, does not allow our teachers to do what they would like to do.

We are advised that Mr. Vince Ready has been appointed as the industrial inquiry commissioner. Mr. Ready is a very experienced and respected arbitrator and mediator. I have done many arbitration hearings with Mr. Ready in the last 18 years. Mr. Ready could have been appointed under the existing provisions of the Labour Code to help the parties negotiate a collective agreement. He could still make his recommendations about the bargaining process. That option is available to this government.

I don't understand why this government is pushing Bill 12 to create that unnecessary confrontation. It's very clear. The government is deliberately provoking confrontation. The government should take a step back and meet with the BCTF and let British Columbians know that you have changed your last four years of an attitude of disrespect towards the working people.

We know what this government has done to the health care workers by tearing up their collective agreement. Thousands and thousands of ordinary people lost their jobs because this government wanted to please its multinational corporate friends. As a result, not only the workers suffered, but the patients and long-term care residents suffered the most, because they lost well-qualified and well-trained health care professionals.

Now the government is doing the same thing to education. We saw the attack on the teachers in 2002, and the government is continuing on the same warpath. What this government is doing is not necessary. Bill 12 increases the level of confrontation with teachers and does nothing to improve the learning in the classroom. The government chose conflict and confrontation instead of working with teachers to find a solution to this impasse. As a result, parents and students are paying the price.

Once again, I ask this government: think again. You don't need Bill 12. You don't need confrontation. Work with teachers. Find a solution. If you really want to help the students, there's a way to do it, but not the way that this government is trying to enforce on British Columbians.

H. Bains: I also rise to speak in favour of this hoist bill to delay Bill 12 for six months. I'm not particularly pleased to be standing here today, speaking on a bill in a democratic society such as Canada in 2005 — a country where we champion democracy, where our country is used as an example of how democracy should work. We're debating a bill that strips away a democratic right of a group of citizens, a group of dedicated individuals who are fighting for the education of our children.

Teachers, as the other side has said, are an essential and integral part of our education system. Teachers shape our future, the future of our province and the future of this country. Teachers produce leaders. Teachers, with their hard work and with their dedication to their profession, produce people such as the Nelson Mandelas of the world and other leaders who have given so much to mankind.

In a mature democracy such as Canada's we shouldn't have to stand up to vote or speak against a bill that is designed to strip away some of the basic fundamental rights of its citizens. I am pleased to stand here to commend those teachers who are fighting for the education of our children, and I am proud to stand here to fight for democracy, to maintain democracy.

Let's talk about what led to all of this. Why are we here today? Over what? It's nothing to do with improving education, as the Liberal government would lead us to believe. It is not about children, as they lead us to

believe. It is all for the political gains they think they are trying to gain. But they are wrong. They will be proven wrong — if not now, in years to come. They will be proven wrong. Our generations to come will talk about these legislations as we talk about previous legislations that we today think were unjust legislations.

You don't legislate people, dictate to people, if you disagree with them. Teachers have a basic fundamental right in trying, just like any other workers in this country in our Charter of Rights…. The right to association gives them the right to free collective bargaining, and if the bargaining process for some reason isn't working for a period of time, you don't shut it down. You don't take the right away from them. You find a way to make it work, but you don't take it away from them. That's what is being done here — not the first time. As the members have said earlier, six times already for the same group of people.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the reasons that this government thinks or argues why they believe they have to do this.

I'll talk about that in a minute. I must say that to the credit of our teachers, although their salaries have fallen behind the rest of the jurisdictions over the years, although they have been treated with total contempt by this government, although this government showed no respect for our teachers, and despite the fact that their contract was stripped of class composition and class sizes, despite the larger class sizes that they had to work with, despite the fact that they worked without adequate help for special needs children in their classes, despite the fact that they had to work without ESL teachers on many occasions to support ESL students in their classes, they continue to maintain education at a remarkable level that I commend them for. I thank them for that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I remind the members of the House that they have to be in a seat to participate in the debate.

H. Bains: I'd thank them because they care for the education of our children. They are willing to stand up for the education of our children. They made sacrifices. They're prepared to make sacrifices — personal sacrifices, I must say. They sacrifice their salaries in order to negotiate learning conditions in the collective agreement, and I thank them for that.

I thank them because they are up at this hour, out there, watching and listening to this debate. I thank those students that are out there. There are about 50 of them. They came to show support for their teachers. At three o'clock in the morning they're up because they care. They care about their teachers. They care about the education. They're worried about the direction this government is taking our education system towards. That's why they're out there. I thank them for that.

Let's talk about negotiations and the government's arguments of why the system of negotiations broke down, why the system doesn't work and why the system failed them. For any negotiations to succeed, you must build trust between the two parties. You must win trust. You must build respect for each other over the term of the agreement.

Let's look at what they have done in the last four and a half years. They did everything to break the trust, if there was any at that particular time. They came in. They chose conflict and confrontation over negotiations, over consultation. They came in, and they tore up their collective agreement in 2002. They stripped teachers of their self-governing body in 2003. They overruled a B.C. Supreme Court decision on class composition in 2004. They used teachers as political pawns in the 2005 elections. Then they refused to meet teachers when they had a chance to make progress. They refused to meet with them. You don't build trust with that kind of record. You're asking for trouble. You are setting a system up to fail. This legislation increases the level of confrontation. Make no mistake.

Let's talk about some of the other things that happened in those four and half years that were so necessary to building that trust to come into negotiations. They froze funding for education for the first two years and on top of that, I might say, downloaded on school boards expenses such as teachers' salaries that were imposed on them, MSP premiums that this government raised by almost 50 or 60 percent. Utility bills went through the roof; school boards had to absorb that. Transportation costs went up; school boards had to absorb that. As a result, school boards had to close 113 schools — laid off 2,500 teachers. You don't build trust with that kind of record. When you have no trust, you're setting the system up to fail. It is this government that set up that system to fail, and this is the government that should be blamed for the chaos and for the crisis that we are in right here today — no one else.

When you build that kind of record and on top of that you say, "Let's start negotiations," and then you tell your negotiators that you can't talk about money, you can't talk about learning conditions, you can't talk about class sizes, you can't talk about class composition…. Well, what is there to negotiate? Four and a half years of confrontation and conflicts, four and a half years of total contempt towards teachers, four and half years of no respect towards the teachers, and then you go into negotiations, tell your negotiation team that there's no money, there's no room for negotiating learning conditions in the classroom…. What are you expecting? The system is set up to fail, and the system has failed. There's no one to blame except this government — no one else. They have to take full blame for this.

I live in a part of this province which probably is the most diverse part in Canada — perhaps in the

world, I might say. You go into some schools, and it's changing. It's changing over the years. The makeup and composition of our student mix is changing over the years so drastically that in some of the schools where you hardly found any student of colour, now you find mostly south Asians — students whose parents' first language is not English.

In a city like that, in a school system like Surrey, this is what these cuts have done. I've heard members from the Liberal government side argue: "Well, the enrolment in all of the province was lower, so we had to close schools. We had to lay teachers off."

First of all, those numbers are not factual. That argument is not factual. Provincewide, it's not factual. It's not supported by the facts.

Let's talk about Surrey. It's one of the fastest-growing regions in the lower mainland. We are gaining over a thousand citizens every month. In very few years Surrey will be the largest city in the province. Since this government took power in 2001, we have increased in enrolment. On top of that, as I said earlier, the makeup and the composition of our schools and students have also changed quite dramatically.

But instead of providing resources through the school board to deal with those issues, what does this government do? This is what they did. They reduced teacher-librarians by 18 percent. They reduced special education teachers by 19 percent. They reduced ESL teachers by 16 percent, at a time when enrolment went up over 1,800 students.

I'd like to have a member from the government stand up and justify these numbers. I know no one will stand up, because I know that they can't justify these numbers.

From 2001 to 2004 the student population in Surrey increased by 1,844 and the teachers were reduced by 142. How do you justify that? Then you talk about how we respect our teachers. We know that they are an essential part of our education system, but you strip away their rights, you strip away resources, and you tie their hands and take away resources that they need to do their job properly. That's not progress; that's going backwards.

There are some telling stories from teachers, and here's one. A real teacher, really concerned, is saying this:

Here's another one. "It seems that the current Liberal government continues to use the basic technique of…." There's the "l" word, Madam Speaker. I'm not supposed to use that; it starts with "l" and ends with "e." I'm not using that. He's trying to say that it's not truth.

It just shows how frustrated these teachers are, when they have to go to that length, how worried they are about our system.

Madam Speaker, these are the kinds of comments you hear on the streets. These are the comments you are getting on e-mails from parents, from students. I've got a stack of these papers — comments from students. Some of them are out there, as I said, supporting their teachers.

They are worried about the future of this province. These are the students. These are our future leaders. These are our future Prime Ministers talking about our education system, which they are so worried about. Do the members on the government side care about that? Not a bit. As yet they haven't shown one bit of respect for the education or for the teachers or for the students, despite the arguments that they make. The only thing they worry about is their political gains. Madam Speaker, let me tell you: they will be wrong. They will be proven wrong. The public is on the side of the teachers.

The public understands how important it is to respect their teachers in order to have a world-class education system. They understand the sacrifices that our teachers are making. They understand that the demands and the positions of the teachers are reasonable. They understand that the teachers are not fighting for their own cause. They understand that the teachers are fighting for the education of their children. That's what the public understands. That's what the parents understand. But do the members on the government side understand? That's the question.

I urge those members once again: rethink your position. Take this time of six months that this amendment is asking. Give the mediator, inquiry commissioner — whatever it is called — a chance to work on a system. There's no rush. There's no urgency to pass this bill. What is the urgency? None whatsoever. Delay it. Let that process that is put in place, that system, work. Let them find some way of resolving this issue rather than stripping away the rights of our teachers, the very same group that both sides agree is a very essential part of our education system. Give it some time, lie back, and think rationally. Allow the system to work.

G. Gentner: Hon. Speaker, the lateness of the hour tells me that I again…. With such a late hour, I'm overwhelmed and overjoyed with the fact that your presence is at the chair — the member for Surrey–Green Timbers. You do bring elegance and grace to this chamber, and it's much appreciated.

I think it has to be said…. I don't know if it's been said at all. However, I hope the House will concur that a special thank-you has got to be given to the staff here tonight — all those people running around: the commissionaires; those housing the restaurant; those looking after us late at night; Hansard people, who are making sure that they capture every one of our words.

Good government means that you do have a plan B or several approaches in order to secure a good position. Any decision-making means that having one option is really no option at all. One thing for certain is that if you begin steadfast, with certainty, without doing your homework, sifting the ground around you in order to find the best solution…. If you start with certainty, you can end up with distrust. That is what we have here tonight — or this morning. When you've lost trust and you've lost morale in the workplace, you have nothing.

There is no reason here with Bill 12. There's only reaction, knee-jerk reaction in a government that's lost its way. The government tore up the teachers' contract in 2002. It stripped teachers of their self-governing body in 2003. It overruled a B.C. Supreme Court decision on classroom composition in 2004. Now there is an amendment before us that the government should at least take a hard look at. But as we've heard from the Government House Leader, the members opposite refuse.

I support the amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, because it does give an opportunity for the collective bargaining pro-cess to work. Powerful forces have been built up to this moment. We know there is probably a need for a little less rhetoric and to allow the government to maybe step back. This amendment is a safety valve to release some steam, perhaps like an overheated radiator that is ready to blow — a six-month valve that will encourage

It is time for government to lead and to set aside its mean-spirited confrontation. Settlement of a new contract requires that both sides — yes, both sides — make compromises in the best interest of the public. It must start with a government that should represent goodwill and take a step back and put faith back into the collective bargaining process.

Instead, this government works in haste. We all now know that haste breeds contempt — contempt against any part of society that may have a differing position than that of this government. The disrespect for teachers can only manifest itself into something completely vile, because it can cast its shadow on other everyday British Columbians. It is pitting people against people and whole communities and groups against school boards. This political baseness will be seen by the public for what it truly is: a low blow to decency.

Concessions are extracted slowly and sometimes grudgingly. Let's stop for a minute and take a closer look. The government and the B.C. Teachers Federation have reached an impasse. The government, instead of taking the slow road towards a settlement, has inflamed a possible strike. The only means left for teachers is to try and break the logjam by the last means it really now has, and that is to possibly go for a strike. And with brute force, indeed brute, the B.C. Liberals will use teachers as their whipping post because of their own innate, embedded weaknesses: an intoxication of power — a binge that has lasted for four, unchecked years.

I want to remind the members across that this is no longer 2002 or 2003. The problem is that this government does not feel any tangible incentive to compromise in its bargaining posture. We need a pragmatic approach. As pluralists to labour relations, there is a need to balance countervailing powers, a balance that is concrete, not regressive or punitive. It's time to break down the barriers between the ivory tower as seen across from me, and the real world, where teachers, who are real people, should get a fair wage and proper working conditions. I must say, after the example we've seen here for the last few days, one good teacher in British Columbia is worth a thousand Liberal politicians any day.

As Aristotle once said: "All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth." Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not see it that way. Education is also the encouragement to weigh all thoughts before acting. It is also about giving and taking. I like to quote — I suppose, of all people — Edmund Burke, who on occasion had some wisdom, particularly for the need to compromise: "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences, and we give, and we take." Edmund Burke. I'm quoting something that I think would fit this government's style — you know, the free enterprise, the virtues on which they expound all the time. Burke said: "Barter, negotiate." It's simple. Burke did not believe in insurrection or upheaval. We all know that. He was a conservative.

This, my friends, is exactly what this government deliberately and calculatedly has done. The government is deliberately attempting to destabilize our public education system. Why? Several reasons driving this agenda. Well, through all the rhetoric we've heard and surely, whatever bond the Minister of Education may assure us of, make no mistake: this dismantling is to destroy public education.

We hear how wonderful this new budget is in the provision of public education, but let's look at it a little closer. Since the Liberals took office in 2001, let's look at public-student head counts — basically stable. But interestingly, private school head counts are up 8.2 percent. And get this: when you analyze the budget from last year to this year, funding from the province for the operations of public schools is said to increase by 3.4 percent, while — get this — funding from us, the public, for independent schools has increased 5.6 percent. You have to ask yourself what's happening here.

The bulwark of democracy is based on the premise of an equitable public school system. When you look at projections between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 we are seeing operating funding to public schools to increase by 0.001 percent and private school funding to 4.6 percent. That's not to say that private schools don't play an integral part and a role in our cultural diversity and our religious need — an integral part, an important part of our society.

But clearly, there is a fundamental shift whereby the government may be seeing privatization as a means to an end. A means that is not measured could very well undermine the precepts of the fundamental right of public education. I bring this to the attention of the assembly because this is the general philosophical bent of the Liberal government: deny accessible public schooling with proper working conditions for teachers, with reasonable pay for work delivered.

I want to quickly, with my short time available, talk about some of the issues in my constituency of Delta North. I had a call from a teacher this afternoon. She told me her situation. Here's a teacher in north Delta who has a class composition of 28 students. On the surface, that sounds pretty good — 28 students. In today's world, sometimes we hear the stories of 34 or 36 to a classroom. But when we look closer, we see that 11 of those 28 students are IEPs, or I should say, individual education plans — those with reading and learning difficulties, and exceptional students.

The IEP is not a daily lesson plan. The IEP also helps teachers monitor the student's progress and provides a framework of communicating information about the student's progress to parents and to the student. The IEP is updated periodically to record any changes in the student's special education program and

services that are found to be necessary as a result of continuous assessment and evaluation of student achievement, annual goals and learning expectations.

It's a team concept with a series of meetings and a monitoring system that takes time in assessing student needs. There are meetings with counsellors, learning assistants and parents, and when you multiply that by 11 students, there's no wonder that the teacher involved is spending countless 14-hour days to get through the task.

But that's not all. Of the remaining 17 students, 14 are ESL students — not just ESL, but level one ESL; in other words, beginning ESL students. If you know my community, we're going through transition. We have what we're calling rainbow schools. Rainbow schools have a great diversity and multiculture. They're very successful. But there is a growing need for more ESL attention, and of course, we're not seeing it. These students are falling through the cracks. They need help, and they deserve the same equal opportunities as many students find in private schools now, in proportion to which public schools are receiving the lion's share. We're seeing a fundamental shift in the bulwark of democracy, which is represented by the public school system.

Other comments today on the phone. "I teach a grade six–seven split class of 34 students, including two ESL students and one physically handicapped student. I find it hard getting around to all the students who need help. Also, I'm out of space in my classroom. We are literally bumping into each other." This is a teacher who has had 30 years experience. She knows. She has seen the system.

You have to have some trust in all the tenure that's been put into our system. Again, if you don't have trust, you have nothing.

Another teacher on the phone today suggested 30 students in a classroom…. But with the amount of ESL students arriving monthly, it's very difficult to plan her curriculum.

Another one told me today that children with behavioral problems often detract from the learning experiences of others. "Teachers need to be informed as to what is or is not acceptable, and the office of the board needs to work quickly and efficiently to deal with behaviour-challenged children. I find we as teachers are putting up with a very much deteriorating social system."

If I have a chance, Madam Speaker, I will certainly continue to bring to the attention of the assembly some of these concerns of the teachers in my constituency.

I believe that collective bargaining for teachers is a good thing. A system of collective bargaining requires that the employees have some route to follow if they cannot persuade the employer to change its mind. It's a very tenuous situation here, because the employer is those who are across the way here. They're the ones with the stick.

This dispute is a microcosm of the central issues which are raised about public sector bargaining in general. Should public employees — or in this case teachers — have the same right to engage in collective bargaining as their private sector counterparts, including in particular the possibility of a right to strike? I say yes. Could there be external monitoring and restraint of the economic content of public sector compensation settlements, whether by peaceful negotiations, by strikes or by third party, like we've had, called a fact-finder, which this government has completely ignored? Yes.

Regrettably, the usual tenor of the discussion tends to be long in rhetoric and short in analysis. We witnessed this openly, disparagingly, with lots of brash from the other side.

The perennial dilemma in the public sector bargaining is whether government employees, or teachers, should have the right to strike. Should they have the right to gain collectively with the government employer? An affirmative answer has already been given throughout all of Canada.

Indeed, municipal employees have been included under our general labour legislation since it emerged just after World War II. During a decade from the early '60s to the early '70s our senior levels of government — federal and provincial — have duly granted their employees full-fledged bargaining rights. The determination of salaries of civil servants and teachers is certainly one of the most crucial of all government decisions right at the heart of the public policy-making process. We live in a democracy founded on the principle of the political equality of the individual.

Governments are to be elected by all of the people, and they should be accountable to all of the people. How do we settle bargaining disputes or deadlocks in public employment? There's obviously one side that claims that any strike by a public servant is illegal or illegitimate as a matter of principle, that it is always a strike against elected government.

I find it very surprising — the long tenure and the reputation of the member across, the Attorney General, who I thought would know better. But I guess I'm wrong.

On the other side, of course, there are those who will say that it's wrong to discriminate against teachers by denying them a fundamental right enjoyed by their private sector brethren. What we need is a sensible and practical system of labour management relations for the government and its employees, in this case the teachers. An illegal ban on teacher strikes is not the solution to the problem. To resolve any deadlock in bargaining between government and its teachers, we need a cool-handed approach, not one of total confrontation. We must provide an alternative means of resolving and negotiating deadlocks, which precipitate such work stoppages.

There are three ways to settle a dispute. The easy one, of course, is that all parties should agree. If you look at the history of labour in British Columbia, about 98 percent of all conflict is settled without a strike. That's an incredible record. When confrontation erupts

and it is encouraged, and the fire is fed like we're seeing from across the way here, we are going to see a strike. We're going to see a strike, if that's what this government wants.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that no one wants a strike. Teachers don't want a strike, really. They don't want to lose their paycheque. There's a living here. They've got families. They want to uphold principles that are dear to them. I've been there too. I've been in public service. I delivered to many what may have been seen, in a previous job, as essential. I've been involved in various strikes. I'm telling you, a strike is not what anybody wants. Nobody wants a strike. If you're on the picket line…. I've seen many friends lose their house, lose everything they fought for. Many of them took three to four years before they were to achieve…. But they stood up. They stood up for principle. That's what has built this country and this great province — the ability to stand up.

With as much integrity and forthrightness as I can muster here tonight, I plead with this government to have a second look and consider the amendment put forward by our opposition critic of Finance, and it's a good one. In geological time, six months is not a very long time. I think we should reconsider and give it a good look.

B. Simpson: If this isn't baptism by fire, I don't know what is. When I decided to run for election, I didn't imagine I'd be put in this circumstance a few months later where here I am at quarter to — what is that? — four in the morning. By the way, I'll make an announcement. I have Visine in my office, if anybody wants to kind of clarify their eyes.

We have a serious matter before us today, and the levity that I started with…. I don't want to undermine the seriousness of this issue. We're speaking on a motion — and I'm speaking in favour of the motion — that I think is a face-saving motion for this government. It buys them some time. It allows them to continue on with what their stated purpose was in this sitting of this Legislature. It was to find a new working arrangement with the opposition.

As our leader has indicated many times, our job as the loyal opposition is not only to oppose but to propose. We are in opposition to this act. There's no question about that. We have an ideological divide. We on this side of the House believe in the public education system. We believe it is fundamental to a free and democratic society, and we believe that it must be supported.

We also believe that the members on the opposite side of the House believe that the private approach to education is the preferred approach. As the hon. member who just spoke before me indicated, the money that is going into that system, the way that it has received more money from public coffers over the last few years and the undermining of the public system, driving people into the private system, is proof positive of that agenda.

We have a divide. There's no question. What we have on the table today is a motion to bridge that divide. If this government accepts that motion and simply amends this act to buy itself more time to allow the true collective bargaining process to proceed, then they can save face, we can continue on with our new relationship together, and we can allow the collective bargaining process to go forward.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about democracy. That's the sacred trust that we as members of this Legislature have been given. We are the champions of democracy in our society in British Columbia, and if we don't recognize that role, we do a disservice not only to this generation but to future generations. The more we allow our democracy to be undermined by the very people who should be the strongest champions of democracy, the more we shame ourselves and we shame future generations. There's no question in my mind that that is what's going on today.

In Canadian democracy we have the three terms: peace, order and good government. I think those should always be something that we go back and reflect on, something that we look at and say: "Are we abiding by our version of democracy?" I guess my challenge to the members on the other side of the House is: is the course of action that this government's taking good government? Does it constitute good government? In my mind, the answer is a resounding no. This is simply not good government. It's not good for democracy. It's not a good message to future generations. It's not good government.

The one thing we have to understand is that democracy is messy. It's a messy form of governance, because it invites debate and dissent. That's the very essence of democracy. If you don't have debate and dissent, you have a totalitarian regime. If you don't invite it, you have a totalitarian regime. So every time this House passes an act to squash dissent and to squash debate, that's not good government.

We have a sacred trust, and that sacred trust is to the democratic process. Because democracy is messy, we have structures in place to try and make it more streamlined, more structured, to try and allow the debate and the dissent to have form and to allow it to make progress. In this case, those structures are things called collective agreements and contracts.

Collective agreements and contracts are mechanisms to allow debate and dissent to occur in a democratic society but still to make progress. Every time this House abrogates a collective agreement or a contract, it does a disservice to the democratic process. It does a disservice to good service. It does a disservice to current and future generations.

You're going to get sick of hearing me saying this, but we have a sacred trust as defenders of democracy. I would challenge this government to reflect on a few things that are going on around us just now: debates we've had in this House, things that we're struggling with as a society here in British Columbia.

Let's talk about business contracts. I find it rather ironic that we wring our hands and think it's disgusting that the American government plays with the rules of NAFTA. We think it's atrocious that they get rulings from the WTO, that they get rulings from the NAFTA panel, and that they just fail to adhere to them or pay attention to them or that they try and do end runs around them.

Well, I would remind the members of the government side of the House that in 2004 the B.C. Supreme Court made a decision on classroom composition, and what did this government do? It overruled them. There's a certain hypocrisy in the government's position on this, where we say that it's not right for the American government to interfere with NAFTA, to interfere with due process, that the American government should pay attention to the WTO and the NAFTA rulings. Yet they don't have to pay attention when the Supreme Court makes a ruling on classroom composition because they're the government; they can change the rules. That's hypocrisy, and I would challenge the government members to reflect on that. If you have a standard for the American government, apply the standard to yourself.

In my riding there is a lot of angst around private crossings. Many, many people on fixed income have now been burdened with huge costs with their private crossings over what used to be B.C. Rail. The Minister of Transportation has claimed time and time again that what this government did is to stop the political interference. Well, what are we doing today? We're debating an act that is political interference in the collective bargaining process. That's hypocrisy.

To say to us that for years the NDP — and of course, to use that member's own rationale, the Social Credit government must then have been doing the same thing — has politically interfered with B.C. Rail, and therefore people didn't pay for the private rail crossings, and then to turn around and say it's okay for them to politically interfere with the collective bargaining process — that's hypocritical. There's no other way of saying it.

We have contracts that we honour, and this government would be very hard-pressed to interfere with business contracts, because there would be a hue and cry about, "Oh well, it's not good for the marketplace. Oh well, we don't want to undermine our credibility. We don't want to destabilize all of those contracts," if it's a business. But if it's a union — a public sector union — that's okay. We don't have to worry about undermining confidence. We don't have to worry about what it says to the people out there, because for some reason public sector workers don't count in this government's mind. That's hypocrisy.

We have a sacred trust as legislators, and that sacred trust is to continue to support and adhere to the due process of law and due process in a democratic society. Every time we undermine that, we undermine our own democracy, and we undermine our own role as good governors.

This government did not have to put this bill on the table. They did not have to. There's a collective bargaining process underway, and the Labour Relations Board has the right of law in this case. The Minister of Labour admitted publicly that they didn't need this act. Well, if they didn't need it, why is it on the table? It's on the table simply because what this government did in 2002 failed. They did not do what they promised in 2002, and as a consequence, they're in another situation of their own making, and they have to fix it. And how do they choose to fix it? They choose to fix it by tabling another act that's very similar in nature to the one they did in 2002. That's a failure of this government. It's not a failure of the collective bargaining process, as the Minister of Labour claimed; it's a failure of this government.

Hansard of January 26, 2002, on Bill 27, the Education Services Collective Agreement Act. I think it's very interesting that one of the previous speakers talked about how that's an oxymoron, because that's exactly right: it's not a collective agreement. How can you have a collective agreement act when you legislate an outcome? It makes no sense.

The Hon. Graham Bruce — and my understanding, Madam Speaker, is that I can name him because he's no longer a part of this Legislative Assembly; see, I'm learning — stated as he tabled the bill: "This bill settles the teachers dispute and provides a collective agreement between the parties." I think we heard that in this House this week by the current Minister of Labour — the same language. Again, as many speakers have pointed out, that language makes no sense. It is an inappropriate use of the power of this Legislature to say that this bill settles a dispute. It does not. It imposes a resolution that's in the favour of the government. That's not settling a dispute. My point is: it's the same language as we've heard this week.

The current Minister of Labour must have gone back and just pulled this language right out of January 2002 and read it into the record again this week. What does this tell us? It tells us that for the last two and a half years this government has not made any progress. Not the employers association, not the teachers bargaining unit — this government has not made any progress. It tells us that for two and a half years this government has been sitting with this language spinning in their head, waiting for this day when they could just pull it back out and put it on the table again.

I want to point out something that's interesting in the difference between when that bill was tabled in 2002 and when the bill was tabled this week. The Hon. Graham Bruce at the time said: "I want to be clear: I value teachers. Everybody in this House values teach-

ers, and this government as a political entity values teachers." That's not in the record this week. That statement is gone this week. This week the Minister of Labour said the principle at work here is that students must be in the classroom. That's what he said. So the language has changed, and I think it's changed substantively. It's a telling omission from the Minister of Labour's statement in the House this week.

Now, the other language from 2002 that's important for us to remember is the statement about what this bill does and doesn't do. It goes on to say from the hon. Graham Bruce: "This bill brings a difficult process between teachers and employers to a conclusion after ten months of hard work and 45 issues on the table." It's very similar language to what we heard this week. But Mr. Bruce went on to say:

For those on the other side, let me re-read that: "…so that years from now we're not back here having to do the same sort of thing." Well, it's two and half years, and we're doing the same sort of thing, only it's not the same sort of thing. It's the exact same thing.

It's a failure of this government, not a failure of the teachers, not a failure of the employers association. It's this government's failure, because they took the task upon themselves in 2002 to fix the bargaining process. They didn't fix it. They didn't come to any conclusion on it, and as a consequence, we're exactly where we were in January 2002 because of this government's inability to do anything meaningful in this dispute.

Now, I know that every time I stand up in here, I risk the hon. members on the other side of the House pointing out that all it is is rhetoric. Well, I would remind them, I'm reading the words of one of their own members, who was a minister at the time, two and a half years ago, and that they're in the same boat with their own minister, in the same position, saying the same thing. So this isn't my rhetoric; this is their rhetoric. This is Mr. Graham again, January 2002: “Everybody would have preferred if this legislation had not been necessary.” Well, this government had the agenda in the intervening two and a half years. They could have made sure that it wasn't necessary again, and they didn't do it.

"It's always preferable when the parties reach a negotiated settlement" — not if you've got the hammer of the law. He didn't put that in there. I'm not reading his words; those are mine. Not if you've got the hammer of the law. "It's always preferable when the parties reach a negotiated settlement, but in this situation, after ten months, with the disruption that was occurring within the educational system and the commitment by this government to put students first, this government has had to act. Students must come first." Now that sounds more like the Minister of Labour's talk this week. "I know — and I hope the vast majority of teachers believe this — that the teachers, like this government, put students first. That is what this bill is all about. I look forward, with the passage and enactment of this bill, to moving ahead to fulfil the commitment to our young people" — to moving ahead. Well, I challenge this government: how much have we moved ahead in two and a half years? How much?

The interesting difference between the bill that was tabled in 2002 and what we have today is that in that bill, they put the commission into the bill. In today's act they did not. And I question that. I wonder if it's an admission of failure, because that process failed. It failed to bring forward anything meaningful that teachers could agree to, and in fact, its failure is evident in the fact that this government didn't even table the report in here from that commission. We already have the Premier on record saying that he may not even adhere…. In fact, he says he's not going to commit to adhering to what the outcome of the industrial inquiry commission would be in this case.

So we have a government in place that does not honour the basic tenets of our democracy. They do not understand what good government is. They table bills to settle what should be settled in a collective bargaining process. They use the power of the law inappropriately, and that is a very slippery slope.

I want to talk a little bit about public sector workers. This government seems to feel that it has the ability to legislate — and I would call it legislative abuse — our public sector workers, that they can get whatever they want not through due process of law, not through due process of collective agreement, but by law.

I think it is the height of self-righteousness for members of the government to stand up in this House and say: "Teachers are going to be lawbreakers. Does the member of the opposition support lawbreaking?" It's self-righteous, when you have the power of the law that you can use to settle disputes in your favour, to then turn around and say, because you've forced other people to contemplate breaking that law, that they're wrong and you're right. That's self-righteousness in the worst case.

I wonder what those same members would do if their backs were pushed up against the wall, if they saw all around them due process being misused by the people whose sacred trust it is to ensure those processes work. What do you do? What's your course of action? If you're a lawmaker, you change the law. If you're not a lawmaker, what do you do?

It's a slippery slope if we in this House play with the law to our own ends and then turn around and blame those who don't agree with us as lawbreakers. That's how societies end up in an anarchic state. That's how anarchy comes about, because anarchy is simply saying: "The laws of the land don't work; they don't make sense to me. Every time I turn around, I become a

lawbreaker, not because I want to be but because the laws don't make sense and because the laws undermine our democratic process." That's how we make good citizens lawbreakers.

It is the acts of this government that's causing that to happen. Let's make no mistake about it. Public sector workers in our society have been maligned for too long. We scapegoat them.

I was at a placer miners meeting in Quesnel. I was the only politician in the room. If anybody's had any dealings with placer miners, they will know that they're an ornery group at best. One of the things that happened in this meeting is that the people started to beat up on the bureaucrats in the room, who I have to give great credit for, because they came in and met with the 60 or so placer miners who were there. I stood up in that room and reminded those folks that our public sector workers are constrained by the political agendas of the day.

It's the politicians who pass the laws. It's the politicians who create the framework. It's the politicians who ought to bear the burden of their own choices. Yet unfortunately, our public sector workers often have to bear that burden.

When a parent complains about the level of service that they're getting for their children in the education system, who has to bear the brunt of that? It's not us. Very seldom does it come to us. It takes a very educated, articulate citizen to understand that they've got to come to us and talk to us. They blame the teachers. We must do everything we possibly can to support those teachers in those circumstances.

Because of that malignment, because they've been scapegoated within our public sector, we have a great deal of learned helplessness, a great deal of disengagement. I would challenge the government members of this House that unless they change their relationship with the public sector across the board, whether they're health care workers or whether they work in the various ministries, as well as with the teachers, there won't be a golden decade. There won't be the five great goals. Those are the people that are going to help make that happen. The relationship that this government has with them is increasing the disengagement, not decreasing it. It's increasing the learned helplessness. It will undermine the government's own agenda.

Not only have we been given a sacred trust, but our teachers have been given a sacred trust. In many ways theirs is a more definitive one and a more important one, because they engage our young people. They engage the young minds of our society. They engage the future generations of politicians and doctors and lawyers and teachers. They are the people who create a progressive, democratic society every day they step into a classroom.

If they are demoralized, if they are disheartened, if they have been undermined by the legislators of the land, then what kind of society are we equipping them to create? What messages are we giving them to create?

When this Legislature undermines due process and democratic process and forces teachers' backs up against the wall, when those teachers go into the classrooms, what message are they bringing? Even if it's the teachers themselves that defend their own students from that, the very fact that they are there, the very fact that our society rails on them, that they see on the television that teachers are this or teachers are that, that teachers have to be legislated to a collective agreement…. That says volumes about our disrespect for the teaching profession.

So when that teacher steps into that classroom, we have put baggage on them. We've surrounded them with an aura of disrespect that makes it that much more difficult for them to do their job, that makes it that much more difficult for them to create the kind of society that we want.

I can't remember who the person was that said it, but they said that teaching is one-third preparation and two-thirds theatre. I can tell you, from being in the classroom for years, that that is true. Our children today, because of the society they have grown up in, need that kind of interaction. So the teacher prepares but then figures out how to, as we would say, pump up the volume. They go in, and they engage and energize their lessons.

Think about that for a moment. Think about the psychic energy, the emotional energy that it takes for somebody to get themselves up in the morning, get into their classrooms and then take themselves up a notch to pour their heart and their soul and their energy into the children of our society and the children who make us capable to continue to have a progressive and democratic society.

Think about how much energy that takes and think about how, over the years…. I would agree that successive governments have undermined the role that teachers have had in society, have undermined their ability to deliver that to our children. Then think about all the social issues we're dealing with — the increased homelessness, the increased mental illness. You take a look at how many people in our society are reverting to drugs and reverting to other ways of opting out, and that's what teachers are bearing. You look at what they have to do in the classrooms today. If anything, this government should have a bill on the table declaring 2006 the year of the teacher. That's the bill we should be debating together in this House.

As I said last night, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development gave this government a very strong message. They gave this government, which uses that organization to benchmark the school system, policy implications for achieving the goals that they desire out of the school system. So this government uses that organization to benchmark. The organization has tabled a report that says, “Here's how you get what you want,” and two things in that report, as I pointed out last night, are to increase the remuneration of the profession and better their working conditions. This government listens to that organization when it comes to benchmarking the school, but it won't listen

C. Trevena: I would also like to speak for the amendments. Like the member for Cariboo North, I do also think this provides an opportunity for the government to save face. It provides an opportunity for real negotiations with the teachers, a chance for dialogue, a chance to try and go beyond the rhetoric and try and find something that will work for the teachers and for our children.

I think everybody has had enough of a confrontational approach — a confrontational approach which this government has forced on our society. People are wanting to see a positive solution. Madam Speaker, you've heard other members talking this evening about what there is to negotiate — that if the teachers can't talk about their pay and they can't talk about their working conditions, we've taken away everything they can talk about. We do need to move beyond this to talk about the very real issues that are affecting our teachers and, therefore, our children.

One of those issues…. There is the pay, and I'll go on to talk about that. One of the main issues is the working conditions which lie in their workplace, in the classrooms — often very overcrowded classrooms. Classrooms with 30 or 40 students in them, where children with special needs do not get the supports they require, despite the best efforts of teachers' assistants, make it detrimental for those children, for other children and for the teachers themselves.

I spoke earlier this evening and gave, I think, some very vivid examples of what it is like to work in big classes. It is a terrifying thought, having large classes, large science classes — 30-plus kids in a science class. These are unsafe working conditions. They are unsafe conditions for our children. Teachers' working conditions also include school libraries, they include equipment, and they include other staff members.

I'd like to share with this House a letter I received from a teacher in Campbell River, in my constituency. I find it sums up some of the issues facing us in what is a very needless dispute. The letter, which came today, reads as follows:

I fully agree with this teacher. This does need to stop. This is degrading. This is degrading for the children, the families, the teachers, our education system and our community. If this is how we treat people in our community, I think we really have many lessons to learn ourselves.

The letter that I quote is from a teacher who is close to retirement. The teacher has dedicated her life to the profession and to the children she's charged with. She's dedicated her life to inspiring and leading them through the educational experience, but she is leaving downhearted. She is leaving knowing that she cannot do her best because she's not given the resources.

This teacher is perhaps, to me, emblematic of what is happening here in B.C., because this wouldn't be happening if we hadn't got an imposed contract imposed again and if we'd had negotiation instead of confrontation as a solution offered by the government. Instead, this government goes for a solution of imposition rather than discussion.

We talk, on this side of the House, about class composition and class sizes in a very depressed sense because we are seeing in our own communities what is happening in those classes — what class composition really means. It means many, many children in a class. Teachers, to become teachers, do know basic math. I have teachers in my constituency telling me of classrooms where they have more students than desks. That is very basic math. It doesn't work. Thirty-six students don't go into 30 desks, and the teacher can't get around the 30 desks and the 36 students.

This is a person who is a professional. We have trusted our children to their care, to their experience, to their role as a professional — as someone who is going to guide and teach our children. Instead, this person and many teachers across the province are finding that instead of teaching, they are dealing with classroom management issues. They are dealing with how to make sure that 36 kids can get some semblance of education, make sure that a classroom does not turn into an unruly scene, make sure that there is some education going on. But the teachers are depressed and are giving up.

I have had, as many of colleagues have, many letters and e-mails about this. I'd like to quote from some of them because, as I mentioned earlier on when I was talking to the House against the bill — now I'm talking in favour of the amendment — I really am concerned that the members opposite aren't talking to teachers. I have been talking to teachers; they've been talking with me. I'd like to share some of their experiences. This is from some teachers in the Port McNeill–Port Hardy area.

What does that say about what is happening to our education system? What does that say about the way this government is treating the teachers?

If I may carry on: "Overworked, overstressed, overloaded — just hanging in there. I have to deal with more social issues than in the past. This takes away from teaching time." This is a teacher with 26 years' experience.

Another said: "I have had to take leave because I cannot handle the marking load and the worsening behaviours of the students. Thank goodness my career is nearly finished. I feel sorry for the colleagues who have many more years of teaching left, if you can call it that anymore."

These are from professionals who have worked all their lives with our kids, sharing their knowledge, bringing them on, leading them through. We have examples. We've all talked about our examples of our favourite teachers. These teachers are ready to quit. They are ready to quit because they have seen a government impose a contract again — not listen to them, not talk with them, not look at the fundamental issues that concern them which are their working conditions.

I represent a rural community, so some of the pressures are different. It's not all big classes. Sometimes it's split classes: grades four, five, six and seven being taught by one teacher or kindergarten, one, two and three taught by one teacher. I would ask the members opposite to imagine demands.

I heard from one rural teacher saying: "I found that the reduction of staff and the expectation to maintain the same level of service and activities and events very hard on all of us. There is unnecessary stress and negativity placed on individuals, and this is unacceptable. Our school has 99 children, and we have 3.5 teachers — 3.5 for 99. This" — and the teacher's quite right — "is unacceptable." But that is good. They now have more teachers than they did in June.

Another person who is dealing with a split class: "I have 24 students in grades two, three and four. There are three identified with special needs and five others that require learning assistance. I receive an hour of assistance during one morning and one afternoon. The only way I survive is by having parents as volunteers."

Sadly, a survey of teachers who are working has found that if they had the choice, only about 60 percent of them would enter the profession. I think that those 60 percent are very optimistic. I'm glad that they are still there, that there are people who want to enter the profession. But one of the things that really concerns me with the way this government is approaching our education system, because what this bill is about…. It is about our education system. It's about what we want to see in our education system and how we want to see our education system develop. What concerns me is how we are going to attract new teachers to the profession.

I've talked to many teachers who have retired, are close to retirement or — as those who were quoted — are going to retire because they can't stand the stresses anymore. They say: "Well, I may as well take early retirement. It's going to be a lot easier than it is dealing with the pressures of work that I have at the moment. It is not the reason I went into teaching."

How are we going to attract quality, new, young teachers into our system, into the profession? It is essential that we do. But a newly graduated substitute teacher gets approximately $128 a day, no benefits, and may be faced with a student loan of $45,000.

Why would they enter the profession? They'll never be able to pay off their student loans. Why would they enter the profession when they know that they could earn more as a Mountie or in industry and get their weekends off and get respect and promotions and actually be able to maybe one day buy a house?

I think if you're a working teacher and you're starting off, this is an idle dream. Why would people want to enter the profession when they know they are going to be degraded and insulted by their government? As the hon. member for Nelson-Creston mentioned a cou-

ple of days ago, there is the issue of substitute teachers who are living on poverty-level wages, who are taking other jobs to make ends meet.

I know a number of newly graduated young teachers. They're going to get their degree in teaching with hope. It's something that if you're a teacher…. I believe it is a vocation. There are some teachers who are just completely dedicated. They want to teach, and they are the best teachers. But those young teachers that I've talked to who want to teach, who would be some of the best teachers for our province, are leaving. They're leaving to go to other provinces because they will get paid more, and they're also leaving the country. They're going overseas. They have the skills; they have the qualifications. It's attractive.

I know of newly graduated young teachers who've gone to Thailand, to China and to Turkey because there isn't the opportunity here for them. There isn't the pay here for them; there isn't the respect here for them. They see no future working in the teaching profession, working in our education system, given the past four years when they have seen what has been happening to our education system. For them, that is their future. Their future is getting educated here and leaving, taking the skills away.

So young teachers go abroad, or they go into other jobs. They decide that they have done their teacher training and realize that they will never pay off that student loan. They go to jobs where there is better pay, where they get supported rather than undermined, where they don't have to bring their homework home on weekends, where they don't have to spend time preparing for classes on Monday, where they don't have to spend evenings working with other people and where they don't have to spend their own limited money because there isn't adequate equipment or adequate supplies.

These are young people who would have made excellent teachers and contributed to the society in which they were raised. They would have contributed to B.C. They would have made something of B.C. They would have led other young people through the educational experience so that they could maybe have gone on to teaching. We have lost them. These are eager, committed young people who have been driven away by government actions. This is not how we build a basis for an education system for the future.

To ensure that we do get high-quality public education, we have to really look at the way our teachers are treated and the way our teachers are paid. We have to make sure that there is a balance there. Our teachers are among some of the lowest-paid in Canada, and the administrators are among some of the highest. We do need to make sure, obviously, that administrators are paid fairly for the work that they do but not at the cost of our children's education — not at the cost of school boards and school districts hiring extra administrators, making the system top-heavy when we need to get teachers working and we need to build up the school programs.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey–Green Timbers earlier gave a short history of public education in this province, and I'm glad she did. Like the member for Delta North, I believe that this is really what we're debating here. We are debating the future of our education system.

The Leader of the Opposition quoted Nelson Mandela earlier. I'm afraid I will too. This is a man whom I think the whole world respects. I think the members opposite have to admit that he is a man of huge integrity and of huge moral grounding. He said of education: "We place such high value on education because it is through education that the vast potential of our youth can be realized. The well-being of every person and the prosperity of our nation depend on investment in people, central to which is education."

However, crowded classrooms, no equipment, fundraising by parents, bingo money to provide equipment in playgrounds — this is not the sort of public education system…. I think there is definitely an ideological difference between our side and the government side. There is a philosophical difference. There is a sense that what this government is doing with the bill that it is putting forward, which is why I support the amendment, is because this government is undermining the public education system, without which our society would start to fall apart.

It's undermining the public education system so that those parents who can afford it can send their children to private schools, because they want their children to have a chance. You underfund the public education system. You demoralize the teachers. You make sure that there are crowded classrooms, that libraries are closed, that there aren't the band programs, that there aren't the extracurricular activities, that the system is unpalatable — that children are not going to be able to get the education they deserve. So those parents with some money decide: "I'm going to put it to my children's education, because I don't like what's happened to the public education system."

Some people might say that it's a conspiracy theory. The member for Delta North quoted some very troubling figures, but I would like to point members to what has happened in Ontario, where the growth in private education, in the so-called charter schools, has grown exponentially. After years of a right-wing government that underfunded the public education system, people in Ontario looked at what was happening in the public schools and thought: "I don't want to send my kids there. I will make a sacrifice. I will pay to send my kids to a different school, to a private school."

This is a very frightening scenario, and I think it is a scenario which is being played out in our province, because this government will not commit to dealing with issues such as class sizes. It will not commit to making sure that our education system is publicly funded.

Public education is a right. It's a right which our teachers, the teachers in B.C., are fighting for. It is a right which we should all support.

Education depends on the teachers. It depends on their classroom conditions. It means many things. It means that kids don't have to keep their coats on at school, as some kids in a rural school in my constituency did in June. The heat was turned off because they were saving money.

It means making a commitment to keeping libraries open and staffed with teacher-librarians. It means making a commitment to keeping the school bus service running so children can get to school and get home from school safely.

The downloading, which I talked about earlier in the evening, has impacted on all of these, but these conditions, these basic things such as school bus services, impact on the way our education system works. Good public education is at the root of civil society.

This government is trying to set parents against teachers by saying that the teachers are leaving the kids alone, that the teachers are ignoring the kids, that we're looking after the kids — all the rhetoric about children. I would like to bring to the House's attention a couple of letters I've had from parents who are fully supportive of what the teachers are doing and fully supportive of a good public education system — a funded public education system, a system that their children can go through from K to 12.

I have a copy of a letter to the Premier and the Education Minister from one of my constituents in Campbell River. It reads:

Teachers care. They care about education. They care about the future of our children. They care about our future, our society's future. Their rights cannot and should not be dismissed in such a callous way.

I sometimes read the Declaration of Human Rights. I've worked internationally, and it's there by the side of my desk. I think that in this instance the government might want to look at it also. This is also fundamental to this discussion, and that is on union rights and the fact that in article 23.4, "everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests." Well, the "protection of his interests" includes being able to negotiate, being able to talk about pay and conditions.

This government is showing its contempt for teachers in its disregard of their basic rights. It's showing, in the way it's treating them, contempt for the teachers and for students. It's not allowing bargaining. It's not allowing classroom issues into the debate. This bill, I believe, is reprehensible, which is why I'm speaking to the motion.

M. Sather: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to Bill 12. Let's go back down memory lane a bit. We've been doing that a lot in this discussion, and the year 2002 has been talked about quite a bit. I want to go back there again, to 2001 and 2002. In 2002, that was the time, as we know, when this government sowed the seeds of which some folks, unfortunately, are having to reap the bitter harvest. Those are the teachers and the parents of this province. I wanted to talk more about the pretext and context of how we came from there to here, so I want to talk a little bit about what was happening back then. I think members opposite will perhaps be interested in some of my comments, because it's a subject about which they talk quite a bit.

As we know, in 2002 the government erased limits on class size, class composition and staffing requirements for specialist teachers. That's the beginning. That is what we're still talking about. That's what the teachers are so upset about. But why? Why did that come about? Why did they do that back then? Was it just an isolated incident, or was it part of a bigger plan, if you will? I think it was part of a plan.

At the time, as you may recall, the government said — and they continue to say, actually, in reflection — that we were in such bad financial shape back then, they just had to do something to fix it up. They were duty-bound to fix the horrible financial mess that the NDP had left for them. So they proceeded, but they had a little problem with that particular justification. The problem was that the NDP government had left them with two balanced budgets — two balanced budgets. That's a big problem when you've got a plan and the plan says: "We're in terrible financial shape. We've got to do something about this." How were they going to justify it when they'd just been handed two balanced and surplus budgets?

It's interesting to hear some of the members opposite. The member for Vancouver-Burrard last week was

certainly indulging in a considerable bit of revisionist history and was saying how we went from deficits under the NDP to surpluses under this government. I'm scratching my head and thinking that's not the way I remember it.

M. Sather: I must have missed something, the member says. What did the member opposite miss? I told you, hon. Chair, that the members would be interested in this subject. I'm glad to see that they are. We need a little enlivenment here at ten to five in the morning.

The government at that time, yes, did go to first, but what did they go to first in? Well, in the second year of their mandate they brought in the number-one biggest deficit ever to hit to the province — ever. That's number one. That was a good shot. That was preceded by a deficit, also, of over a billion dollars in their first year and succeeded by another deficit of over a billion dollars. This government does a lot of bragging about their financial prowess, but they aren't batting 500 yet, so I wouldn't get too smug about it.

They had a problem, as I said. They're trying to revise history in order to do what they really wanted to do, and they had to have some justification for that. Their choice really had nothing to do with finances — nothing at all. It had to do with philosophy. It had to do with ideology. It had nothing to do with finances.

What they proceeded to do, as we all know — although the members opposite deny it…. They had to gut public services. I say "had to" advisedly, because I don't think they really had to. I think, in fact, it was something that they were quite willing to do. Why were they willing to do that? Because they had some payoffs to make — that's why. And they proceeded to give their friends in the corporate structure huge tax cuts — huge tax cuts. Who had to pay for those tax cuts? The people of British Columbia had to pay for it.

People in the public services certainly had to pay for it. This government went on to gut the public services of this province to pay for the tax cut that they gave to the corporations of this province. That's exactly what happened — exactly. One of those public services that took the brunt of their hits was the education system. That's what we're talking about with this bill: the education system and how hard it has been hit by this government.

The justification, though, wasn't complete. You had two balanced budgets that you were left with. What were you going to say the problem was? Well, members opposite came up with "the structural deficit" — remember that? I doubt that few people had ever heard of a structural deficit. I don't even think many members opposite had heard of a structural deficit before 2001. They said: "We've got a structural deficit of $3.8 billion" — that's the figure that they came up with — "and we've got to do some serious cutting in order to pay down this structural deficit." That was their justification. That was how they did it. They came up with the so-called structural deficit.

Then they launched into doing something. My God, they didn't really want to do it. Their hearts were torn, and they're still torn — right? You hear them all the time saying how much they hate to have to impose a contract on teachers, and they hated then to have to gut the public service, or so they said. I'm not convinced that they really did hate it. I'm not convinced of it at all. If you look at what some conservative governments have done, other than this one…. Look at the George Bush government, running huge, huge deficits. There's no particular caring about financial accountability — not at all. I think this government was utterly reckless in what they did at that time, and we're still experiencing the ramifications, unfortunately, of what they did.

What exactly — I'm going to talk a little bit more about this structural deficit — is a structural deficit, then, since it was somewhat of an unknown term to a lot of folks? A structural deficit means, essentially, that no matter where we are in the business cycle, the budget can't be balanced.

But wait a minute; that doesn't fit. They just had two balanced budgets. Well, I don't think this government is necessarily long on logic. I really don't. But spinning…. They're good at spinning — very, very good at the spin.. And the more they spin and the more they make up things, the more they are able to convince some folks that what they're talking about is true. Again, it's borrowed from the playbook of George Bush. If you tell a lie, you want to tell a big lie, and you want to tell it over and over and over again. We saw that with the weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that a government would actually mislead the people like that. It's hard to believe but nonetheless true.

In fact, at the time we were in a cyclical deficit situation as a result of an economic turndown. We all remember that 9/11, which happened at that time, definitely threw a wrench into the economies of the world. Also, at that time the government didn't have the good fortune with some of the things that happened later on that they take a great deal of credit for — all this wonderful work that they've done in balancing the budget and bringing surpluses.

What, in fact, really is responsible for the balanced budgets that happened last year and this year? A lot of luck, actually. A lot of luck accounts for it, primarily. Record-high commodity prices — I don't think this government is responsible for those. In fact, I know very well they aren't. Thirty-year-low interest rates spurring a business boom — that's what's responsible. Also, let us not forget the massive transfers of money that they got from the federal government and continue to get from the federal government. The NDP governments in the '90s suffered huge cuts in transfer payments from the federal government, but this government has been fortunate. A lot of largesse has been raining down upon them.

But it's not all luck. They did take some things into their own hands. One of those things they took into their own hands was increasing gambling by a massive amount. That brought in a lot of money. I know that the members opposite have a problem with gambling. I don't know if they're problem gamblers, but they have a problem with gambling. They can't really decide whether they really expanded gambling or not. Some members say: "No, we didn't expand gambling. We wouldn't think of it. How could you suggest such an idea?" But a couple of members have actually come clean and have admitted that this government actually did expand gambling.

The other thing is…. Let's not forget the burgeoning tuition fee increases that post-secondary students suffered under this government. That brought in a lot of bucks as well.

The deficit that they were suffering at the time was also largely self-imposed by these tax cuts that they promised were going to pay for themselves — and not later but sooner — and they did not. The tax-take revenue has not come back up to where it was until just recently, just recent years. The first three years it was way down. In fact, the minister at the time, in the first year, admitted that the $1.1 billion deficit was solely the result of the tax break. He actually came clean at the time with that — one of the few times.

It was a prefabrication. They made it up, and they thought nobody would notice. They thought: "We'll just pull the wool over the eyes of the people in this province." It's been hurting public services ever since. It really has, and it has a lot to do with the situation we're in today and why we're talking about what we are talking about today.

The government at the time had the fiscal review panel, as it's called, and came up with this structural deficit determination. But they depended on some pretty hyperconservative assumptions at that time, including a forecast allowance of $1.5 billion. As I said, it was a pretext upon which this government was able to do what they really wanted to do in the first place, and that was to whack public services. They did it.

What we have also seen in the course of that process is a dramatic transfer in wealth to the haves from the have-nots. Yes, every once in awhile the government throws out a few crumbs to poor people. But it's a minor trade-off for their buddies — a minor trade-off, because their friends in the corporate sector are laughing all the way to the bank. They don't mind if the government gives away a few crumbs to the poor people.

Remember, too, that at that time the Liberals kept saying that B.C. had the most expensive social programs in Canada. This was another pretext for what they did to public services. They said that we had a bloated public service at the time. Remember those words? I don't know if the members opposite want to remember those words. I wouldn't if I were them, because it wasn't true. It wasn't true. B.C.'s public service was already the second-smallest in Canada on a per-capita basis. Government spending relative to GDP was the third-lowest in Canada. There again: double talk. The words did not match with reality.

To justify their cuts, they also said that government spending had increased far beyond our rate of economic growth over the past decade and was simply not sustainable. Another one of the quotes from that time — not true again. Government spending relative to GDP peaked in 1991 and declined all the way into 2002.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, as they say, and the Liberals certainly didn't. Nevertheless, the government put the boots to the public service, including in the area of education.

B.C. is a very rich province. We can afford, despite what the Liberals have said, to look after one another much better than we do. We can afford to look after the homeless. We can afford to look after students much better than this government is willing to do.

Now, back to the teachers' issues specifically. The laws of bargaining rights have a number of ramifications for teachers. I talked about them earlier today, or yesterday, whenever it was. One of the things is that teachers are not being consulted when government contemplates major changes to the school system. They don't feel included. They aren't invited to the party. They're left out. They're ignored.

A Mustel Group opinion poll in June of this year confirmed that 88 percent of the public agrees that it is important for teachers to speak out on public education issues like funding cuts, larger class sizes and reduced support for children with special needs. The public thinks it's right and necessary for teachers to speak out on these issues. And thankfully, they are, despite the government's attempts to muzzle them.

And 82 percent of 14,500 teachers surveyed at that time disagreed with the statement that adequate special education assistant time is available to each student who needs it. These are the folks that know, and if they're saying it's so, you can be sure that it's so. We've heard a lot from many speakers about how devastating that has been for them and how hard it is for them to carry on to do their jobs.

In the same study 77 percent of teachers agreed that there were more special needs students in their classes than in the past. I mentioned this before. It's a reality that they are having to deal with. And just under 87 percent of teachers also indicated that students in their classes had a wider range of needs than in the past. So there are more special needs and a wider range of needs — very significant to the delivery of educational services, very significant.

At the same time, the number of special needs students has increased, but resources have declined. Government denies it. The reality is there. Financial support has decreased — decreased — over the past four years from real per-pupil funding of $6,700 in 2001-2002 to $6,540 in 2004-2005. The recent $150 million increase still results in $108 per student less in funding than in 2001-2002. That's the reality. There is less money to deal with an increasing problem.

The government needs to come to its senses. They really do. They have an opportunity to get back to the bargaining table, to actually recognize what's happening and say: "We have a part to play in this. We can be part of the solution rather than continuing to be part of the problem."

Not only has there been underfunding of special needs, but following the removal of support provisions from the collective agreement in 2002, there was a loss of almost 230 full-time-equivalent special ed teachers. I know some of these special education teachers. We need those special education teachers in our classrooms. They provide the kind of expertise that the average classroom teacher is not able to get. They have the extra education and the ability to deal with students that really need their help. So to lose 230 FTEs was not a good thing.

Then there's class size. Back to class size again. We've heard a lot about class size. The question remains, and I hear differing responses from the government, depending on their mood, I guess. But does class size matter, or doesn't it? That's the question. The government, on the one hand, says, "Of course we're concerned about class size," but I have also heard them say: "There's no magic number." So it's a double message. "We're really concerned about class size, but hey, there's no magic number."

My school trustees in district 42 believe there's no proof to show that class size affects learning outcomes, and I hear the same rhetoric from members opposite sometimes. It doesn't matter. It can't be proven — not from what I've read and heard.

Project Star, which is from the Corporation for National and Community Service, has been reported in hundreds of research articles and presented widely at international conferences. In the largest class study in the world, they found that in every grade level students in small classes outperformed — the members opposite are very interested in performance — students in larger classes in every achievement test administered — the largest study ever. Hundreds of other articles report similar results.

A trustee said to me: "Well, intuitively, it kind of makes sense that if you get up to 35 or 40 in a classroom, it might have an effect." Yeah. For the sake of argument, if you're comparing a class of 24 and a class of 26, there probably is no statistical difference. But those are not the kinds of differences that we're so often talking about. They're much more significant than that.

I have to say that the naysayers on the other side about class size and the effect of class size throughout the school system, not just the primary…. Yes, I know they put class size limits on primary but not the rest of the education system, the K-to-12. It does make a difference. It's not about averages. It's about the actual number of students that are in a given class. That's what counts.

All this naysaying kind of reminds me of the climate-change naysayers that say: "It's not happening; it's not real; it's a figment of somebody's imagination." It's not unusual, unfortunately, to see right-wing governments go after educators. This government is not alone in doing that. Many, many conservative governments have done that throughout the world. Maybe this is a kinder, gentler government. Maybe they have learned something over the past four and a half years. I hope so.

It certainly hasn't appeared that way yet, particularly, but there's still time. There's still time for the government to come to their senses on this bill and to get back to serious…. To begin. As the member mentioned earlier, there hasn't been any negotiation on the part of the government, so it's time to begin. It's time to begin, really.

The government model on education is, indeed, the corporate model. It's not a model of concern about the whole child. It's a production model. They seem to think in this model, unfortunately, that students are like widgets and not people. Educators in this province aren't interested in turning out widgets in the education system. They're interested in turning out whole people. You talk to teachers, and one after the other will tell you….

C. Evans: This is kind of strange, eh? It would be 5:15 in the morning. An hour ago I was sleeping on the floor downstairs. Nobody's really supposed to be up except paper-boys delivering the paper and people getting ready to go to work, and we're here in the Legislature debating a hoist motion.

For the benefit of anybody who may just have tuned in, switching channels for the hockey game, we're here debating a motion moved by — I almost said the person's name — an hon. member:

Folks, what that means is that the government…. They're the people that work over there; you can't see them on TV right now, but they're there, because they're responsible.

The government has brought in a bill that says that teachers don't get to bargain a collective agreement. They just have to go to work, and they should just, you know, forget the idea of bargaining, and six months from now they can start bargaining, and two years from now they could have a collective agreement.

The people on this side…. That would be my friends, the opposition people. My friends…. Well, they're my friends over there, too; they're just confused. Sometimes good people are confused. You

know, you've seen it in your family. One of the cousins goes haywire, and the rest of them…. Like, you've got to help them. They're wonderful people; they're just misguided. We're trying to help them come to their senses.

So our member said: "This is a really ridiculous law, and you didn't mean to do it." There are 40,000 people out there watching television who don't really want this law to pass, so our team said: "Lift the law for six months while the misguided cousins come to their senses, and then we'll come back and debate it."

Then sometime yesterday the government decided that instead of having an emergency debate or trying to deal with this hoist motion, we would sit here all night long and debate this issue. For the benefit of people who might not understand, this is not a singular event. This idea that the government is saying to teachers, "You can't have a collective agreement. You go back to work, and be quiet," is not happening in isolation. In fact, scant days ago those same misguided cousins brought in a budget bill, and they said: "Whoopee. Good times are here again. We have a billion-dollar surplus." They said: "We've governed well. We've done everything good."

They said: "We've governed well. We did everything we said we'd do, and look at this: we are rewarded with a billion-dollar surplus."

I was sitting here. I thought: okay, here comes the good part. Teachers' bargaining is coming up in 72 hours. They're going to fix it. Then the Minister of Finance — this is stunning, folks; it's amazing — stood up and said: “In spite of the fact that teachers' bargaining is in 72 hours, and in spite of the fact that we won't deal with class size, and people are hoping that we're going to put some money into this and fix it, we've got a better idea. We're going to give $143 million to the corporations and nothing to the school boards.”

People on my side all turn to each other and go: “Well, how's this going to work?” This is not 2002. Remember 2002, when the government said that teachers had to go to work and legislated them back and stripped their agreement and took out librarians? The excuse was: “We've got the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and we can't be bargaining.” The teachers sort of went: “Well, they don't have the money.” But a couple of days ago they came in here and they had a billion dollars, and then, just standing on the brink of fixing the problem, they said: “Oh no, no, no. We're going to give this money to the corporations instead.”

If you look at the two things together — not this evening's nutbar event in isolation, but if you look at it as a continuum — it kind of reminds me of a song. This is like the part on late-night television where….

C. Evans: I was going to sing, and the lights went out. You can't be that scared. Oh, and let there be light.

This is how my subconscious works. Sometimes, when I'm chewing over an issue — sometimes a happy one, sometimes a sad one — and I'm not really sure what I think, a song comes into my head. For example, when I got elected on May 17 and got this great big vote that had never happened to me before, I kept thinking: “I'm so glad. I'm so glad.”

Then we came in here and we did this Terasen debate — this idea of selling our gas company to the United States, and the song that keeps going through my head about that idea is: “This land is my land. This land is your land.”

Now here we are with this teachers question. Anybody who has a fancy stereo set or something, turn it off, because I can't actually hold a tune, don't know anything about key, and it may break your fancy system. But I just need to tell you that the idea that the Minister of Finance had a billion-dollar surplus, took $143 million and gave it to corporations and then said to teachers, “You can't have a dime,” kind of reminds me of the last verse of The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd, written in 1939.

C. Evans: You were, weren't you? I think probably everybody was, because we all remember how the last verse goes. It's Woody Guthrie. This is for teachers: “Now, as through this world I rambled, I met lots of funny men. Some will rob you with a shotgun and some with a fountain pen.”

That's what's going down here, isn't it? Real nice folks all dressed up, best looking we've ever been, best job we've ever had, the most beautiful workplace in British Columbia, and we're robbing some people with a fountain pen.

When we're through passing this law, we're going to send 40,000 people back to work with not a dime. We're not going to change anything about their work. It's all so polite. It's happening at 5:20 in the morning. Nobody can see. And we're going to sign it. We're going to rob these people to…. This is like Robin Hood in reverse. We're going to steal from those peasants living there in the woods and give to the sheriff $143 million. That's our idea of how to run education in British Columbia.

Hon. Chair, please let the misguided cousins say anything they want. It won't make any difference to me.

I want to speak to the people who live where I live. That would be the West Kootenays — Salmo, Nelson, Creston, Nakusp, New Denver, Kaslo. In 2002, when

the government was broke and they said to the teachers, "No. We're going to change your contract and whack out all this stuff that you folks had negotiated for," there were 340 teachers working there. You'll remember 2002, hon. Chair. That was right after the election in which I lost. Lots of those teachers voted for those folks over there. They said: "Okay. Well, let's have a different government. Let's have these guys over here."

This isn't a question of loyalty. I'm sure that the teachers thought that the people coming in with the government would be…. And out of loyalty and thanks for having gotten elected by a big number…. They then whacked…. No, that's not very nice. They saw to it that 34.9 of those teachers got sent home out of 340. They reduced the teachers in the Kootenay Lake district from 340 to 305. So, anybody at home in Salmo or Nelson that's watching television, that is why your class sizes are a little bit larger; that is why your special education teachers went from 31 to 22. It's because the people on the other side, back when they didn't have any money, decided to cut your budget by 40 teachers.

I also represent the good people of Arrow Lakes. That's Edgewood, Fauquier, Burton, Nakusp, and it goes down to New Denver and Silverton. Back when the misguided folks across the way there, two swords' length over there, were elected in 2001, there were 50.7 teachers in the Arrow Lakes. There are now 40.5. There were 1.6 teacher-librarians. That was, you know, making sure kids could read. There's now 0.4. I know in modern jargon there is such a thing as a 0.4 FTE, but there is no such thing as a 0.4 person. We all know that no real person can live on 0.4. So there is not even one single person making a living as a librarian in the Arrow Lakes.

All of that pain was to lead up to this week, when there would be a billion dollars in the bank, and the Minister of Finance would come in and save the day, instead of coming in as happened scant hours — what, 70 or 80 hours — ago and give the money that would have solved that problem in the Arrow Lakes to the corporations.

I phoned teachers in my constituency to ask them how they felt about this. I'm going to rip through a couple of their thoughts. I phoned Henning von Krogh, a brave man. Lives in New Denver; said he'd be pleased if his name was on the record. I asked him what it was that he thought was happening in the Arrow Lakes right now. Henning said that he would like it if I said to you, hon. Chair, that there are people out there who think — and I've got to read this, because it's way more articulate than I've ever been: "It is time for teachers to stand together and to let them" — I presume "them" means us — "know that we collectively will not allow them to continue their reign of insult and ignorance and malice."

In the Arrow Lakes class size is not as big a deal, often, as class composition. Class composition, of course, means who's in the class and what are their skills and capacity to learn.

I have one school in my district which has 131 students in it; 24 of the 131 students are designated by this government, British Columbia rules, as special needs. There are ten more students in that school who require an individual program because they cannot learn in the collective curriculum. That makes 34 out of 131. The class composition in that school requires that there be people there to assist, to teach those students.

I asked Henning about his understanding of the rule of law. Of course, one of the things that's happening here tonight is that the government is using the power of law and that fountain pen to order people back to work, and it's important that we consider hard about the meaning of the law. He told me that teachers believe in the law precisely, which is why, when the government made their profession essential, they referred that question not to the bar or a union meeting. They referred it to the United Nations — to that body at the United Nations that works on labour questions. It is the United Nations, according to my friend, that then said our essential service law doesn't fit their definition of "legal."

He told me to say that what is happening here this morning at 5:30 would be like if Henning used the law, or if I used the…. Suppose I owed Henning $10,000 and I was supposed to pay him next week. Then I came in here and invented a law that said: "Sorry, Henning. I do owe you $10,000, but I am not going to pay you, and it will be two years before we talk about it." Henning asked me to consider whether or not that use of the law really is an honourable profession. He asked me to consider…. He actually asked me to ask you guys to consider what he would be saying to his students if he said to them: "Oh, let's all obey a law which even the United Nations finds to be abhorrent."

He finished by telling me that both of his daughters had decided to follow his example and go into education. One of them is now a substitute teacher, and the other is going through education. He said: "If I don't do something to save this moment for my profession, what am I passing on to my own children, who believe in this work?" That's a pretty tough dilemma for a parent — eh, folks opposite?

I'm going to divide myself from you by more than distance. You're going to take a pen….

C. Evans: Yeah, through the Chair to the folks over there that I appreciate are here. They are going to take a pen and with the pen make it against the law for Henning to defend his kids' right to do this work and the children who would then study under them.

I phoned John Chisamore over in Creston. John told me a little story about class size. John, like me, has a digit missing from some kind of industrial work, and he actually cares about safety in the shop. He says the shops in Creston were built for 20 people. They now have 24 and 28 kids in the shop class. What does that mean? It means that before the teachers will start teach-

ing shop, they write a letter to their boss, the principal, that says, "I think this work is unsafe," to be shared by the parents to cover the teacher's back while he goes into a shop where there are more students than there are desks for them to work at.

When I asked John about the question of illegality, he talked about Gandhi and Nelson Mandela and about unjust laws. Then he cited Pierre Trudeau. He said: "Corky, I'm a Canadian. When I was young, I grew up with this great leader who talked about the just society, and that's where I want to live, and that's the example I would like to set for the students in Creston."

I talked to Pat Deon in Nakusp. He told me that teaching, when he went through school and started, used to be an honourable profession. He got up every morning, got dressed, felt proud of himself. Now he gets up every morning and feels kind of like a second-class citizen — like maybe he's doing something wrong, like maybe we don't want him in that work. He says that although what they do is about learning, under the law that is being constructed with this fountain pen here today, it's against the law for him to bargain learning. How wacko is that? He asked me in a mercantile way, in a money way, to ask all the people here to consider the fact that a long time ago teachers went to the table asking for a lot of salary increases and benefits and then bargained it away in exchange for the right to talk about learning.

There are people in this room…. I can see people that are old enough to remember those bargaining days when teachers gave up personal wealth for the right to talk about class composition and class size and librarians. They're asking if we're going to say, with our fountain pen, that it's against the law for them to talk about class composition and class size. Are we going to pay them the money that they passed up in the 1980s to have that right? We just stripped it away from them and didn't pay them. I don't know. In some places that might be called theft, not the shotgun type but the fountain-pen type.

I talked to Tom Newell. Tom Newell lives in Nelson. He asked me to say to the hon. members opposite: "You're wrong when you say that bargaining is broken." In order for something to be broken, you have to try it and have it fall apart. He asked me to communicate that in his opinion, bargaining has never begun. A relationship is broken. Bargaining is when two people sit down in good faith and say: "Okay, let's work this out." In Tom's opinion, this has never happened, so to say that bargaining is busted is kind of cheap — isn't it? Bargaining hasn't even begun yet.

He asked me to communicate through you, hon. Chair, how…. This fellow is working with his union, and he wants you to understand how surprised he is by how strongly elementary school teachers feel about this particular labour dispute — grade four teachers, he said. Those people…. He asked me to tell you, friends opposite, that he's talked to teachers in his community who told him they've voted against every single strike vote in their professional lives because they believe in being in the classroom, and that they find that it is immoral, this time, to vote against the walkout because they're trying to vote for the children that they're teaching in grade four.

C. Evans: Through the Chair to the hon. member, I like it that you're heckling, because it proves that you're here, but I can see in your eyes that you do believe me. It's a conundrum. It's kind of hard to sit there. I appreciate that you're there when you know you're wrong. Tom is right, and you can feel it.

Tom asked me to ask: why is it that you want to ruin the system? I said: "Tom, what makes you think it's ruined?" He said: "Well, I've got a friend. I grew up with a friend. My friend lives in Victoria, and his children go to St. Michaels School in Victoria. I was looking at his kid's class picture." He said: "Corky, there are only 19 other kids in the class besides his kid. There are 20 kids. They look like they're learning." He said: "Why is it? Is this like health care? Is this like selling our rivers? Is this like everything else? Have the kids in my public school class now become a different kind of person to these wealthier children in the private school?" To Tom, that's an abrogation of Canada, of what he thinks about what Canada is supposed to mean.

He asked me to remind you to ask him about the illegality question. He asked me to remind you that in his mind, this strike is not illegal until a court says that it is illegal. Then he thought for a while, and he said: "You know what? The question of illegality is a diversion. We are dealing here with a moral question in a moment in history — will we have public education where we care about class size and class makeup and the well-being of the students or not? — which actually makes the legal question kind of a red herring.

He asked me to tell hon. members opposite that he talked to all the people who were going to go and vote. They knew all the questions of consequences and all the legal issues before they cast their ballot. He asked me to tell you this, hon. members. At the meetings that they had in my constituency to decide whether or not they would go back to work, they had the vote, they announced the outcome, and, he said, there was no party. Nobody went to the bar; nobody said: "Good."

There was sadness. People who voted — 90 percent — not to go to work tomorrow did so with a feeling of sadness. This is not like what you see on TV, strikes that some of us have been in where we're out there demanding and celebrating workers' rights. This is a bunch of people, some of whom have never done it before in their life, doing something they don't feel good about at a moment they don't like for the good of somebody else.

I want to tell you a quick story. My son is in his mid-30s now. When he was about 13 or 14, there was a strike in his high school, and it was wintertime. I didn't happen to be working at that time. We wake up in the morning, and Phil goes: “I don't have to go to school.” I said: “What do you think we ought to do with the day?” It's February, and it's cold, and he said: “Well, maybe we should take some firewood down to the teachers.” So we took a 45-gallon drum and put it on the back of the truck. We put a bunch of firewood and some paper in there, and we drove it down to the high school. We lit a fire on the 45-gallon drum, and then the teachers gathered around.

Now you have a 14-year-old kid standing with the 30- and 40- and 50-year-old people who were, the very day before, his teachers, and they are peers. They're talking about working conditions and rights and negotiation and the relationship between teachers and students, and teachers and school boards, and school boards and the…. Philip is engaged now in the first real conversation he's ever had in his life with those people who have had power over him for ten years, about: how does their life work? Hon. Speaker, I'm his dad. I would say it might have been the most educational moment in my son's life, that day with the 45-gallon drum, standing with his own teachers.

When we left Mount Sentinel high school that day, I was driving home, and Phil was sitting next to me. Then he turns, and he says: "Well, Pop, there's a thing I don't get about what's going on here. How can the government order the teachers back to work?" More than that, he said: "How could any human being order another human being to work? I thought that we got rid of slavery and that whether or not I get up in the morning and go to work is my right of choice every day. Go to work, have money; stay in bed, be poor. How can somebody tell me, by law, I have to go to work?"

I didn't know the answer. If it was legal in this chair for me to ask you to answer Philip's question, if I could ask the hon. members with the fountain pen on the other side who have given away $143 million to the corporate bosses and are forcing the…. If I could ask them how it is that one human being could order another human being to go to work if there is no slavery, I'd ask them.

I get it that I'm not allowed to and that a question that you ask, literally in the dark, at quarter to six in the morning could be called rhetorical. But 40,000 teachers are thinking about it, and in two hours a couple of hundred thousand students are going to be thinking about it.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I think we'll take a short recess until such time as the power gets back on.

R. Austin: I want to, first of all, begin by thanking the hon. member for Nelson-Creston for waking us all up this morning with a very invigorating speech there. But unfortunately, I think some of his singing may have done something to the electrical system here, and so we've had a little recess there.

I'd like to begin by saying that I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this amendment. I think it is very important, in spite of the fact that it is now six o'clock in the morning, that we are here to discuss education — I think, after health care, certainly the most important issue. It's a big enough topic that we could talk here for hours and hours. I'm certainly energized by it and feel that it's my duty, considering what the teachers have gone through in school district 82 over the last four years, not to mention the children.

I'd like to begin by reading out a letter. Earlier on today we had a number of students who came here to support their teacher who was standing on the steps of the Legislature. We got to meet some of those students. In fact, some of them got to sit up here in the gallery in the early hours of the morning. I'm not sure whether it was last night or this morning. I'd like to begin by reading a letter from one of these students.

His name is Kyle Nelms. I'm going to read the letter verbatim, in spite of the fact that he makes one very disparaging comment about one teacher, who hopefully he will never see again.

I think it's very important to recognize that there were close to 50 students out there until about 2:30 this morning supporting this student. I think it's also important to mention that here we are with 17-year-olds who are finally getting involved in the political process. They are studying socials during the day. They're studying history. But this was the most excellent socials class for them, because they got a chance to come and speak for themselves.

Now, why are we here? Largely, I think we are here because of inaction — inaction on the part of the Premier of this province. The Minister of Labour has told us in this House that this problem has existed for many years. I think he quoted ten to 12 years at least. He has been in cabinet for over four years. Only after antagonizing this single group that we need to work with does he now come up with this instant fix of bludgeoning people with legislation.

For us on this side, I think we are largely observers in this struggle, because after all, we are not the government, and we are not the teachers. We are here supporting them, as we want to have better learning conditions for our children.

This struggle is portrayed as a battle between the big BCTF and the Liberal government, but really, for the people of my riding, in Skeena, it is a battle between the government and the ordinary people who want their kids simply to have a better education. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we know what it's like in school district 82 to have suffered. We are one of the few areas in this province that has had to go to a four-day school week and whose children have been made to feel like second-class citizens. We know who to blame, and it is certainly not the teachers.

I want to speak for a second to this four-day school week. When this came about, our school district — our board, our trustees — had to make a very, very difficult choice. We've had a large number of families leave our area due to economic conditions. Therefore, every time a child left our district, about $8,000 went with each of them, which has resulted, in the last three years, in approximately $1.8 million coming out of our school system simply as a result of that loss in families.

What was left for our school district and our trustees? They had to make a very difficult choice. It was simply choosing to close more schools — and we already had schools that had been closed — or to go to a four-day school week. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: do we really think that in British Columbia in 2005 we should have children only attending class four days a week? Surely to goodness we can afford, in this province, one of the wealthiest places on earth, to have all of our children be in school five days a week.

Prior to this government coming in, the people of Skeena rightly believed that they had and participated in one of the best education systems of many rural or small-town communities. We've seen, in the last four years, that system stripped down to the bare bones. People are certainly not happy about it.

Schools, as I mentioned, have not only been closed due to lower enrolment, but the ability of administrators to cram more kids into classes has permitted boards to close schools and lay off workers. Far more teachers have been laid off than the enrolment figures warrant. This is one of the great myths that needs to be explored.

I was listening earlier today to the member for Peace River South, who pointed out, correctly, that the actual dollar figure per student has indeed gone up under the Liberal government. I don't quibble with that. What I do quibble with, though, is the non-full information. It doesn't explain that while that figure has gone up, so many costs were downloaded onto the school system that the increase in that figure per student could not possibly make up for the losses that the school district had to overcome. That is the reason why we're sitting here having this debate. In spite of the number of dollars going up per student, we have still seen the actual classroom conditions go down because they could not overcome that downloading.

I would like to speak for a second here, looking at the data that has come from the Ministry of Education website. If you look on a provincial average for the whole province, between 2001 and 2004-2005 there were 20,926 fewer students. That's a percentage change of 3.5. In that same time, the number of teachers that have been cut was 2,609, a 7.8-percent decline. These figures, which come from the government, suggest that all of this, what we're talking about, is in fact the reality on the ground.

That has certainly been the case in Skeena. I see here that aboriginal education has gone down by 19 percent in spite of the fact that in my riding we probably have 35 percent aboriginal children. It is not the whole story to simply say that education has gone up. I understand that $150 million was put in, as they keep on reminding us on the other side, but that is only half of what was taken out when the second and third year

of the final agreement to increase teacher salaries a couple of years ago was not funded. Giving back half is not replacing the whole. The government constantly speaks of education have a larger budget than under the NDP, but as I mentioned, that is not the whole story.

I want to speak for a second about rural areas such as mine. When I mentioned earlier that we have lost 930 kids, we have to recognize that there are certain fixed costs in any system that don't go away, no matter how many kids are in the system. The lighting still has to be paid. The heating still has to be paid. The cost of using buses to bring children to schools still has to be paid. All of these are fixed overheads. When you have a school district such as ours, when you lose 983 kids — roughly $1.8 million a year — that means that the children who are left and the dollars that are left have to be spread thinner, and that is what's caused so many problems in rural school districts.

I think it is essential that we recognize and realize this when we look at the funding formula throughout the province. We need to recognize that in certain areas such as mine, we have to have some change in the funding formula that recognizes that when you have a massive or large outflow of families in a particular region, there should be some compensation to school districts so they don't have to work, struggle and go through the kind of crises that school district 82 has gone through in the last four years.

We have indeed seen massive cuts to programs everywhere. Of course, we have had cuts to libraries. We've had cuts to teacher-librarians. We've had cuts in support staff, school closures, larger class sizes and — as I mentioned, the worst thing of all, finally — a four-day school week. More money can still mean cuts — and that is what we are talking about here — in spite of the actual dollars going up. The Liberals know this, and they hope to spin this, but people know, and they realize why so many teachers are upset.

I think it's an interesting thing. I was speaking to lots of people back home during the course of this. Usually, when there is a potential for strike action on the part of teachers, it doesn't go down very well with the general public. They may seem sympathetic, on the one hand, but really, when they have to overcome the difficulties of figuring out where their children are going to go, it soon turns them off. Usually there is a public anger against teachers. But in this case, I feel — and I think I'm right in saying — that the public, certainly the public up north, is very much onside with the teachers and understands that they're not just fighting to try and get a pay raise; they are in fact fighting to try and get a better quality of teaching in the classroom.

I think that this time, should they decide to go out — or if they go out later today, which apparently is what they are going to do — there is going to be huge support within the community, which, as I say, is unusual.

Is this just about pay increases? I don't think so. As I mentioned yesterday — either evening or morning; I'm not sure when — I've spent a lot of time with teachers in the last few years. I worked as an SSA in school district 82, and obviously I spent time in countless staff rooms, talking to them when we were on breaks. Certainly, pay increases were not the primary thing that they brought up in conversations with me day in and day out. The things I heard them complain about were mostly around working conditions or, if you want to put it another way, learning conditions.

We would all like a pay raise. I can't think of any group in society which, when it comes time for bargaining, would not want a pay raise — including the people here, I'm sure. But that was not the primary focus of their conversations. It was always how they could get through the day. It was always how they could get to each and every one of these kids when there were more and more identified kids in each class and the teacher felt they could not give the kind of individualized attention that each of these children needed. That made them feel terrible. Here they are, professional people trying to do the best that they can do, but they felt the system itself was against them. They felt that the government was not listening, was not caring.

So this is where we're at now, four years hence: with them wanting to get some action, with them wanting to have the rights that were taken away from them restored in terms of classroom conditions. Here we are now at the precipice, potentially, of a strike.

Really, what this debate is mostly about, I believe, is working conditions or learning conditions in the classroom. We have to recognize that when the government cuts teachers by 7.8 percent, in spite of the fact that the population only went down 3.5 percent…. I ask you: how many millions of dollars has the government saved by doing that — how many millions of dollars? At a time now, as it's been pointed out, when times are good and this government now has a surplus — I believe $1.3 billion, but I'm sure it will probably go up…. At this time, having sacrificed all of these jobs and having increased all of these class sizes, as the hon. member for Nelson-Creston mentioned half an hour ago, surely it is time to address these issues in the classroom.

Larger class sizes inevitably mean less time with our kids. That's what we're all here for. We're all talking about how we can improve education for our children. Surely giving less time to each child in the class is not the way we want to reach the golden goal, the first goal of this Liberal government. It costs lots of dollars to provide quality education, and we have to decide whether this is worth paying for.

I realize it's expensive. I think I'm right in saying that 70 cents of every dollar now goes to health care and education, and we've seen what's happened to the health care budgets in the last number of years. They've grown exponentially. But I can't help but feel that while those dollars have been going to health care…. Health budgets have grown exponentially, but I cannot help but feel that education has suffered, be-

In school district 82 there are now no takers for the job of trustee. I believe five people are not running, and they're having to find people who'd actually want to take this position. You have to ask yourself: why is that? It used to be, in times past, that people liked the idea of trying to have some input locally into how school districts were run. There used to be a time when we had competitions, with people actually racing in elections to try and get to become school trustees. That's not the case any more, and I'll tell you why. In a small town, everybody knows who you are. When you go shopping, you meet your school trustee, just as you meet your MLA.

The job of school trustee has become so onerous, so difficult, that nobody wants to take this job on. That's not good for democracy. That's not good for the notion that we want to have a system that's not centralized and not run from Victoria. It's not good for the idea that people in local areas should make decisions about how their school system is run. If people don't want to do this job, inevitably these tasks are going to be pulled back to Victoria or people are going to be appointed — people who either have no interest in education or who don't see it as a fit thing worth doing.

What do I mean by adequate funding? I mean that we need to have the kind of funding that deals with class sizes. I mean we need to have the kind of adequate funding that deals with books and other resources. I mean, Mr. Speaker, the adequate funds for music programs. Let me just mention here that in school district 82 our music programs for elementary were cancelled. It took a private citizen group to set up a private society to raise dollars to actually pay for our music teachers and to continue our music program. Is that the way that we want to run public education in British Columbia, where, when a program is cut, we all run around and start raising funds for it? That is not public education.

If we're going to start raising funds in order to have music programs, then we're going to have to go and start raising funds for school books, and maybe if we want to raise the ratio of teachers in each classroom and lower our class-size average, we should all go around and start having bottle drives outside the local Safeway so that we can raise extra funds to do that. Is that what public education is now becoming in British Columbia? I think not.

Terrace is a special place. Music has always been very important. We have high school bands that win competitions across Canada. That was the motivation for this group to go out there and raise the money. They realized that if you don't have music programs in schools, you have no feeders to go into and provide the music programs in the high schools, and then you have no musical talent that can come in and play in concert bands. There would therefore be no music in our community if individual citizens did not take it upon themselves to go and raise these funds. I want to congratulate those people — okay? They have done a great job, but that still begs the question: is this the job they should have been doing?

It also means that we need to have sufficient staff, specific teachers, to take care of children with special needs. As we've seen, the number of kids with special needs has risen in the last number of years — I think, partly because we are now better at identifying them. For every child who has a special need, we need to have teachers who have got greater skills, who have gone and studied further education to take care of those special needs.

During my time as an SSA in school district 82 I saw SSAs who were being moved every half an hour, like plugging holes in a ship, because they had been cut so badly that there weren't enough of us to go around to help those children who have special needs. It's not possible for one teacher in a room to maintain the kind of learning environment necessary for teaching to go on while taking care of so many children with special needs.

As I mentioned earlier, we have a society where we have people with severe disabilities in our schools and they require very special attention. Often they require one SSA or one support person directly with them all day. What's been happening in school district 82 is that some of those people even have been taken and spread around the classroom or moved from one classroom to another. Teachers are left there wondering what is going on — one adult in a room sometimes, 30-plus kids, seven or eight identified children. This is not a job that many teachers want to endure.

What does that do? It burns teachers out time and time again. There are many teachers now who, by the time Christmas rolls around, are emotionally, physically exhausted — absolutely exhausted. When they come back after the Christmas break, they still have the long period of the year to go, but they're already worn out by Christmas. That's a direct result of these working conditions.

I mean also that sufficient resources should take care of our weather. Are our classrooms warm? In school district 82 we sometimes have very strong winters, particularly in Kitimat, but now, we have systems where the heat goes on and off, controlled electronically to save money. When teachers come in on their own time to do prep, the heat isn't even on in the building. They're wearing thick sweaters.

Some of them, when they come into work on Fridays — because remember, Mr. Speaker, we have no school on Fridays, so teachers usually come into school and do lots of prep on Fridays because there are no students there — they wear their coats all day long. Friday, in school district 82, is part of our weekend, and on the weekend the heat gets turned off completely or down to a level where it doesn't freeze pipes.

You'll sometimes come into a school and wonder why all these teachers are walking around in coats while they spend the day doing their prep, but that is

the case. We don't have the money to heat the schools on Fridays to even give them that level of comfort.

I mean we need a physical plant that supports each kid. "Physical plant" means the building itself. It means having a desk for every single child, which isn't always the case. It means having a science station in a science classroom or shop class so that children aren't watching other children do science experiments because there are only 24 science stations in the classroom but there are now 32 kids in the class.

They don't have their own beaker. They don't have their own whatever-it-is that's necessary to do that science experiment. They actually have to share or take turns, to watch one of their friends or their friends' group doing a science experiment. Then maybe, if they're lucky, they can borrow it from their friend and then do it later. These schools were designed to have shop and science for 24 kids. That's what the physical plant was designed for. That's the amount of money we put into capital projects to create these schools, but now we are jamming more kids in.

The other point I want to make is that there are certain subjects, such as shop, where having more students in a class creates a safety problem. Are there enough safety goggles to go around? Is it possible for one shop teacher to maintain safety standards in a classroom when they're doing welding, for example, when he has to watch 32 kids? Is it physically possible for him or her? I beg the question here. At some point, we're going to have an accident, because we are putting too many children into classrooms that are not fit for them.

These things, all the things I have just listed, should be available to every child in British Columbia, because as our government constantly reminds us, this is the best place to live on earth. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the riding of Skeena. It's a beautiful place — I grant you that — but it is not the best place to live in British Columbia. It's certainly not the best place to live on earth.

How do I know that? Well, I spent the first ten years of my life living in Africa. Those are my first experiences going to school — in Africa. I remember as a kid, of course, in Africa — well, we didn't have a lot of things in Africa. We certainly didn't all have classrooms with our own desks. We certainly didn't all have textbooks, not in Africa.

But why am I comparing British Columbia with my experiences as a child in Africa? That is a developing nation. This is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Yet we actually have situations in this province, in my riding, where kids don't have their own desks and don't have their own books.

This is not the direction that we want to be going in. This is the opposite direction. These are the kinds of cuts that have happened in the last few years. I can say that we in the north have a long way to reach the Liberals' first great goal.

I'd like to read another letter. This is also from a group of students, two students who actually came into the House earlier this evening with Kyle. They also came here to support their teacher. Their names are Valerie Jones and Kelsey Oetting. The letter goes like this:

J. Brar: Well, it's 6:33 a.m., and I once again rise to support the hoist motion introduced by my fellow member from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Before I say anything further, I would like to share a few things which I experienced last night. You know, many of us didn't sleep last night. I went to my room and had a nap, and I had a little dream. The dream was that my daughter called me. She said to me: "I heard there would be no school tomorrow morning." She further said: "There's somebody in Victoria doing something wrong. Can you talk to them?" I said to her: "You know, you're right. The schools may not open tomorrow, and there's somebody in Victoria who doesn't get it."

The teachers have been talking to these people, these members, for the last 15 months, and we have been talking to the members on the other side for the last I don't know how many hours on a regular basis. We are trying, but we haven't seen any positive response at this point in time.

The second thing I want to say is that I'm pleased that the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General is here. I read a few letters during the last couple of months about how our attack program is pretty good, and we are prepared for any eventuality and all that kind of stuff. In this building I saw…. Last night there were no blankets, no supplies, no sleeping bags, and MLAs are struggling. Maybe it's a good thought for the minister to think about.

The third thing I want to say is that the member on the other side maybe thought that this is a new team and probably this is a good time to go to this vote. Let me tell you that I am proud of these 33 members, and I've seen them in excellent shape and excellent spirits last night. We will continue speaking for the people of British Columbia, speaking for the parents of British Columbia and speaking for the teachers of British Columbia. We will continue talking about that unless you stop us from doing that.

Coming back to the motion, the motion is very simple, and it does provide a meaningful direction to the current crisis, which this government has created.

The motion is to postpone the second reading of Bill 12 for six months and then start working right away on finding the solution to this crisis. I fully support the motion. It's very simple. It makes sense. It is creative. It does open an avenue for finding a solution. Let's put the motion on the side — maybe put a nice blanket on that for six months. If needed, the government could bring it back. We'll start working on finding a solution just right now, which is 6:35 a.m., so that our kids, our students, don't suffer from this crisis, which was created by this government.

This bill is about our teachers and about our children. The teachers teach our children. They shape the future of our nation. They teach them the power of negotiations. They teach them conflict resolution. This Premier and this government are telling the teachers that they don't have the right to negotiate class size. Many of my fellow members have spoken a lot on that, as to why class size is important, to make sure the learning process and the class size is good for the students.

This government is telling them that you don't have the right to negotiate class size. This government is telling the teachers that you don't have the right to negotiate class composition. This government is telling the teachers that you don't have the right to negotiate working conditions, and this government is telling the teachers that you don't have the right to negotiate wage increases. But they're telling us: let's have negotiations. Negotiations on what?

From a commonsense point of view, people can understand that this is not a process set for negotiation and set for finding a solution. This is a trap. This is a public policy. This is a political game being played with the students of this province, with the parents and the teachers of this province.

Yesterday I told a lot of stories, and one of the stories was about a king. I think, for the benefit of the members who may not have been here yesterday, I would like to repeat that story. This story is about a king who has a goal to make his state the most literate state on the Earth, and the king asked our team of advisers to find somebody to set a public policy to reach that goal. His team of advisers went out and tried to find that person with that wisdom, experience and intellect to set up a public policy.

Finally, they found somebody with lots and lots and lots of teaching experience, and they brought that person to the House. The king is sitting on his throne — a beautiful throne like you're sitting on, Madam Speaker — and this person comes in front of the king. The king asks this person — the intellectual, the maker of public policy with tons of experience in education: "So, tell us. Our goal is to make this state the most literate state on the Earth. What can you tell us to make sure we can do it?"

This person just barely starts responding, and the king says: "Stop it. I want to tell you that you cannot talk about the class size, that you cannot talk about the class composition, that you cannot talk about the working conditions of the teachers, that you cannot talk about any wage for teachers. But, tell me, what is the best way to meet this goal?"

This person says: "Your honour, you cannot separate those four things — the class size, class composition, working conditions and the wage of teachers — from the excellent goal which you have, in order to achieve it."

He says: "No, we will look after those things." And this person says: "Your honour, if you continue doing that, one thing will happen. Either you won't be able to achieve your goal or you will have to change your position on the class size, class composition and the working conditions and wage increase." Well, this person left, but kings usually have selective listening because they are the kings, and they say what they think is best for them, not for the public.

This is not the first time this Premier is doing something like this. During the last four years this government has deliberately, intentionally, knowingly pursued actions that provoked a conflict with teachers. Let me tell you some examples. The duly negotiated contract of teachers was torn by this Premier in 2002. A contract is a contract, whether it's for corporations or for working people. But this Premier did that. He took over the control of the College of Teachers from the teachers, as well. There are many colleges where it was the teachers, the College of Teachers, which was under attack.

This Premier overruled a B.C. Supreme Court decision on classroom composition. This Premier used teachers as political pawns in the 2005 elections. This Premier refused to meet with the teachers when he had a chance to make progress. So this is not an isolated bill we are facing or debating in this House. We see a pattern for almost the last five years: one set of actions for working people, and another set of actions for corporations in this province. And the history goes on and on and on.

Who is responsible for this? If you look at the history, it makes it very clear that the crisis is an invention, a creation, of this government to win back the trust of people of British Columbia for the mistakes they have made for the last four years.

That's why I oppose Bill 12, and I support the hoist motion because the real motivation behind Bill 12 is playing politics — playing politics with the students, their parents — to win back the trust this government has lost in the last four years.

I oppose this bill not just because I am a member of the opposition. I oppose this bill because I truly believe that this bill only serves the Liberal Party of this province, not the people of the province. This bill only serves the interests of the Premier of this province, not the parents and students of this province.

I have reasons for that. The first reason is that I heard a lot from the members on the other side that the budget is about choices — about priorities. Yes, that's right, but it depends. What are your priorities? Do your priorities reflect the needs of the people of the province

or the needs of the corporations of the province? If you look at the history, the history makes it very clear. The biggest tax cut to corporations in 2001: $2 billion on the very first day, without any analysis. And $1 billion out of that went to a very small, tiny percentage of very rich people of this province. The remaining $1 billion, which is 50 percent, went to over 95 percent of the average families of British Columbia.

Then, in this budget once again, we saw another corporate tax cut to their friends. And on this side they're talking about the negotiation system being broken. What are the negotiation systems for the corporations? There are none. There was no system, no request, but the government still decided to give them the tax cut. That's all about priorities that are wrong.

If you look at the other side, what we saw were cuts to special education teachers by 17.5 percent, teacher-librarians by 23.49 percent and ESL teachers by 20 percent. So big tax cuts to corporations but cuts to students and schools. That's what we have seen this government doing for the last four years.

My second reason for opposing this bill is that this bill is against the fundamental values of this country, of this society: values of respecting and appreciating and valuing the work of nation-builders, teachers. You talk about the teachers. I hope all of us have, from time to time, gone to school to drop off our kids, and everybody wants the best teacher for their son or daughter. We tell the stories. We tell them how nice they are, how effective they are, but we don't want to talk to them because we are government.

The third reason I have is that there are no pressing, valid, outstanding reasons for Bill 12. There is nothing to convince me that this Bill 12 is leading us — this government or me, as the elected member of the Legislative Assembly for Surrey–Panorama Ridge — in the right direction. If that would have been the case, then the government…. You don't need to spend taxpayers' money on big ads convincing the people of British Columbia that this is the right decision. The people of British Columbia understand what you are doing. You don't need to convince them whether this is the right thing or the wrong thing. They understand good and bad.

What the government is spending, I don't know. The Minister of Finance — whether she knows it or not, I don't know — she's not telling us anything. You are spending I don't know how much, probably millions of dollars, on those ads to convince….

J. Brar: Sorry, Madam Speaker. Through the Speaker to the Minister of Finance.

You don't need to spend this money — public money — on advertisement if you're doing something right. That's the problem with this government.

My fourth reason for this one is that this government missed the opportunity to deal with a very important issue in schools, and that's class size. Let me give you some examples. That's what we have been trying to do for the last almost two or three days to make our point.

Now, one of the teachers in my riding is saying that there are 32 students. In fact, I have gone to school in India, and I've gone to university in Canada, but I have never seen a class of 32. I've never seen that. I have seen more than 32 people in the cinema house, but that's not a classroom; that's a different thing.

Here is one about class size: "I am unhappy with the overwhelming class size. It is frustrating, and the numbers have changed my job from an educator to an enforcer. I think this is a wonderful profession, but it is frustrating when I don't feel respected by the government policy." This is a teacher of secondary school who has more than five years' experience.

Let me give you another example from a primary school teacher: "Grade one students need significant support in learning the French language. Twenty-four students is far too many." This is another example of the size.

In other life, from a commonsense point of view, we have all dealt with very young kids. Think about if we have just three five-year-old kids and we have to monitor them for two or three hours. We get frustrated. We are talking here about 24 students, and the teacher has to deal with them not for two hours but for much longer than that, almost a day, and also teach them something meaningful. And this government is saying: "Oh, you don't need to discuss the class size. We will handle it."

Let me give you another example: "The classes are too big for ESL learning needs in school. Many resources and texts available in the school are not suitable for ESL students, particularly at the intermediate level" — this is, again, another teacher who has 25 years' experience.

The other letter I have here is from a teacher who says: "I have had several classes with the maximum of 32 students. Please don't let class sizes get any larger. There are just enough desks to seat students. Moving around the classroom is difficult, and it is just way too crowded."

That's the class size. The thing which confuses me is that the government is saying the teachers can't talk about the class size. Who can talk about the class size if teachers cannot talk about the class size? Who understands about the class size better than teachers? I don't understand that.

Another reason why I'm not supporting Bill 12 is because it missed the opportunity to address the issue of class composition, which is a very significant issue. Again I will read some letters I got, as many of my fellow members have already explained about it. Let me give you some examples of how pressing and important an issue that one is. Here's one from an intermediate-level teacher who has the experience of more than 15 years. "My class composition workload is overwhelming. I have two special needs students without enough support; one severe behaviour student; and six

students with severe learning disabilities, including two who cannot read or write. I cannot meet everyone's needs." That's one coming straight from a teacher.

Here is another one. "My students and I have all noticed that our classes are all larger since class size and composition language was removed from our contract." This is from a teacher who has 20 years experience. This is a classic example of the class composition. I hope that the members will listen to it.

"I have large numbers of ESL students, 14 of them, as well as many with behaviour problems, six of them, and special needs–learning disabled students, two of them, and I have a split-grade class with academic abilities ranging from kindergarten level to grade three. It is very difficult and frustrating." That's the other one. The list goes on and on and on, but the government is not listening.

I also oppose this bill and support the hoist motion because I believe the motivation behind this bill is conflict — confrontations rather than finding solutions. It's a paradigm problem. It's a thinking problem. I also oppose this bill because parents of this province expect the government to work with teachers, not against them, to improve education for their children.

Let me talk a bit about Surrey. I have heard from members over the past four years, in particular over the last year, during the election that the…. One of the rationales I hear from the other side is that the schools have been closed because enrolment is going down. But in Surrey we receive 1,000 new people walking into the city every month. Class size in Surrey has been going up like anything, but we also got cuts to special needs teachers, librarians and ESL teachers. What is the rationale there? We don't have enrolment going down. Those are the challenges we face when we talk to the government.

I oppose this bill because this bill is a desperate political effort to win back the trust of parents and students by showing that now, suddenly, we care about you. Again, because during the last four years the government has taken actions which have, of course, damaged their image among parents and students.

Let me give you some examples. This government has closed 113 schools since they took over.

D. Thorne: My esteemed colleague there said, "it's over?" like the firing squad was leaving. I don't expect to get a lot of laughs here this morning, so if I try and it falls flat, I'll live with it.

I rise to speak in favour of the motion because I believe that it's a sensible thing to do. It's logical. It will give everybody some breathing space and give everybody time to think about what they're doing.

This Bill 12, this legislation, increases the level of confrontation with teachers and does nothing to improve learning in the classroom. It seems to me that for four years this government has deliberately pursued actions that provoked a conflict with teachers. They tore up a contract in 2002, they stripped teachers of their self-governing body in 2003, they overruled a B.C. Supreme Court decision on classroom composition in 2004, they used teachers as political pawns in the 2005 election, and they've now refused to meet with teachers when they had a chance to make some real progress.

They seem to have chosen conflict and confrontation instead of working with teachers to find solutions to this problem, and parents and teachers are paying the price. This government has consistently viewed education as a political game instead of viewing teachers, parents and students as equal partners in education.

I believe that the most recent polls done by Global television yesterday will show that my colleagues and I are not alone in thinking this. The province is not even split down the middle on this issue. Most of the questions asked — and I'm not going to go through every question, because I don't have that much time — were over 50 percent in favour of the view of this side of the House and against the government on the other side. There were only a couple of questions where it was slightly the other way. Basically, the population is split down the middle and supporting teachers in their viewpoints.

D. Thorne: I hear members on the other side of the House challenging me. I assume there's a newspaper over there with new poll numbers, which I'm sure we'll hear about just as soon as we can from the other side of the House. I'm only talking about yesterday. I have been here in the House and have not had the privilege of seeing today's newspaper.

I think that bargaining rights and free collective bargaining are being trampled on right now in this province. I would just like to say a few words that I have here around how teachers came to have bargaining rights in British Columbia.

In the beginning there were few rights and many responsibilities. The Public School Act, 1872, organized teachers into teacher institutes which were dominated by government officials. Rings a little too close to home for what's happening today to suit me. In a far-flung province of Canada such as British Columbia, collective rights were not recognized in those days, and while labour organization was present in a few mining towns, unions were usually seen as a conspiracy against trade.

B.C. teachers had common-law contracts. They worked under what we would see as intolerable conditions, and they came and went at the behest of local school authorities. What separates us from our predecessors is the evolution of democracy and the collective

efforts of those teachers who organized themselves into the B.C. Teachers Federation to achieve full collective bargaining rights.

Full collective bargaining rights for teachers were ultimately achieved in the 1987 teacher bargaining legislation. During the negotiations that followed, teachers negotiated a full set of terms, including class size, duty-free lunches, fair personnel practice, professional development rights and a healthy salary increase. In the many negotiations that followed, hundreds of negotiations were concluded without reference to strikes or lockouts. Where necessary, teachers did undertake job action in the face of school boards acting unfairly in the negotiating process.

Our history presents a clear lesson, one that we should pay attention to today, right now, in British Columbia on the importance of collective bargaining rights. In the broad context, collective bargaining rights cannot be seen as separate from other democratic and human rights of a civil society. Rights and laws equalize the playing field between those who have wealth and power and those who don't. Collective rights equalize the workplace power imbalance between those who own and control the system and those who provide their services, be they professional or unskilled.

When the Liberal government came to power in 2001, the learning conditions for students in British Columbia were protected by the teachers' collective agreement. There were specific limits on the number of students that could be placed in one class. There were limits on the number of students with special needs that could be integrated into any one class. There were specific supports required when students with special needs were integrated. There were guaranteed levels of service for students to be provided by specialist teachers such as teacher-librarians and counsellors. Some of the protections for students had been in place for 11 years when the Liberals took office.

On January 28, 2002, however, teaching and learning conditions in British Columbia took a huge step backward. Overnight the Liberals gutted freely negotiated collective agreements and restricted teacher bargaining in the future. With provisions for teaching and learning conditions stripped, we have seen class sizes soar, class composition worsen, and health and safety concerns are rising daily. We have seen 113 neighbourhood schools closed, 2,500 teacher positions lost, school programs eliminated and specialist services eroded. This government took what had been an upper limit on the number of students in a class…

D. Thorne: Madam Speaker, I'm very happy this morning that I have such a loud voice, because it looks like I'm going to need it.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Members, I know it's early in the morning. Can we please have order.

D. Thorne: It feels like late in the evening to me, Madam Speaker. I'm sure it does to you as well.

Class size limits are good for everyone — teachers, parents, students and all of society. Full scope of bargaining is a fundamental right in a democratic, civil society. The last thing education needs right now is a change in the bargaining system that makes it totally unworkable.

There has not been a single teacher-initiated strike in British Columbia since 1993. Prior to the introduction of provincial bargaining in the first four and a half years of teachers' collective bargaining, a B.C. student lost less than 8/10 of a day of classes per year. That's less than the time lost to sniffles, snowfalls and family vacations. There has been no measurable, long-term negative effect on students' progress because of any teachers strike.

I'd just like to look at some statistics here on what's happened in British Columbia with the cuts in the last four years since the Liberal government took over. I'd like to specifically talk about my school district, which is school district 43. It's been the third-largest school district in the province for many, many years. In Coquitlam special education teachers have been cut by 9.5 percent. That's a huge number of teachers, and that loss has been felt every day by the teachers in my school district.

In Coquitlam ESL teachers have been cut by 14.5 percent, an even higher number, with ESL students growing so quickly that it's hard to believe. Many people may not know this, but Coquitlam is one of the top areas where refugee families from many countries around the world choose to settle when they come to British Columbia. The Chinese population in Coquitlam has grown by 25 or 30 percent in the last few years, and we have seen our ESL teachers cut by 14.5 percent.

That is a drastic cut, and it's affecting the education of every student in the third-largest district in British Columbia.

In Coquitlam we have lost teacher-librarians by 18 percent. The numbers keep getting higher and more horrendous. I could keep going, but I think everybody, including my friends on the other side of the House, gets the picture. They may not want to talk about it or face it. They would rather harangue, but I think they know that these statistics are true.

In the face of these drastic cuts in Coquitlam, school district enrolment has only declined by 3.3 percent. The cuts in Coquitlam aren't due to declining enrolment. I think that's pretty obvious to anybody that can read. Thankfully, most of the people in this House, on both sides, can still read. I don't know that we'll still be able to say that about kids in the future if we keep going down the road we're going down today.

This is an interesting statistic: in 1998 we had 100 more students in Coquitlam than we have today, but at that time there were 42 more teachers employed full-time by the district of Coquitlam. That's a very interesting statistic. Those hundred students had 42 teachers, so we must have been teaching classes at that time almost 2 to 1. Either that or there's some substance to the claims that these huge classrooms are a reality. It's either one or the other, or else the students of Coquitlam were particularly blessed with having one teacher per two students. When we lost those 100 students, we lost 42 teachers.

This chronic underfunding of public education. I'd just like to read a few little facts that I have here in front of me on the real per-pupil funding and the dollars. Since I have it and I'm up here today, I think I'm just going to read it. "The government has downloaded many costs onto local school boards."

This has been mentioned many times over the last 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever — 72 hours. I'm going to say it one more time, because it doesn't seem to be getting through. I will try, having this loud voice that I have that is very difficult to be drowned out by heckling.

Pension payment increases to school boards have increased tremendously. So have MSP premium increases and B.C. Hydro rate increases, not to mention the salary and wage increases that were negotiated by the province with no money given to school districts across this province to pay for them. That was a blow for school trustees the morning they woke up and realized they had to pay salary increases on top of all these other increases I've mentioned, with no money in their budget to do it. That resulted in huge, huge budget deficits across this province, a frightening thing for these school trustees, who are only people like ourselves here in this House, community citizens who think they can help their province and their community by running for public office — the reason, I assume, we're all here. It's the reason I'm here.

These school trustees across B.C. have done the same thing. One can only feel sorrow and perhaps even pity for these people, who have no control over the things they have to pay. They have no taxing power. They're not like the municipalities, where they can raise taxes. I've been a city councillor for nine years. I know all about the needs in the community and having to raise taxes, sometimes above the cost of living, in order to generate the funds to pay for these increases. The school trustees don't have that privilege.

Let's look at the years. In '01-02 the real per-pupil funding was $6,770. By '04-05 this real per-pupil amount had dropped to $6,540. It's pretty tough to explain this in the light of all of the cries of "more and more funding, more funding" from the other side of the House, but these are the facts. This is simple mathematics, which we in this House still know how to do. Across B.C. school boards registered a collective funding shortfall in '02-03 of $210 million and in '03-04 of $90 million — still a shocking amount.

Speaking of Coquitlam, my school district, we had a shortfall of $5 million in '02-03 and $900,000 in '03-04. Things are not looking up very much for my school district or for school districts across the province. I mentioned before about the 113 schools closed. Three of those were in Coquitlam, and we had 300 students displaced, causing great concern for the parents and for the neighbourhoods. Some of those schools are now sitting empty and causing great problems with vandalism, etc.

I, also, have been receiving letters — a great number of letters, actually. Being the third-largest school district in the province, I have a lot of teachers writing letters. Some of these letters have gone to all four MLAs, so that means two from the other side of the House and two from this side. I will bring them up, some of the points that are in here.

Before I do that, I also have a letter from a young woman named Kristin from grade 12, who was sitting up here last night. She and I were both here at 2 a.m., and we both left at about the same time. I'm not going to read the whole letter, but one of the things that she has to say…. She quotes Gandhi. She says:

Madam Speaker, this was written last night out on the front steps by Kristin, who as I say is a secondary school student here in grade 12 in Victoria. This, I

think, is an important piece of paper. I'll probably keep this forever. This kind of sums up why we've been here all night talking about this. This young girl understands how I feel, how my colleagues feel and how teachers, students and parents across this province feel. This is a very important piece of paper.

Some of the other letters that I've received come from teachers or constituents of mine in Coquitlam. Quite a few of them have stuff in there that doesn't really pertain to what I'm here talking about tonight, but I'll try and pick out the pertinent bits so I don't bore everybody with all the nice comments about myself that are in here.

The next one says: "I hope you are voicing your concerns on my behalf, as one of your constituents, to encourage a fair, negotiated solution to the teachers' contract."

You know, this is what keeps coming up, Madam Speaker: the fair, negotiated solution to the teachers' contract. This is the problem. It's free collective bargaining. It really has nothing to do with Bill 12. It has nothing to do with anything, really, that's happening in this House. They just want to sit down with the government and talk about their issues and have a free collective bargaining process. And they deserve that, in my opinion — and obviously, it's resonating with people in this province as well.

This woman — she's one of my constituents — is a teacher-counsellor in Vancouver at an inner-city school. She says that they have a school population that is approximately one-quarter special needs and that they have a very dedicated teaching staff trying to do a job, and often succeeding, very successfully, to meet the educational needs of all the students despite the acrimonious relationship with the provincial government.

Another teacher from my constituency says: "We are truly treated like castoffs and reprobates by the Liberals. It is very demoralizing."

Another one: "At this time, I urge you to push this government to reconsider the heavy-handed action of imposing legislation on the teachers of British Columbia. Please support us in asking the government to meet with our elected officials in an attempt to resume real and fair negotiations." It's what everybody is asking for.

Then I have a bunch of letters here that have gone to all of the four MLAs that cover the large Coquitlam school district. This is from a teacher in district 43 who is the parent of a nine-year-old special needs boy who is not getting the support he needs in his class, due to the educational funding cutbacks of the last four years.

This is terrible news, Madam Speaker — terrible news. They have cut that program at the school because the resources are not there to carry it on.

This is a very moving letter from a teacher who is also, as we have heard, the parent of a child who is suffering from the last four years of cutbacks.

I'm assuming that the other members from Coquitlam — the Burquitlam and the Port Moody–Westwood MLAs and my colleague from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain — have all read this letter and will all feel the same way I feel, which is very disheartened by the facts that are written in this letter.

I have many more letters that I could read. I think you get the point. I don't think I need to read any more. There is just one other thing that I would like to mention if I have a little time left. I'd just like to mention Bill 34, which was passed early in 2002, which was the amendment to the School Act and allowed school boards to set up for-profit companies. There were five school districts that I know of that have moved in that direction. Mine is one of them. This is a very controversial aspect.

As I say, New Westminster, Coquitlam and some of the others…. I was just going to say how controversial this is, because it allows school boards to set up for-profit companies, which moves us down a road that is very frightening — towards privatization, private schools, private funding and all those things that are so controversial. I, myself, am a product of the private school system, and I grew up in a province, in Newfoundland, where there was no public school system. I had many friends who came from large Irish families who could not afford to send all of their children to school. Some kids went for half-days; some didn't go at all after grade seven or grade eight.

I know what a private school system can be like, and this whole idea really frightens me. It obviously frightens a couple of other people too. We have two school board chairs who have given their comments. My own school board chair says that the board's bylaw to incorporate as a business company frightens her, as it lays the groundwork for the privatization of the education system. The chair says:

C. Puchmayr: They're starting to get my name right, and now they're starting to get my community right. I'm very pleased to hear that, especially this early in the morning and this late in the debate. It's certainly a privilege to rise here in the official opposition. I know some people are probably getting up, watching the news and maybe doing a little bit of channel surfing, and they're thinking: "Oh, the Legislature is still on from last night." Well, it isn't. It's not a repeat. This is live. We are debating right now a motion that we put in place, and it's to hoist the bill that the government imposed — Bill 12. We are rising against it. I will speak in favour of our motion to hoist the bill.

I will read the motion to those of you that haven't heard it. Maybe some of the members on the other side may not have heard this for a while. The motion was made. It is:

There are some very good reasons to do so. I will do my presentation and go through a bit of history on why we are here now, why we are continuing this debate, and how we ended up in this type of a situation where the government is again looking to pick a fight with the teachers.

Just to back up a little bit to May 13, 2005, during the election campaign — just before the vote, as matter of fact — the front page news was: "Premier Warns of Chaos in Teachers' Secret Plan" and "accuses that a win for the NDP will cause turmoil, and the teachers will strike before the end of the school year in June." That was absolutely untrue, and it shows why we're here today again. The Premier is trying to pick a fight, trying to split, trying to divide, and using the teachers and the children as pawns in this dispute.

The BCTF certainly did not engage in any dispute. The government was elected, not with the majority that it had but with a considerable loss of seats and an incredible gain of seats by us, the opposition. I could see the strategy of trying to…. There was certainly the public…. There was a relentless attack on the Premier by

the public at the time. I was certainly seeing it on the doorsteps when I was knocking on the doors, and it looked like there was a need, obviously, by the Premier to deflect some of that. I think the nature of that was to deflect some of that heat away from the Premier and to deflect it towards this horrible scenario should the NDP become government.

Now, I understand that the last time, there were two members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and — I can name her now — Joy MacPhail, who is no longer a member. She's now retired. Then the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge came in later also. The three members were certainly working diligently in trying to ensure that this House was kept honest, trying to keep this House honest and keep legislation open and have the public understand what is going on. I can understand now, with what we have been engaged in for the last over 12 hours that we have continued this debate…. It's just amazing how two and three people used to engage in this type of debate just to ensure that the public knew that there was somebody there to keep the government honest and to try to hold them to their task.

Since the election — 33 seats; from three to 33 — of course one of the first things the government has to do is to spend another $1.7 million to help the government communicate better. If you look at the estimates, there's an additional $1.7 million in the Premier's office, additional to the volumes of people in the Premier's office already giving information and assisting the Premier and getting the messaging out.

I did hear some comments about the last election, that the Liberals had an inability to communicate to the people of British Columbia about what was really going on in the province. "A failure to communicate" was what we heard. The economy was doing well because of the high value of resources — of oil, copper, lumber, electricity — and yet people were starting to see through what the government was bringing to the table. So there was another $1.7 million so that the government could better communicate to people.

What does the Premier do when…? I'll give you a bit of an example. The Maytag dryer finally breaks down. What do you do when you open the dryer door and all you get is hot air? Well, what you do is hire spin doctors. That's precisely what they've done. They've hired spin doctors. It's $1.7 million, an over 20-percent increase in his office. Teachers, zero-zero-zero; teacher-librarians, zero-zero-zero; learning assistants, zero-zero-zero; spin doctors, 20 percent, 20 percent, 20 percent. That is shameful — no money for our children but money to get the message out.

It isn't only the money to get the message out that we saw just now in estimates, which we're starting to debate. It was also the $7 million over budget on advertising by this government just leading up to the campaign — $7 million over budget.

Not only the $7 million over budget but even…. Right after the Connolly report, which said there may be some avenue for going to the table and talking about class sizes — instantly, immediately after the report comes out — there was a full-page ad, legislation to extend the collective agreement of the teachers. Full-page ad in the major newspapers. Huge moneys outlaid — again, spinning a message.

Why, with so much money spent, were the results so poor? Why did the opposition go from three to 33? Because people aren't buying into the spin anymore. People are seeing the long-term effects of the divisiveness of this government. People in B.C. are speaking out.

Did you know, hon. Speaker, that we now have, under this government, the largest gap between the rich and the poor in this country? It used to be Newfoundland. It's now British Columbia. British Columbia: the golden economy, the golden decade. The place that has the golden decade. The place that used to be, according to the other side, a have-not province but is not any more. Are they not? Maybe in pen they're not. Maybe in ink they're not.

Let's have a look at what we have now in this golden decade that we hear so much about. Where's the golden decade for the over doubling of the homeless? It's no golden decade for them.

Where's the golden decade for the mentally disabled that now have to try to requalify for income assistance? They're ending up…. There's one case of someone who came to my constituency office who literally ran out of the office having an anxiety attack because she couldn't comprehend the kiosk where they have to try to apply for their own assistance. This is a person that has a very severe mental illness. If that person hadn't found our office, she would probably be homeless today. There are people with mental disabilities that are falling victim to the system, and they're becoming homeless. That's shameful in this golden decade.

Where's the golden decade for the children with disabilities who've lost their learning assistants due to the drastic cuts? Where's the golden decade for the teachers who put in hours of their own time in trying to improve the quality of life for their students?

Again, the government boasts of not being a have-not province, yet they have, through policy and cuts, created the largest have-not population in our modern era. Let's think about that. There are more have-not people now in this province than there have been for as long as I've been here, and I've been here since 1961.

The reason many of us were elected on May 17 is the reason why we're here today and the reason why we were here last night. The reason that British Columbians wanted us here is to keep the government accountable for its actions. That is what we will do now and what we will do as long as it takes. That's what we were elected for, and that is our passion.

We have witnessed this tortuous attempt by the government to vilify our teachers. We see the government that has denied teachers the right to bargain collectively. They have taken the most crucial parts of collective bargaining out of the bargaining process. You can't bargain money, and you can't bargain work-

ing conditions. You can't bargain class sizes. You can't bargain learning assistants. You can't bargain librarians. The teachers are in the class and seeing the chaos created by taking those very people out of the classrooms, and they're saying: "We need to go to the table, and we need to restore this so that our children aren't being left behind."

The government wonders why, in 35 days of bargaining, they couldn't get a deal. How do you get a deal when you don't allow your bargainers a mandate to get a deal? What do they do? They impose one: Bill 12, Teachers' Collective Agreement Act. Think about that. Collective agreement means two sides sitting down, negotiating an agreement. Collective agreement act — that is an oxymoron.

This is not about some teachers wanting more than their fair share. It's about class size. It's about children with disabilities. It's about needy children that we've integrated into the mainstream education system. Why did we do it? Because it's the right thing to do. It's win-win. The disabled child benefits in a learning environment with other children. The other children benefit because they learn tolerance and understanding of people with disabilities.

Both of my daughters used to come home from school and their eyes would light up as they would tell the story about the disabled child that would talk to them and the pet names they would call each other and how they would assist them. This was an amazing lesson for my children: a disabled child teaching my children how to be tolerant to people with disabilities.

You can't integrate them into our school system and then pull the funding out from under them. You can't do that. I submit that it costs more to educate that child in a system outside of an integrated system than it does to educate them in an integrated system. The funding needs to remain. A well-rounded education is invaluable in this high-tech economy.

In this complex and technical world we need quality education. I heard earlier a member from across saying that when he was in school in 1967, he had to share textbooks and had to share a desk, and he turned out okay. I guess he did. He's sitting across from me. He seems like a very nice fellow — wrong party, nice fellow. But that's not the education system we have today. Those aren't the needs of today's education system. It is highly skilled, it is highly technical, and it shows that the more educated your workforce and your children, the more prosperous your economy will be.

Societies thrive when you have a well-educated workforce, and well-educated isn't just about reading and working a calculator. It's about sports; it's about the arts; it's about lifestyle; it's about reading. A well-educated society is an incredible economic driver. I like using that word "economic," because the members from the other side seem to perk up when I say that. I believe in good economics too, because it pays dividends to our communities.

Yes, a well-educated society is an incredible economic driver. I plead to the members on the other side: if you can't do it because it makes sense, do it because it makes dollars.

I went outside earlier for some fresh air and some rain. I didn't know it rained here in Victoria. I was always told it didn't, but I had my first inoculation of it. On the steps of the Legislature was a young teacher who had walked — and I'm sure the chamber has heard this story from many of my colleagues — the ten miles here in frustration, gave up the sports teams and just couldn't handle it anymore. Lo and behold, the students followed him. A few hours later they're all out on the front steps giving him moral support. It was an incredible scene. It was incredible affection these students were showing for this teacher, seeing what he was going through.

Here's a letter one of his students wrote for me to read. Her name is Kristen Barry. It says:

I'm just going to quickly read a couple of e-mails. I found this one really interesting. E-mails have been coming in constantly on this issue. The absolute majority, 99 percent, of them are in favour of supporting the teachers.

This one is very interesting, because it's from a gentleman who was a member of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. He's also a teacher. He takes issue with the word "collective" in the Bill 12 legislation, which I made reference to earlier. He also sends another letter. I'm not going to read the whole letter, but he does talk about…. He states: "The B.C. Liberals should be ashamed of their government's decision to violate human rights. I once thought the B.C. Liberals were above that. I apologize; I was wrong." What he talks about is the United Nations and what the United Nations had to say about this government and their practices of taking away people's human rights to free collective bargaining. Those are rights that should be synonymous with living in a free world.

The ILO — the International Labour Organization out of Geneva, Switzerland, which is part of the United Nations — has ruled that back-to-work, contract-breaking legislation passed in 2002 by the Liberal government contravenes convention 87: freedom of association and protection of the right to organize.

The convention on freedom of association was signed by Canada and all ten provinces in 1972. It applies to all levels of government within the country. In an uncharacteristically blunt message, the ILO has ruled that the B.C. Liberal government repeatedly vio-

lated the rights of thousands of public sector employees by refusing to negotiate contracts and by using legislation to arbitrarily enforce its will. This is an organization that likes to work and likes to put the positions forward, but they were very blunt with the actions of this government.

Bill 2, the Health Services Continuation Act. They condemned Bill 15, the Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act; Bill 18, the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 27, Education Services Collective Agreement Act; and Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. You notice the words they give to some of these? "Public flexibility and choice" — you're fired. You know? It kills me.

C. Puchmayr: Yeah. It's like Water, Land and Air Protection. They got rid of all the inspectors, you know. Where's the protection there? And what's this one? Collective agreement act. There's no collective; nothing was collective. Nothing was agreed to; it was imposed. That's why we're here.

C. Puchmayr: Yeah. Well, it is an act. They got that part right. Bill 29, Health and Social Service Delivery Improvement Act. Another one: improvement act.

It recommends major amendments to other pieces of legislation and calls on the government to refrain from similar action in the future. In the education sector, the recommendations were to repeal Bill 18. "…workers in this sector enjoy and exercise the right to strike in accordance with freedom of association principles." Bill 27: it recommends allowing employees to negotiate issues that have been imposed….

C. Puchmayr: The health and services recommendations, Bill 15. It asks to permit the union, by agreement, to vary conditions imposed by the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tie this in just by trying to show you a history of why we're here. With all respect, I need to articulate that to get to that position so that I can show you why we're here.

I want to quickly go to the Court of Appeal, and I'll read the decision on class sizes from Judge Lambert — February 2005, Mr. Justice Lambert, highest court in the land. The government did seek leave to go to the Supreme Court of Canada and was denied, so this is the highest decision on this issue. It states:

Then we have the Connolly fact-finding report, which really opened…. It suddenly opened a crack where there was an ability to maybe have the two parties get together, and I think that's why we're here now. We're defining in our resolution…. What we're asking is to put Bill 12 aside so that we can expand on that. The government has made some overtures beyond what Connolly has said. The government has made overtures now by bringing in Vince Ready.

What that tells me is that…. The message of the government after Connolly was that there isn't a hope, that it's not worth it and that we need to go forward with the legislation. Now they're on record as saying that they need this round table and that they need Vince Ready at the table. That's changed significantly. That is a very key point in what we're arguing here. What we're saying is that now this motion of the government should be redundant and that our hoisting motion should take precedence because that is the direction the government is telling us they're willing to go.

The Bill 12 ads…. We found out it was $54,000 per ad. That's 20,000 special-needs hours. I think people should note that. You know, in Quebec when the federal Liberals spent this money on advertising, it was called the sponsorship scandal. I submit to this House that this is equally as scandalous.

I hope I don't run out of time, if I can borrow a line from my colleague. Again, maybe my colleagues want me to hear this one more time. I think we can work together on this. I think we may be pretty close to the same side on this equation in view of the fact that the government is now bringing in Mr. Ready. When you think about this motion, as I read it, think about Mr. Ready in the back room:

I'm going to recap now and close my comments with this quick recap. We have the United Nations condemnation of the government. We have the highest court of the land and Judge Lambert's decision. We have the fact-finding report from Connolly, which opens the door for saying that the two parties may be

willing to talk about class sizes and special assistants. We have Vince Ready in the back room.

Let's defuse this volatile situation. Let's get this matter resolved adequately so that both sides can walk away from the table feeling that there was a productive resolution to this and so that our children and our teachers will not suffer any further from what is happening here. They can go back to the class….

I think that we're there. I really do. I'm sure the other side…. They look very well rested.

C. Puchmayr: I'm too new here to know where all the hiding spots are. Some of us have carpet lint on our suit jackets, so we haven't found the good spots yet. Some of my colleagues are extremely rested, and maybe they can now think with a fresh application to this. They're so rested, and hair is combed.

All I ask the other side is: please consider our motion in view of all the positions that I've put forward. Let's go forward and resolve this. Let's say that we did something for the children and for the teachers of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I really thought we had them there, that they had seen the light, had recognized the error of their ways and were prepared to go with this on that last motion. I have to start my place in second reading debate and outline a few things, and maybe — I am feeling generous — realizing that perhaps in the dawn's early light they will see the error of their ways and….

Maybe they will see the error of their ways and take one more opportunity, because we on this side of the House are generous. We believe in giving them the extra chance to see the error of their ways. Therefore, hon. Speaker, I move the motion in my name:

M. Farnworth: As I said, on this side of the House we are very generous and believe that in a reasoned amendment, with an additional 18 hours to consider that, they may see the light.

M. Farnworth: There are other options, but I feel that by the end of 18 hours…. I must admit that I do recognize the stamina of the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove. I think both he and I once survived 70 hours of session, both of us standing on our feet at the

end of it, so I know that the member is up for debate. I also think, though, that his colleagues may not share his stamina or his enthusiasm for 70 more hours of debate. I stand to be corrected, and I'm quite willing, if that's what they want, to offer them that opportunity through the various stages as the day progresses.

Anyway, I think it's important that we do put forward this reasoned amendment, because I do think it's important that we make the case for why this piece of legislation is wrong, why it is not a bill that is, in the words of the government's own spokespeople, "necessary at this time." It is being rushed, it is legislation by exhaustion, and that's not the way we should be doing it.

It typifies the approach and the problem that exists right now in the dispute between teachers and the government. This has been more than four years in the making, since before 2001, when the current government said that we need to treat teachers with respect, that teachers deserve to be paid, that the education system deserves to be funded, that we need to ensure that the needs of special needs are in place and that contracts are inviolate.

Those were brave, proud and noble words. Yet what happened? The government was elected in 2001 and almost immediately started changing its tune. Through the actions of that government, they have squandered the opportunity they had at that mandate to establish a good relationship with teachers, to sit down, to negotiate, to make things better for the students in our schools across the province.

I think one of the problems was probably initiated very early on, when they brought in an adviser from Alberta — often a big mistake. The gentleman's name was Rod Love, who said the government had a mandate to squash labour like a bug. The government seemed to take his words to heart, and rather than extending an olive branch, they proceeded with a series of measures that not only alienated working people across this province but singled out teachers in particular for what can only be described as special treatment.

It started with tearing up collective agreements that had been negotiated in good faith so that teachers would not receive a wage increase, but rather, there would be improvements in class size, there would be more special needs assistance in the classroom, and the focus of education would be the classroom. That's what teachers had been arguing for, that's what the public wanted, and that's what the government campaigned on during that election.

That agreement was torn up — first major mistake. Then they had a chance to try and work with teachers. They had their reasons for what they did, and they could have explained them and could have said: "We made this decision. We recognize that it may cause hardships, but we're moving forward, and we want to at least try and restore some trust, some faith, some sense of 'we're listening'."

The next thing they did was to attack teachers themselves. As we all know, teachers take great pride in their profession, in their credentials, in their training, in the classrooms, in the students. They're very proud of their work and their place in the communities around our province. Like many professional groups that are governed by professional colleges — such as doctors, physicians, lawyers — they take great pride in how their profession is run, how it is organized and how it functions, and the fact that they themselves are involved in ensuring that standards are maintained, that the core values each of them brings to the teaching profession are exemplified in the college.

The government did something unprecedented in this province — unprecedented, probably, right across the country. They gutted the college. They gutted the professional body which teachers placed so much pride in. This wasn't just an attack on wages. This wasn't just saying: "We have no money to pay you, and we can't afford to do that." People may not like that, but they can deal with that. The government questioned, in a way that they had not questioned with any other professional association, how teachers govern themselves. That was a major, major mistake. It was a huge setback and another lost opportunity.

Then the Supreme Court made a ruling around class size and said that it could be negotiated. Class size is very important to everybody. It's important to teachers. It's important to parents. It's important to students. It's increasingly important because over the last decade and a half we've seen a greater integration in the structure of classrooms: more special needs children, gifted children, linguistic diversity — all requiring special challenges to meet the educational needs of the 21st century. That requires more ESL teachers, more librarians and especially more special needs assistants, and it requires from government a greater understanding of the challenges that teachers face in the classroom.

What happened after this court decision? The government decided that they did not like the result and that they would rewrite the law. That was another major, major setback in the relationship between teachers and the government in this province. Again it was a lost opportunity to try and build or reconstruct some level of trust, some level of relationship. It's unfortunate that that has taken place.

Now we fast-forward to today, 2005. We find ourselves in a situation where the government is determined to impose a contract without negotiation, without the ability of teachers, educators, to have input; to create chaos; and to break down further any shred of trust there was, creating an appalling lack of trust between the teachers and the government that is probably unparalleled across the country.

This time they also did something else. They've started to break down that trust with parents, with the public. While they're doing this around these contract negotiations, prior to the last general election several months ago, which returned so many of us here to this

chamber, they manufactured…. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway was kind when he said "mistaken." It was no mistake. It was a deliberately manufactured crisis around something that was simply not true. It was intended to create fear. It was intended to drive a wedge between parents and teachers, when there was no need to do that. It was strictly for partisan political gain.

At a time when we are trying to build confidence in the education system to try and restore some of the trust that the public had in the system and that teachers used to have in the system, that is unforgivable. It is simply, simply unforgivable.

We are here today because of the actions of this government and their desire to have this bill go through the House by sitting round the clock when we could have adjourned yesterday at six. We could have come back next week and debated it rationally. It would have given the government time to think about its actions, to think about the strong feeling that the opposition had already put forth in its debates till yesterday at six, the feelings that had been aroused in teachers in communities right across the province.

They could have taken that opportunity to reach out and offer a meaningful olive branch to establish mechanisms that would bring us back from the brink. In fact, we argued that those mechanisms should have been done months ago, but they weren't. Now we are debating a bill that is determined to impose a contract that does not address any of the issues that teachers, in my constituency and across the province, are concerned about.

I'd like to talk a little bit about my school district, about the educators in my community and how they see things today. I represent Port Coquitlam and part of Coquitlam, in school district 43. As my colleague, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, has already stated, it's the third-largest school district in the province, and a school district that is growing dramatically.

In 1991, when I first ran for office, the number of people who spoke Cantonese or Mandarin, for example, was about 2 percent. It went higher, till prior to the last redistribution it was up to 15 percent — new immigrants, whose kids are trying to learn a new language and who need ESL teachers.

It's an affordable community. Though recent house prices are changing that, it's an affordable community. We all know the stresses that a child with special needs places on the family budget, because too many services that used to be provided by government are no longer there. Families have to spend additional money, and that stretches the budget. We have a significant number of people with children with special needs, and due to the actions of this government, those services aren't there.

I recently heard from a couple whose child has autism. They had a great special needs assistant who was working with their child and making terrific progress. Unfortunately, the cuts that took place resulted in that person being laid off, so they didn't have access to the individual who was there for their child to help their child. They're stuck now. They're wondering: where do they turn? How does their child fit in the education system?

We have teachers who have served in the community for years and are finding themselves stretched to the limit as resources that used to be in the classroom are no longer there. I'd like to mention some of those.

Harbour View Elementary in Coquitlam. Their school music program, which used to be a full-time program, is now nonexistent. Their library and computer programs have been eroded from four days per week to only three days per week — this at a time when we live in advancing technology. We want our children to understand the latest advances in technology and to have access to that technology. Instead of expanding it, the reality of schools today is that it's being cut back. That is unacceptable. That is what teachers are concerned about.

Until three years ago there were restrictions in place regarding how many special needs students could be put in a classroom. There could be a maximum of three per class. If a class had three, it was reduced in overall size to ensure that special needs students and all other students could receive the help they needed. Now there are no such restrictions in any grade from kindergarten to grade 12. There are classes in the district with many more special needs students than three.

Castle Park in Citadel Heights, in the southern end of my riding. In the school there the intermediate classes all have 29 to 30 students. Teachers are faced with an increasing number of students with diverse needs and with behavioral and emotional difficulties, yet they lack the support for these students. Schools are depending more and more on parent fundraising for schools — for computer labs, library books, playgrounds, music materials, etc.

They recognize a very important issue: that some neighbourhoods have better access to funds than others, that the residents of some neighbourhoods and some school catchment areas have a better ability to donate money than others. They are concerned about the widening gap between those schools in neighbourhoods where people don't have access to funds and those that do. It is unacceptable that we have such disparities in this province in 2005. It is unacceptable. Every school should have access to the same resources and the same materials to provide the education that the children of our province require and that parents expect.

Westwood Elementary School. Counsellors have only two days per week and are responsible for the whole school, with 219 students. Learning assistance has been impacted. There are 30 ESL students out of 219 students. That's about 15 percent. They receive one morning a week available for ESL. There is not enough time for students to receive the necessary support to increase school success. They used to have one full-time teacher. Now they don't.

I know that neighbourhood. It's changing dramatically as people move in from other nations and other countries. Classroom teachers have noticed that students arrive with increasingly diverse needs, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to meet these needs within larger class sizes.

More and more of what used to be administrative work is falling on the teachers. There are increased expectations for data collection and paper communications. The job of teachers is to teach. It is not to be data collectors. This is the situation that exists in our school district.

The hallmark of great teachers: students remember them, and they want to keep in touch — an indication of the dedication that we all know that teachers in this province have.

It's an indication of the frustration that teachers are feeling, and it's reflective of the views of parents as well. In one of the middle schools in the riding, they have a teacher-librarian only two days a week. "The Ministry of Education is changing the curriculum in many areas, but they are not providing adequate funding to implement these changes."

That's a pattern that we have seen over the last four years. We are told that government has increased funding to education, and therefore, "there cannot be cuts, because we have increased the funding for education." Guess what. They're right. They did put more money into education. What they don't want to talk about is the other side of the equation: how they made school boards absorb and eat a salary increase, how they made school boards absorb and eat MSP premium increases, how they made school districts absorb and eat dramatic costs in heating — never mind inflation, never mind the changing diversity and composition that's occurring in classrooms.

They made life difficult for school districts, and the result has been a reduction of services in classrooms, a reduction of resources for classrooms, increasing challenges for teachers and increasing problems in the classroom. The result is that students suffer. Teachers are frustrated, parents are frustrated, and they are asking: when will this government get the message?

That's why we have moved this reasoned amendment: to give them one more chance, one more opportunity to recognize that it is not too late, that it is not the last hour, that they can try and rebuild the relationship with teachers, that they can try and restore the faith that parents used to have in our education system. The road to Damascus is not an easy one.

M. Farnworth: Sometimes, hon. member, it takes one, two or three times to recognize the error of your ways. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, we're generous on this side of the House.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says, "To a fault," and he may be right. Maybe we are letting ourselves in for another 18 hours to give them that opportunity. Or as the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove said: "Well, we've done 70 hours." Maybe we'll do that, but guess what. If us doing that means that the government….

M. Farnworth: I sense that on the government side of the House there are those whose spirit may be willing and those whose spirit may be weak, but I would say to those members: strengthen your spirit; recognize the error of your ways. Take the time that we are offering you, because whether it is 18 hours or 70 hours, if you come to the decision, the realization, that children and parents want you to reconsider this bill, then all of this debate will be worth it.

With those comments and remarks, I will take my place. I await anxiously the response of the government, whether it takes 18 hours or 70 hours.

K. Conroy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this reasoned amendment, but before I speak, I would just like to take the opportunity to thank your staff and the staff of this Legislature for the job they've done, the understanding and patience they've had with all of us in the last 24 hours and their commitment to this House. It has been an interesting 24 hours.

I have listened to my fellow members speaking for the last four days and throughout last night. It is interesting that in my role as Whip for the official opposition, it's been my job to ensure that all of our MLAs have had an opportunity to speak to Bill 12, to the hoist

motion and now to this amending motion introduced this morning by my colleague from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. At no time have I had a lack for speakers to any of these bills or motions, as every member on this side of the House is concerned and outraged by the draconian measures being foisted upon this province by this government.

This side of the House and the people of the province are asking why this government feels the need to implement such legislation, legislation that not only takes away the democratic rights of teachers in this province but threatens the very fabric of what is so precious to all of us and what everyone who has spoken on both sides of this House has said: the education of our children.

I can talk about my educational experiences. I can also talk about my children's amazing teachers and the support they've had over the years to make them into what I believe are the confident young adults they are today. I can also talk about my two granddaughters who've just started kindergarten. But I think it is more important that we all have some education this morning — education on what I believe is happening in this province — and a bit of history on how we got here and why this amending motion is so important.

Let's make no mistake. There is an epic struggle going on in British Columbia today, a war on teachers, on educators, the very people who we daily entrust with the education of our children, our most valuable resource. This war is being fought by this Liberal government, and it is being fought in the Legislature. It is being fought in courtrooms. It is even being fought before United Nations committees. And it is being fought against teachers, against students, against parents and families, with British Columbia's tax dollars.

This government has suffered major setbacks in this war, including numerous court decisions supporting the teachers' positions, the United Nations International Labour Organization rulings condemning the government's handling of our education system, and widespread public support for our public educators. But every time the government appears to be defeated, every time it appears that fairness, justice and the protection of our education system will prevail, the government brings out its secret weapon, its legislative hammer, to overrule B.C. Supreme Court judges; to contradict the findings of the B.C. Court of Appeal, the highest court in this province; and to disregard the recommendations of international organizations.

As I said, this war on teachers has been an epic struggle, so let's start from the beginning. Let's have a history lesson on how we have come to Bill 12 and to the motion on the table this morning — some factual history and none of the revisionist history the members opposite are so fond of telling.

Let's start with the basics, something I'm sure we all agree on: that the B.C. Liberal government was first elected in May 2001. In August of 2001 the government took its first swing at B.C. teachers. It enacted Bill 18, Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, which made education an essential service under the Labour Relations Code.

Now, we all know that education is important and essential, but Bill 18 wasn't intended to show the government's appreciation for the importance of our public school system. It was intended to restrict the right of teachers to engage in job action to protect that system. It was intended to weaken teachers' ability to defend students, to defend parents, to defend classroom conditions. Fortunately, for all of us, the teachers refused to accept this assault on our education system.

In addition to initiating litigation in British Columbia, the teachers went all the way to Geneva to the International Labour Organization, where they asked a United Nations committee to condemn the B.C. Liberals for its war on teachers. The committee did. It observed that education is not a sector where the right to strike can be restricted or prohibited.

In March 2003 the ILO stated the following: "Recalling that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests, the committee concludes that the provisions of Bill 18, which makes education an essential service, are in violation of freedom-of-association principles and should be repealed." Did the government follow the ILO's recommendations? No. It disregarded the advice of this United Nations organization, regrouped and prepared for further battle.

Before jumping ahead to 2003, let's go back a bit to 2001. On June 30 of that year the collective agreement between the BCTF and the employers' association expired. After 50 days of negotiations, the BCTF reluctantly served a strike notice on November 5, 2001.

The position taken by the government through the employers' association was going to cause serious damage to B.C.'s public education system. The employer had been given a bargaining mandate from the government. It intended to remove class-size limits, abandon guarantees of support for students with special needs and eliminate standards of service from specialist teachers such as librarians, counsellors, and ESL, special education and learning assistance teachers.

The BCTF job action plan was approved by the Labour Relations Board. The plan was specifically designed to increase pressure on the government and employers' association with minimal impact on students. The teachers were taking a stand in defence of students, in defence of parents, in defence of our schools, but the government would have none of that.

It brought out its legislative hammer once again. It enacted Bill 27, Education Services Collective Agreement Act, and imposed a new contract on the teachers. Now, keep in mind that the teachers also brought Bill 27 before the ILO committee, which stated the following in March 2003: "The committee firmly requests the government to avoid in future having recourse to such legislative settlement." Obviously, the government has ignored this ILO request.

At the same time that it enacted Bill 27, the Liberal government brought in Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Bill 28 essentially removed the ability of teachers to have input into the conditions in the classroom and in schools. Teachers could no longer negotiate class size, school days, assignment of courses, class composition or staffing ratios for teacher-librarians, ESL teachers, counsellors and learning resource teachers. Any provisions in their existing contracts that addressed these matters were torn up.

Once again, the United Nations — the ILO — condemned this action. It stated the following: "Such a unilateral action by the authorities cannot but introduce uncertainty in labour relations which in the long term could only be prejudicial." Another legislative hammer. Another condemnation from the United Nations body. Another blow to the public education system in B.C. The Liberal government ignored the ruling, and the war on teachers continued.

Teachers refused to roll over. Their commitment to protecting our education system remained strong, even in the face of government's ongoing assault. They have continued to insist that class size and other classroom matters are conditions of employment and that they must be allowed to negotiate these matters with their employer.

Recently the B.C. Court of Appeal agreed. As recently as February 2005, the highest court in this province stated that class size is a "condition that affects the employment relationship."

The government has disregarded Justice Lambert's decisions, and its actions continue against teachers. It continues to contradict the principles that have been articulated by our courts Take, for example, the government's enactment of Bill 19 in 2004. But first, a little bit more background, a little bit more history that relates to the motion that's on the floor today.

After removing teachers' rights to negotiate classroom matters, the government appointed an arbitrator to decide which contract terms were to be stripped from teachers' contracts. The arbitrator ruled that hundreds of pages of class size and composition provisions should be removed — a flawed and legally incorrect decision which appeared to favour the government's positions on these matters. The teachers challenged the arbitrator's decision in the B.C. Supreme Court, and they won. The hon. Mr. Justice Shaw squashed the arbitrator's decision, ruling that it contained fundamental errors on points of law that were of importance to the education system of British Columbia, including the teachers, the school boards and the students.

The teachers had won another victory in the courts, a victory not only for themselves but also, as Justice Shaw seemed to indicate, for the entire education system of British Columbia, including school boards and students. "Not so fast," said the government. With a flick of their legislative wrist, they invoked their legislative hammer, their weapon of choice in this war on teachers.

On April 20, 2004, the government introduced Bill 19, the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, which overruled Justice Shaw's decision and ensured that there could not be contractual guarantees of class-size limits, services to students with special needs or support from specialist teachers in B.C. schools. In effect, Bill 19 implemented the arbitrary decision that the B.C. Supreme Court previously found to be fundamentally flawed. In other words, the government disregarded the arbitration process. It disregarded the judicial process, and it disregarded the rule of law.

Bill 19 resulted in the stripping of hundreds of contract terms from teachers' collective agreements. Those terms have been there to protect learning conditions for children. Examples of provisions from across this province include the following:

From the Kamloops-Thompson collective agreement: "Clear administrative procedures shall be established for the carrying-out of fire and earthquake drills that expedite the evacuation and care of students with special needs."

From the Cariboo-Chilcotin collective agreement: "The placement of a student with special needs shall be determined by the student's intellectual, emotional and physical needs."

From the Langley collective agreement: "The consideration of integrating a special needs student shall involve consultation between district staff, parents and guardians, teachers and administrative officers. The placement of a special needs student shall be determined by the student's educational needs."

Many from the Surrey collective agreement, including, "Staffing ratios shall not decrease below one teacher-librarian for every 649 students," and on and on. All of these provisions had been in place to ensure that students' learning conditions were protected. All have been stripped. And that's not all.

From the Delta collective agreement: "In emergency situations, the board will do everything possible to quickly assemble the appropriate resources and to provide the necessary support mechanisms to assist teachers in meeting the needs of all children in the classroom." Emergency situation provisions were stripped from the contract.

From the Gulf Islands collective agreement: "A lab-oriented science class or workshop where student

safety is a vital factor shall be limited to 24 students." We've heard throughout the night the number of students that are in these labs, which are crowded, and where safety is not an issue. Again, remember that all of these protections for students were stripped away by the government. As you can see, over the last four and a half years, teachers, schools, students and the entire education system have been under attack. The perpetrator has been the government.

Most recently teachers have argued in front of an arbitrator and in front of the B.C. Court of Appeal that limitations on their ability to criticize the government's assault on the education system violated their constitutional right to freedom of expression. The arbitrator and the Court agreed. In her August 2005 judgment, the Hon. Madam Justice Huddart made the following comments:

The employers' association, an agent of the government, disagrees with Madam Justice Huddart. It has appealed the Court of Appeal decision. Apparently, the employer, like the government, doesn't think the teachers should be talking about teaching. They don't seem to think that educators should be talking about education. They don't seem to think that individuals working on a daily basis with children and students should have a say in determining the conditions of that work, which brings us to the current Bill 12, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act.

Once again, teachers have taken a stand in defence of public education. Once again, teachers are advocating for improvement in classroom conditions, and once again, the government has invoked its legislative hammer in an attempt to silence the teachers.

The teachers bargained in good faith for a new contract. They came to the negotiating table with the best interests of students in mind, and what did they find at the table? They found an employers' association with a narrow, restrictive and unreasonable bargaining mandate handed down by the government. "Can we talk about wages?" teachers asked. "No," replied the government employer. "Can we talk about working conditions, including class sizes and other important education issues?" asked the teachers. "No," was the answer.

Instead of talking about these things, instead of negotiating constructively and cooperatively, the government, through legislation, is once again trying to impose a contract on teachers, remove their legal rights to engage in job action and curtail their ability to protect and defend students and public education. And so the epic battle goes on. The war on teachers continues to be fought by this government, and we British Columbians, all of us — students, teachers, parents, grandparents, administrators — are the casualties of this debate.

For the sake of our children, we must put an end to this. For the sake of the over 25 schools in the constituency that I represent in the West Kootenay–Boundary area, we need to put an end to this. We need to pass this amending motion so that teachers have once again the opportunity to bargain in good faith with this government.

I need to tell you that in my constituency I have three different school districts. One of our school districts has, from the time of 2001 to 2005, 12 percent fewer students in that district, but in fact they have 18 percent fewer teachers. They have 29 percent fewer learning assistance teachers. They have 20 percent fewer librarians, 11 percent fewer counsellors and 48 percent fewer schools.

In fact, I'd like to read to you the number of schools that have been closed in one school district in my constituency, and it's not a large school district. In that school district, we've lost Beaver Valley Middle School, Kinnaird Middle School, Montrose Elementary, Tarrys Elementary, Trail Middle School, Blueberry Creek Community School, Cook Avenue Elementary School, Sunningdale Elementary School and Valley Vista Elementary School. In fact, we've lost the entire middle school program from that school district. The kids are struggling. The teachers are struggling. I've had e-mails, letters and notes from teachers, parents and students throughout the constituency, thanking us for making sure that their issues are heard in this House.

We're going to continue to make sure their issues are heard in this House so that everyone in the House knows it is in the best interest of this House to say that we do need to pass this amending motion. We do need to make sure that the teachers once again have the opportunity to go to the table to bargain a free collective bargaining agreement with this government that is in the best interests of the students of this province and the best interests of education.

N. Macdonald: It is my pleasure, again, to speak to this issue. It's been an all-night session, and it's a new experience for me but one that I'm proud to be part of. I'm proud to be here as a representative of my area and to bring to this Legislature my experience as a principal as well as a teacher and a teaching assistant over the years.

This amendment would allow the government to actually talk with their employees. It would be nice to win that vote. I'm told that that is not likely to happen. In that case, we can always put forward other solutions, and I look forward to the opportunity to speak to them in another 18 hours.

This morning, starting at 6:30 a.m., there were people in my riding walking on picket lines. I know almost all of the people that would be involved, certainly in the communities from the same district that I was in — that would be from Golden down through the Columbia Valley, all the way down to Kimberley. On different

occasions with professional development or at times when I worked in these other communities…. The people there do not move around very much. Very often, within the same district, they will be there their whole careers. As we're standing here and as I'm talking, I know they're doing something that many of them thought they would never, ever do.

I have to ask myself: how did we get to this place in this province? I know these people; I can picture them. I worked at the secondary school. As I said, I was a principal at Nicholson Elementary School. I can actually have an image of some of the people that are involved, like Kay — all of you will have teachers you know that you can imagine — or Heather or Sharon or Doug, and to see them on a picket line rather than in a classroom….

What this government has done…. What could you possibly have done that would get 90 percent of these people to choose, rather than teach, to go out on a picket line — to choose not to go to work? What has this government done that makes these people defy a labour board ruling?

I can tell you that everyone knows, because we've seen it again and again — whether it's Christy Clark or the minister here or the Premier — that the approach is consistently conflict. It's confrontation, and it's a constant attack on public education. It is four years of systematic abuse — whether it's Revelstoke or Kimberley. In fact, teachers, educators, all across this province genuinely feel that no one is listening and that this government does not particularly care about public education.

What sort of government could be so arrogant and, perhaps, incompetent that they could make that happen? These are elementary teachers, new teachers, experienced teachers, kindergarten, senior high, all walking out, despite the Minister of Labour's threats and despite the loss of salaries. Even with a short disruption, they'll never get it back with any salary increase.

What makes them do that? You need to understand the people that are doing this. When I was in university, the first university courses I would take would be during the day, mainly with students my own age, and we would go together to classes. There was one evening class that I took. This evening class was also a class that was taken by teachers who were working, so they were coming as a professional development to take the class. They were, for the most part, experienced elementary teachers, and they joined us in class.

I can remember sitting there in class chewing gum. It was a university; like, who cares? But as I sat beside the elementary teachers, I just got this tremendous sense of unease. They did not like me doing something that they did not think should be done in a classroom. These are people — and not to stereotype, because I know within this group there are a lot of educators, but because I was one of them…. I know, actually, that within the government caucus there are educators, and they will know this: this is the most conservative group you could get. This is a group where throughout your career, you have a mindset around order, and you have a mindset around making sure you establish rules and that they are followed. That becomes part of your persona. To take that group and actually get them feeling so under attack that they would take this action says a great deal about the attitude of the government.

They're walking the line in defiance of a government that has consistently treated them the same way that they have treated all parts of this province — well, certainly my part of the province. It is reckless, and there's a degree of indifference to what has gone on.

As I listened to the Minister of Education in the last few days, but in particular yesterday, the statements could not have been more misguided. She does not describe any reality that I have experienced as a principal, and I say that with complete respect. What she describes is something completely different from the experience that I have as a principal, that 90 percent of teachers have; 90 percent voted not to go to work today. All of them are out, and that says a great deal about the Minister of Education and this government, and ultimately, the Premier.

You know, there are a tremendous number here who would put the blame on the Premier's office. It seems that there is a predetermined plan to create a crisis. There are many educators that firmly believe that, and that belief comes from experience. There's a question about who runs the show here and the feeling that it's the Premier's office. As with everything this government does, it's based around polling and sound bites, but what it should be about is proper governance and a public system that is worth protecting and worth speaking for. That certainly deserves the attention of the minister and just taking a bit of time to sit down with the employees — 40,000 employees that have been consistently reasonable.

People at home wonder how serious the government was about trying to solve this, especially when they know that the newspaper ads were already ready — full-page ads, every daily on Tuesday, arranged before the Connolly report was even back. Each ad cost — what? $50,000? Three papers, $50,000 — that's enough for three special education teachers. Publicly paid ads, much of the information twisted, much of the information misleading. We asked 20 times in question period what the ads cost. The Minister of Finance would not tell us. She said we could find out in June.

To members of the government, I say very clearly that the approach the government takes makes everyone here a loser — teachers, parents, students and government. The thing is that this is all unnecessary. The record of this government is choosing conflict and confrontation as the preferred method every single time. This time they're trying to kick around educators. I don't know who is next, but I know that where I come from, people reject it.

During the last election, we didn't have a tremendous amount of money, so the number of ads that we had, the number of signs that went up, was bound to be limited. But over a six-month period what I did is what many people here did. I went door to door, and

now, more than any other time, I have a sense of where people are at in my community.

What they consistently said was that they objected to the way certain people in the community were treated and that what they expect from government is this…. They do not like arrogance on the part of government, whether it's Liberal or NDP or any government. People where I am from do not like arrogance. They do not like a government that seems dismissive of their concerns. They don't like a government to be bullying. They don't like that in people they deal with. They certainly do not accept it from government.

There's a very clear view that the government is the servant of the people, and that's the way it should be. If you are a servant, you do not approach the people that are paying with a degree of arrogance.

What we saw in our communities were reckless attacks on the health system. In Revelstoke, it's Moberly Manor. People rejected and fought against attempts to degrade that facility. There was a lack of care when this government closed hospital beds in Golden, and people fought against it. There was utter incompetence in closing the hospital in Kimberley. People rejected it and fought against it.

With education, this government closed schools in Revelstoke, Parson, Wasa, Radium, Canal Flats and Kimberley, and people fought against it. But consistently, they weren't listened to. Consistently, they were treated with arrogance, and there was a lack of listening.

Recreation sites, forestry offices, conservation officers, courthouses — in all of these, the community reacted, because fundamentally, it was unfair.

Now, with Bill 12, it is the teachers, and of course, teachers push back. The tactic of this government is an example of an approach to politics that's confrontational, and it serves to fracture society rather than build it. Whether it's this issue, health care, conservation issues or senior reform, there is a pattern that people in my part of B.C. really clearly rejected.

At the UBCM a lot of people came and talked to me, and they said they were really pleased with the approach that both sides took there. They say that they thought NDP MLAs and government MLAs at that conference conducted themselves with the appropriate level of grace and dignity.

In statements at that conference, I think both leaders and both sides spoke in a language that local leaders really appreciated. We reached out to each other. We seemed to be listening. What they said, and this was unsolicited…. People would come up and say — they would very clearly and very deeply mean it — that that's a positive thing. "That's something that we want to see happen. We want you to listen to each other. We want you to treat each other with respect."

I think this government is going to find that, despite all the polling the Premier's office has done, despite all the spin that has been arranged so that this will work politically, people in B.C. are going to reject the approach. It is too heavy-handed on the part of government.

There is every opportunity to handle this dispute the way it should be, the way we would expect adults to approach something. There has not been one genuine meeting between the government or whatever body you put between the government and the teachers. There have been 35 meetings, but there has been no genuine discussion. Very clearly, there has been a concerted effort to work this through to a crisis, and there seems to be some belief on the part of this government that the crisis will work to their benefit.

Let's just go through the facts. School is disrupted today. For the Minister of Education, that is a failure. My daughter won't be in classes, like many other students. I talked to my daughter this morning. I can't say that she sounded very, very upset. Nevertheless, as a parent, I would prefer that she be in school. She's a grade 11 student. In fact, I woke her up. She did not sound at all upset that she wasn't in school, to be honest.

N. Macdonald: Yeah, upset at me. That's right. The member says she's upset at me for waking her.

But very clearly, the responsibility for this crisis lies squarely with the Premier and his government. This government always chooses conflict and confrontation as their very first option. For four years this government has deliberately pursued actions that are intended to provoke conflict with teachers. First they tore up the contract in 2002. Then they stripped teachers of the self-governing body in 2003.

We'll just talk for a minute about the College of Teachers. The College of Teachers is a professional body that I was part of. It was a body that allowed us as teachers to elect members to be part of it.

I had a good friend who was a member of the College of Teachers, which was an organization that was set up by the Social Credit Party. It wasn't something that at the time was asked for necessarily, but once it was set up, teachers embraced it and worked within it. Without consultation, as seems to have been the pattern with this government, the college was taken over. Now, ultimately for Christy Clark, it was a failure. She wasn't able to accomplish what she tried to accomplish, but it was just one more example of what is a pretty consistent attack on teachers.

Teachers were used as political pawns in the 2005 election. There's no question about that. In our area, a candidate that I was running against refused to attend any education forum or any health forum. I don't know if that was the case across the province, but it seemed ridiculous to not even be willing to talk about education in a provincial election. There was nothing else going on, but the candidate would not even show up to talk about education.

Bill 12 is going to do absolutely nothing to improve learning conditions in the classroom. It was an im-

posed contract in the first place; an extension of it is a deliberate provocation, and the fact that you would choose to do that shows a complete disregard for the education system.

Over the last four years that education system has been consistently hurt. They have cut dozens of teaching positions, and they have increased class size in my riding. They have closed eight schools in my riding, and three of those have been in communities that only had the one school. So it forced people onto the buses. They froze education funding at the same time that they downloaded incredible amounts of cost onto the local school boards, and if somebody thinks that the system is not in crisis, then they simply have not been in the class. They have not seen it. Now, that is either purposeful, or it is simply going in a bubble — incompetence.

School boards were forced to make cuts in programs, and that's for a number of reasons. The cost for salaries, salary creep, MSP increases, utility increases — all of these meant that costs were going to go up, and government did not match costs going up.

I want to talk for a minute about some other places that I've worked. I think very often we take this system for granted. B.C. has one of the best education systems in the world. Despite the fact of what we're talking about now, it still remains one of the best systems. You have 90 percent of the teachers out. This is a group, as I've said before, that would not lightly take that action. This does not work in any way for teachers. It is done out of desperation.

One of the reasons I ran to get this position was out of a sense of desperation for some of the public systems that we have in place that I know are absolutely crucial to making Canada work. The public health system in my community was one, and second was the education system. The public education system in B.C. is really special, and I don't know how many people have had the opportunity to live in a country that does not have as good a system as we have here. Consistently, what teachers are going to tell you is that it is holding together. The 150 million that came in pre-election saved it in my riding. It saved it, but there's still this deep sense of it heading in the wrong direction, of all of the things that are important slowly being stripped away.

When I hear the Minister of Education use language that will sound perhaps to a layman like it is logical, and perhaps she believes it…. But I can tell you that what she talks about will not work in practical terms, and the reason why you have 90 percent of teachers out is because they know that. They know that what she's talking about has nothing to do with reality.

When you talk about learning conditions and putting them into legislation, well, they've been in legislation. They used to be within contract. As a principal, I can tell you that they used to be in contract. Now they're in legislation. Well, they've gotten worse, and they will continue to get worse. So properly, they should be within contract.

How can you have a system where you don't have teachers or educators able to talk about learning conditions? For 35 meetings you've had teachers come and meet with government, and in every case government refuses to talk about learning conditions. It makes no sense at all.

I spent six years teaching in Africa — six years. In those six years I taught for two years in Lesotho at a local school. I taught four years in Tanzania. I can tell you that in both of those countries the first thing they were trying to do was somehow figure out how to get what we have. They were trying to figure out how they could get a health system that would try to meet the needs of some of the people there, and they were trying to get an education system. Without an education system that works, you have nothing.

You have to live in one of these countries to understand what everyone in China or in India or in any place else like that that is developing…. What they all understand is that you need your population educated. You need it for business to work; you need it for government to work. It is absolutely crucial. What these African countries were trying to do was build up that public system — a system that, over a century, we have built up here. We've built it up incrementally. Behind everything that we have, there is some thought, some history. So to play with it recklessly is something that somebody in the system finds really offensive.

What this government has consistently done has been reckless. I've very often thought…. When I was a principal, I would hear Christy Clark. I would hear the things that she said, and there was not one person in my school who thought that what she said was genuine, that she actually understood what was going on at the school level. The things that she intended to put in place…. If she had listened to teachers, she could have made them work. In some cases, we would struggle to make them work. But there was no listening. There was no connection, and she seemed far more interested in sound bites than in actually accomplishing excellence in education. That continues to this time.

I do not see that goal of excellence in education. What you have today…. The reason you have 90 percent of teachers…. How often do 90 percent of people agree on anything? It's a secret ballot, and 90 percent voted to do this. All of you know teachers. I would just put it in your mind. I know there are teachers on the government benches, and a lot of them have a background in education — at least a few. A lot of them are thinking: "Well, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't walk out." You know, every single teacher that's out there today thought the same thing. They thought: "I would never do that." That is what they're thinking. "I never thought that I would do this — that I would go against the rules, that I would not be there to teach."

The gentleman that was here…. I hope you met him or talked to some teachers. I mean, there've been teachers here for weeks. Do you think they're making it up when they talk about the desperation? They're talking

about the frustration with this government. They're not making it up. It's absolutely true. Part of the reason I've given up this portion of my life is to try to tell people…. Now, nobody on that side is listening. They're all being very polite and quiet. Nobody's listening. But I wish they would hear. It is a system that does not work. The system does not work because of the attitude of this government.

What would it take on this issue? What would it have taken on hundreds of other issues in the past four years to sit down, to listen? Instead of moving to brute force and to threats and to intimidation, what would it take to sit down and respectfully work this out? It would take very little, and it's an indictment of this government, an indictment of this minister, that it has not happened. It is an utter failure of this Premier that he is not here to take command of this and to bring resolution to this crisis.

One of my first experiences as a teacher was in Lesotho. It's a very small African country, at that time surrounded by a South Africa that was quite hard on its neighbouring African countries. This was back in the late or mid-eighties. The school I was at was a Catholic boys school, Christ the King, and it was run by a group of brothers. As the brothers aged, they were trying to replace themselves with locals. The experience I had there was that, as a new teacher but one who had been trained in the Canadian system, I was able to come in and offer as a volunteer my abilities. It was an experience for me, of course, and for my wife that was really tremendous. I know the Premier had a very similar experience early in his life.

What I saw there first off is the importance of education in general. I also saw the importance of making sure that the conditions you provide for teachers are looked after. In Lesotho the experience was this. We had three graduates that the brothers paid to get additional training and that came back as teachers — so we had three teachers that came back to the school. They taught for one year, and during that year they were exceptional. They coached — a lot of energy. They had skills. It looked like we would have the beginning of the local teacher force that we needed.

As time went on, over the course of the year, they realized that they simply were not getting what they needed to continue. At the end of the year all three left. All three of them joined the army as privates, where they would get enough money to get married and have a family.

You need the conditions, and what you have today is teachers out, teachers risking everything to make sure that the education system which they know is important is going to be improved, is going to be looked after. What this motion calls for is for the government to sit down and have a genuine discussion. It calls on the government to, rather than play games and think of polling and how they can get a political spin out of this…. They should think instead of sitting down and doing the right thing. What I would implore the members on this side to do is to support this motion and to do what they should know in their hearts is the right thing. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention.

C. James: I rise this morning after a very long night for all of us to speak to the amendment that provides this government with an opportunity to solve the challenge facing them.

I want to start off by thanking my colleagues for standing up for principle, for the contributions that each of them has made to this debate. I also want to thank all of the staff who work here in the Legislature and who also worked all night to help us out. On very short notice the staff of the legislative dining room, Hansard, housekeeping and security all rose to the challenge and made it possible for us to serve the people of this province.

I want to thank the teachers, school boards, parents, students and ordinary British Columbians who watched the debate through the night, who e-mailed and who called because they know how important this debate is to our province.

In particular, I want to thank the students who gathered here on the front steps of the Legislature all through the night to show their support for teachers and education. They remind all of us in this House about what this debate is all about. They remind us that this debate is about the future of our province, about the kind of province that the next generation is going to inherit.

Late last night I spoke about the importance of education, about its role in driving innovation, progressive social change and economic growth. This morning I'd like to talk about the importance of learning. The poet Robert Frost described learning as "hanging around until you've caught on." What he meant is that we learn from our experiences. Mark Twain said that education consists mainly of what we have unlearned, meaning that we should always strive to have the wisdom and maturity to recognize when we have made mistakes and to learn from those mistakes, realizing when old habits are no longer serving others or even ourselves and having the courage to change.

The points that these two great men of letters made are particularly relevant today in British Columbia as we debate this legislation and debate an amendment to this legislation that provides this government with an opportunity. They're relevant because this government had four years to learn from their mistakes — to learn that what the people of this province want is a balanced approach, a fair approach.

British Columbians sent this government a very clear message during the last election. The people of this province said clearly that they want an end to confrontational government. The people of this province said they want a government that cares about everyone. The people gave this government a second man-

When we started off this legislative session, for a few short weeks it appeared that this government might have decided to strike a new tone. This suggested that perhaps, just maybe, this government would show a little more balance, a little more respect, this time around. But, sadly, the fact that we are here today and that we've been here all night and for many hours this week is because it appears that this government has learned nothing. Sadly, this government's rigid attitude has serious consequences for parents, for students and for all British Columbians.

Now more than ever, we need the courage to rise above the petty ideological fights of the past, because public education, and the opportunities it provides, transcends these divisions. The debate we're having in this House today — make no mistake — is a debate about the future of public education. It's the central political, social and economic question of our time. The outcome of that wider debate will define the nature of our province in this century.

But that debate is diminished by a government that treats education as little more than a political game. Wherever I travel, I hear from parents, trustees, teachers and students who are becoming increasingly concerned about the future of public education. Why? Because despite this government's taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns about how much it cares about our education system, despite its tireless claims about what a great job they've done, it has consistently viewed education as a political tool to manipulate at every turn for their strategic gain. This government has closed schools, made deep cuts to classroom resources and downloaded costs onto school boards.

We're here this morning where we've been all night, debating the latest in the long string of legislative actions by this government that are now pushing our education system to the brink. All of this has contributed to rising public concern about the state of our education system.

I believe the value British Columbians place on public education is connected to very profound change that is underway in our society. We're witnessing incredible change in the way our economy is structured, not just here in B.C. but, in fact, across our continent, throughout Europe and across the world.

The bonds of community are being challenged as our traditional industries give way to those tied to the revolution in information technology. Brainpower has risen to become the main economic driver. Because of this dramatic change, we have to focus more on what it is we are providing our children with so that they can cope with this new order. In the new economy the skills, flexibility and ingenuity of our citizenry is the most important thing we possess — more important than infrastructure, more important than resources and more important than capital.

It's important that we think broadly about public education in terms of the central role that it plays in creating a healthy, democratic, civil society where the equal moral worth of every citizen is recognized and supported, where we have a sharing of opportunity and an expansion of citizenship rights and responsibilities.

To meet that objective will require a renewed commitment to building consensus, which is why we are here debating this amendment today. It requires a recognition by government that the success of public education depends on fostering a real partnership with the people who deliver education at the local level. Everyone in this province wants the best for our kids and the best for our education system.

But this government is not listening to the people of B.C. This government approaches education with ideological blinders and an entrenched view that it knows best. It doesn't help when government downloads costs onto school boards and leaves them to deal with the fallout. It doesn't help when government deliberately provokes confrontation.

To succeed, government must work in close partnership with school boards, with parents and yes, with teachers. As the first principle of public education renewal, government must respect all partners in the system that educates our children. Without that respect, without that partnership, we simply won't be able to work through the challenges we face.

That's why we've put the amendment forward that we are now debating: because this side of the House wants to solve the problem that we're facing. Sadly, I expect that this government will pass the bill — not because it's good public policy, not because it's in the public interest, not because it needs to or because it's an emergency, but simply because it can. It's the only way that this government knows how to handle difficult issues: bluntly, and with little regard for the consequences.

The government would like us to believe that this legislation somehow helps fix the bargaining system, but there should be no doubt that this legislation clearly hurts education in our province, that this legislation will further demoralize teachers, who have been targeted again and again for the past four years. It's clear that this legislation will further erode trust, that it will increase tension and that it will make a lasting agreement even harder to achieve.

Moreover, and perhaps more ominously, it signals that the next four years won't be all that much different than the first four years. British Columbians will continue to be divided, one against another, by a government that governs by fiat, that chooses winners and losers, that treats some with respect and others with disdain. Without a significant shift in attitude by this government, without this amendment passing, this downward cycle of conflict and confrontation will continue to eat away at the social fabric of our province.

My fear is that this government's actions this week are a clear signal of more conflict to come, that the government isn't willing to reach across old political divisions, that this government doesn't want to build

bridges and that this government will continue to divide British Columbians against each other. That's been the experience of the last four years, and that was the attitude that voters clearly said they were tired of. They hoped this government had learned a lesson and had managed to unlearn its old habits — habits that have, for far too long, held British Columbians apart and will continue to hold this province back.

This is not the first time I've used these words. In fact, it's a message that I've carried every single day in this province since I became leader. What unites us must be greater than what divides us. At the end of the day, we must remember why we're having this debate. We must remember what's at stake.

I want to share with this House some letters that were given to me late last night on the steps of the Legislature — letters like the one written by a high school student, one of many who gathered last night to demonstrate their support for their teachers and for education.

Natalie wrote that she worries about the growing number of students in her classes. She worries that students can't get the help they need. She describes a class at her school where students have to take a number and wait in line to be able to receive extra help. Natalie hopes — not for her sake, because she graduates in June, but for the sake of other children coming after her, like her little brother — that education can be more personal again. Is that too much to ask?

Another student, Kayla, wrote that in her calculus class there aren't enough textbooks for every student in her class. She wrote that some students actually have resorted to trying to find a copy of their textbook on eBay.

Nicky expressed what I heard from many. She described how fortunate she was to have teachers who cared. Nicky described the relationships she developed over her 12 years in the public education system — relationships based on trust with people they'll never forget, because the teachers in her life were generous with their time, nurtured their students and respected them. So many students wrote about the profound respect they have for their teachers.

These were moving letters written by articulate, intelligent, informed young adults — exactly the kinds of citizens that we can all be proud of. All of us on both sides of this House have something very important to learn from these young people. They have respect for their teachers, and it's my sincere hope that the government can learn this fundamental lesson from the young people who came here last night with a very simple and sincere message. They respect their teachers, and they expect their government to do the same.

D. Routley: I am very moved by what we've just heard and by the presence of students in the building here. I speak with some trepidation because I'm very emotional about this issue, my whole family being teachers.

I rise in support of this amendment. I rise with even greater conviction and confidence than last night, and that's not just because my wife delivered some fresh clothes to me this morning. I rise with a greater confidence and conviction because I know that the people of British Columbia are listening to this debate and that they see, on this side of the House, a group of MLAs who are committed to the ideals of public education — not only to preserving it but building on it. This underlines the importance of public education.

For us to be here all night this way and for who knows how much longer, well, this must be pretty important — an emergency, maybe. Pretty important, yes; an emergency, no. This Liberal government has had four years to deal with teachers. This Liberal government has refused consistently to deal in good faith with teachers.

Since 1993, 12 years ago, only one day of instruction has been lost to teacher job action — the day of protest in 2002. But that doesn't fit the Liberal spin. That doesn't fit it at all. Their message is that teachers are militant. Yes, when I think of my elementary school teachers and the teachers in my family — my grandmother, my mother, my father-in-law, my sister, my wife — "militant" is not the first word that leaps to mind — well, maybe my wife. No. Indeed, the first words that might leap to my mind might be "devotion", "selflessness," "dedication" or "caring," but none of these fit the characterization of the B.C. Liberals. None of them fit the characterization of teachers we've seen from that side of this aisle.

I predict that the members opposite would shift to blaming their federation rather than the individual teachers. My devoted, selfless, dedicated and caring relatives all support the defence of public education being mounted by the BCTF, by their professional colleagues, by them.

None of this fits the reality modification of the B.C. Liberals. I understand from where they derive these thoughts. They betray their true motives when they speak of the poor. The embarrassing homeless numbers are characterized as worthy versus unworthy poor.

It is the natural approach of business promoters. Just think of bank ads which portray green leather easy chairs as a symbol of their service. No one is surprised when they find themselves standing in a lineup rather than lounging luxuriously. That may be okay for bank ads, but for a responsible government speaking to parents and British Columbians about the state of public services or the bailiff-like privatization of public assets, it's nowhere near good enough.

I support this amendment because it would allow time for the parties to work together to find a real solution. It would offer time for the B.C. Liberal government to extend a true hand of trust and respect to our teachers. That, I suspect, is not what this government is after. No, they need Bill 12 to deflect attention from the real problem, the truly militant player — the B.C. Liberal government which has mounted an attack on pub-

The members opposite have only one approach. It's a gung-ho mentality that is a great strength in business but a great threat to public education. Think of that green leather armchair, and you can see the Education Minister trumpeting accountability contract data, advertising incremental gains in literacy and numeracy scores — scores no more real than that green leather armchair.

In our school district we measure our students — in grades six and seven, 35 or 40 of them at a time. Unfortunately, there are that many. Such a small number bears no statistical relevance. We can see that the variance of that statistic is far greater than the numbers that are counted as goals by this government — scores no more real than that leather armchair, scores that doom our public education to continued underfunding.

Another admirable business trait is that in business we might say: "Every bump needs to be a boost. Every problem needs to be an opportunity." A slight decline in enrolment — perhaps 3 percent — is an opportunity to close schools in small communities, to lay off teachers at a rate three times greater than the rate of enrolment decline, to lay off, to fire, 17½ percent of our special needs teachers, to be rid of 23 percent of our teacher-librarians. Quite an opportunity.

The worst parallel to their business-only thinking allows them to think of our children and their learning as a product — a product to be marketed; a product to be watered down when more profit is needed, when more savings need to be exacted from public services to pay for exorbitant tax giveaways to people who least need them; a product to be marketed overseas; a product to be quantified, production to be shut off and started on a whim. But our children are not widgets. Our special needs children can't have their services turned off for two or three years at a time, only to have the tap turned back on and for this government to expect everyone to forget that.

This terrible paradigm allows the B.C. Liberals to apply the most basic commercial principles to our children: "If we can't afford it, we don't deserve it." Let those who want small classes and classroom populations unburdened by the unmet needs of those with special needs opt out, leave, go private and further starve the public system — now cynically funded on a per-student basis. Mr. Speaker, the dominos are lined up against public education, and I'm proud to say that I stand with our teachers who are willing to stand up and defend this fine system.

Even my basic grasp of mathematics will allow me to work my way through this equation. How can this equation be that fewer students — less than 3 percent, mind you — should equal fewer services? Same funding or more. Fewer students. Fewer teachers. Think again of that green leather armchair. Think again of reality modification. Think again of what really lies behind that advertising scheme.

In 1998 the teachers of this province paid for improvements for students, our children. They gave up salary demands to acquire improvements in our classrooms. Whole generations of B.C. students benefited from the smaller classes and improved supports negotiated and paid for by their teachers. That is, until the B.C. Liberal government came to town. Now our kids pay for what the Liberals have taken from their classrooms. They pay for B.C. Liberal payoffs to their corporate backers.

But that fits with the plan, doesn't it? Teachers who paid for the improvements that our children used to enjoy now see themselves spun as a threat to those same students — teachers who have given and sacrificed for our children and our communities. What threat? Aside from one day of protest in 2002, as I mentioned, not a single day of instruction has been lost to job action by teachers. What emergency? Why are we here debating this ridiculous and unjust bill to pure exhaustion?

We are here because this Liberal government must be portrayed as the stern parent and teachers and public education as the undisciplined child. This must be done to cover up the devastation wrought by the B.C. Liberals on public services in general — a theological commitment to privatization.

In the recent Wright report…. The teachers participated in that process with goodwill. Imagine how dismayed they were at the end of the process to see that the Wright report contained 14 of the employer's recommendations and not a single recommendation from teachers.

The B.C. Liberals are bent on privatization, but working people know that teachers are there for our children. Working people like me know that properly funded, basic public education delivered by our enthusiastic, devoted, professional teachers is the key to our children's future. We know as working people that this is a cornerstone of equity and democracy.

We know that the partners — teachers and government — have a solemn duty to negotiate for the benefit of our children, for the health of our democracy and for improved public education. I call on the members to support this amendment. As I have said, it is not too late. We can see that we are joined by teachers; we are joined by students. They're waiting for us, as a House, to address their needs, to extend a hand of trust, to extend a hand of respect to the people who serve our communities. But I suspect that won't happen.

I am a school trustee, and I am very dismayed by what I see. I sit in a boardroom and cast a dissenting no vote to cuts to special needs students. I know, in casting that vote — and I remind the other trustees who are casting a yes vote for those cuts, afraid perhaps that if they voted no, they might be fired by a Liberal government that threatens school boards…. I know as I sit there, and I know that they know, that we are affecting the lives of hundreds of our most needy students, hun-

What makes it most cynical is that later in the school year, as the effects of these cuts are felt, and we see once in a while through the doors of our public board meetings…. A disabled child will be wheeled through that door, and the parents will appeal to the school board for service for that child. We watch those self-same trustees, who voted for the cuts, and administrators, who proposed them, rush to that child. They promise to solve that child's problem. Lo and behold, three or four days later in the newspaper, it's reported that that student's problem is solved. But that does nothing for the bigger problem. The bigger problem is underfunding of education by the B.C. Liberal government.

Whether it's an unfunded teacher increase mandated by the B.C. Liberal government but unfunded, whether it's soaring fuel costs — especially for rural school districts that rely heavily on busing or northern school districts that rely crucially on heat for their buildings — or whether it's 50-percent MSP premium increases or a GAAP accounting system that comes to us unfunded, it costs our relatively medium-sized school district $5 million.

All of those costs come straight out of the classrooms of our children. Remember that cynical formula for funding, the per-student funding formula. So as we watch people who opt for the green-leather armchair, who opt out of the public system and take their children to the nearest private school for a smaller class size or a classroom unburdened by those unmet needs of the special needs students, we see each one of them take their entire funding envelope with them.

They take with them that heating bill; they take with them the fuel for the bus; they take with them the custodians' pay. They take with them the administrative bill, and I will remind you that that is the one employee-related bill that is increasing in our school district — and rapidly, I might say.

But those costs don't go away. If there are too-few students, we don't have to turn the heat down. We can't do that. The bus might be a little lighter, but I doubt it'll save much.

The administrators won't be laid off. All of those costs come out of our classroom, and that is why when we lose under 3 percent of our students provincially but 7½ percent of our teachers, 17½ percent of our special needs teachers and 23 percent of our teacher-librarians, it is to make up the void left by the cynical funding formula of the B.C. Liberal government.

Finally, a time has come, though, where we don't have this engineered crisis that the tax giveaway created. The Liberal government reports a large surplus and projects an even larger one for next year.

In the public eye, I would say that this B.C. Liberal government stands elbow to elbow with corporations like Telus, perhaps — a hugely profitable company that still needs to take from its employees — a government in surplus that refuses to deal with the needs of education and health, that fails our most vulnerable students, that fails our parents…. Finally has come a time when this B.C. Liberal government can't justify this act based on a crisis they have created.

What are they doing? They are pushing our teachers to the wall. They are pushing public services to the wall. Whoever stands up in defence of those services…. Well, that is who the finger will be pointed at: "Those people are the problem."

We do have a solemn duty to our children and to public education. On May 17 British Columbians attempted to send a message to the B.C. Liberal government. They attempted to wake up the B.C. Liberal government. They attempted to tap it on the shoulder and say: "Listen, we've had enough of this confrontation. We've had enough of vilifying those who serve our communities. We've had enough of setting worker against employer."

Progressive people know that we all sit in one lifeboat together. We may pull different oars, but we need to pull them together. We need to pull them together for the benefit of our children and even for the benefit of those corporations that advertise green-leather lounge chairs because, in the end, we're all in this together. The worst failing would be if we were to continue to show our kids and these students that we can't solve our problems progressively, that we can't sit down across the table and find the smallest point of consensus.

I was a school board employee. I spent many hours walking through schools. As I went, I would notice little signs on the walls, little slogans meant to boost our children's independence and encourage them with their social responsibility. They were interesting slogans: "Respect others." "Good solutions come from a variety of points of view."

Those are the kinds of messages that we send to our children in those hallways and in those classrooms, but when they walk down the steps of the school and out onto the street, they see us. They see the B.C. Liberal government that cannot respect teachers to the point where they can sit across a table and decently negotiate the conditions of work, wages and the conditions that those students learn in. It is a shameful performance by a government that is focused solely on performance.

When we judge performance, we need to be sure that we are judging fairly. We need to be sure that we judge schools in, perhaps, North Vancouver fairly when compared to schools in northern British Columbia.

We used to have a phrase, and that phrase is: "Don't judge my climbing after you put rocks in my pockets." Unfortunately, that is exactly what the B.C.

Liberal government has done. First they have disabled public education, and now they'll judge it.

For me, Mr. Speaker…. When I got up here, I apologized for an overly emotional response to all of this. I think I'm past that point. But I can't stand here as MLA elected to represent my community, I can't stand here as a school trustee charged with defending the School Act — public education, the conditions of learning for my students in my school district — and watch this B.C. Liberal government deflect the attention of British Columbians from the real threat to public education. The real threat to public education in this province is B.C. Liberal government underfunding and the privatization agenda.

It won't do any good for the B.C. Liberals to hold up a mirror to teachers when they say: "Who's responsible for this?" It won't do any good for them to tell these students that we've put $150 million more into education when they know that they have fewer teachers, that they can't fit into the classroom and that the school is dirtier than it used to be. Perhaps the suggestion, cynical as it sounds coming from the other side — I can hear it now — is that they ought to go down the road and pay for a different solution. Well, that's not what we want.

Ordinary British Columbians understand that public education is the cornerstone of equality, of equity of opportunity for their children. British Columbians know that there's no greater stake in the future of our province than public education. British Columbians won't be deflected. Their attention won't be deflected from the true source of threat to their schools and their classrooms. On May 17 British Columbians cried out for a different solution. They've given this government another chance, a chance that is being squandered as they tell teachers: "We don't want to talk to you. We'll negotiate with you, but we won't talk about working conditions. We won't talk about wages." So what's left to talk about? Perhaps green leather lounge chairs?

It's embarrassing, as a member of this Legislature, to be debating a bill like Bill 12. It's embarrassing to be facing a government that has only one tool, a hammer that sees every problem as a nail; a government for whom there is only one solution, a solution of force over compromise, of coercion over cooperation. British Columbians expect more. The students who walk down those hallways I talked about, they certainly expect more. I suspect they'd be laughing at us now if they weren't crying.

It's not too late for this government to withdraw Bill 12. It's not too late for this government to step back from the precipice with our teachers. It's not too late for this government to be respectful of British Columbians. It's not too late.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'll remind you of my family's commitment to education, and I'll say that my two daughters are either doubly likely to be teachers or doubly unlikely. I tell you, if they look to their mother, their aunt, their grandmother or their grandpa, they will definitely become teachers. They will see devotion; they will see dedication. They will see proud people serving each other.

Or perhaps they might make a more current decision. They might take a look at a more current topic. They might see that teachers are being treated without respect, that teachers are being vilified, that teachers are being pointed to as the source of the problem. That would make them doubly unlikely to be teachers, and that seriously would be a tragedy, because I'm proud of my mom's service, I'm proud of my sister's service, and I'm so proud of my wife's service.

It would warm my heart to hear from my daughters that they want to become teachers, but I haven't heard it yet. I suspect why I haven't heard it, but as I said, it's not too late for them. It's not too late for my daughters, for these students or for teachers. It's not too late for the B.C. Liberal government to do the right thing: step back, negotiate decent classroom conditions, negotiate a decent wage for our teachers and defend public education in the public interest, because it is the public to whom they owe their greatest loyalty.

S. Simpson: It's a pleasure for me to join this discussion here and to have the opportunity to make some comments, and I'm very pleased. The first thing I want to note is… I want to join the comments of my leader in very much thanking all the staff that work in this place, both in the chamber and throughout the precinct, for the superb service that they've given us during this long period. It's exceptional. It's beyond the call, and we certainly owe them a great debt of gratitude for all of the effort that they've made on our behalf.

I also want to acknowledge…. I feel particularly heartened by this when I look up into the gallery and see all the people in the gallery, particularly all the students and the young people. It just shows how important this discussion is — that all of these people saw fit to come here to be part of this, to bear witness to what we're doing today, because they know it's important. So I'm very, very pleased, and I thank you for being here. It helps me to do my job. Having you here helps all the members to do their jobs. Thank you very much.

The one comment I was going to say was that I was pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate, but then I thought about it. I thought, you know, this isn't really a debate. A debate suggests that there are going to be two sides in this discussion and that we are going to engage in this discussion. Well, there hasn't been much engagement over the last number of hours. What we've seen on this side is member after member standing in their places and speaking to the important issues of education — of children and their futures, of parents and of educators. On that side we have seen silence. We have heard nothing from that side during this debate, and it's disappointing to me.

Now, I can only assume that it comes from one of two reasons. In my time here — and prior to being here, watching this government over the last four years — I've seen that there are a couple of different kinds of members on that side of the House. I suspect that reflects what's going on here today.

What we have, of course, is what I would call the ideologues on that side of the House. Those are the members who I think aren't much concerned about engaging in this debate. They've got their marching orders. They have their blinkers on and they will charge ahead. They will charge ahead regardless of what happens to our teachers, to our kids or to our schools, because they have their marching orders, and that's all that matters. What comes out of that wing of the Legislature, they take that direction and they charge forward. I expect nothing more from them.

Then, of course, we have what I would like to call the more thoughtful members on that side of the House. There certainly are some of those members who are more thoughtful. I thought to myself: how come those members aren't engaging in this debate? How come they're not engaging in this debate? Then I got to thinking. I suspect the reason they're not engaging in this debate is that they're just feeling a little bit sheepish.

They know you can't defend the indefensible. Every one of those members over there who thinks about things knows full well that this piece of legislation is bad legislation. It's unnecessary legislation, and it will hurt British Columbians from our youngest to our oldest. It will create conflict in this province that is unnecessary, and it will not accomplish the objectives.

So I suspect those more thoughtful members over there are just desperate for whenever this will end. It's painful, because they know in their heart of hearts that they should be voting with us. They know they want to vote with us, but they won't pay the price. They won't vote their conscience. They're prepared to be humble and sheepish about this.

There was one member on that side who a little bit earlier in the debate — and I will acknowledge this, the member for Peace River South — did stand in his place and engage in this debate. He demonstrated, I believe, the courage of his convictions. He spoke about what he thought was important. One of the things I seem to recollect that member talking about was how important it was to have dialogue — how important it was for us to discuss these things, how important it was for us to be able to sort this out and how he hoped the teachers would do that, and that he hoped we could do this. Well, what I would say to the members on the other side is that they should take the advice of their colleague.

If they really think this piece of legislation is important; if, as the Government House Leader said when he stood in his place last night to tell us about the matters before the Labour Board, where he said: "I know this is very important, and I know it's fundamental legislation…." Isn't it a bit surprising that in important, fundamental legislation that side's silent. They don't have the courage of their convictions to speak to this legislation. They don't have the courage to stand up and say why they're voting for this. The lemmings will march off the cliff, and we'll see you go.

Mr. Speaker: Member, could you make sure that you direct all your comments through the chair.

S. Simpson: I respect the comments, and I'd like to say that the lemmings over on that side will end up going off the cliff — probably around 2009, with a little luck.

What I would like to do, as I speak today, is talk a little bit about the people in my constituency who contacted me last night. I received phone calls, I received e-mails, and all of them said pretty much the same thing. They all said they were very proud of what was going on in this House. They all said they were very supportive of this side, that we were defending education, teachers, parents and students. They talked about the importance of teachers. They talked about how deserving teachers are of our respect and our support.

The other thing they talked about was how disappointed they are with this government. They talked about the government's intransigence. They talked about this scheme that the government's cooked up to try to ram through legislation by exhaustion. They talked about the manipulation of the rules to be able to get this through without having the courage to use the appropriate standing orders and see whether this really did qualify as an emergency. They talked about, simply, how disappointed and how discouraged they were.

The interesting thing about all of those people that I spoke to, or all those e-mails I received, is that not one of them was a teacher. Every one of them was a parent. You know what they said? Every one of them said the same thing to me. They said: "We are parents. We have our children in the school system. We want you to know that we will put our trust in teachers when it comes to the future of our students before we'll ever put our trust in this Liberal government."

In this House we've heard about respect many times in this debate. More specifically, we've heard about the lack of respect for teachers that has been demonstrated by this government. We've heard about the cynical political strategy by a tired government that lacks vision, by a government that's blinded by a narrow ideology.

We've seen a government directing its bargaining agent, BCPSEA, to go to the table with no capacity to bargain — to go to the table with no capacity to discuss working conditions; no capacity to discuss wages; and sadly, no capacity to discuss learning conditions. Going to the table with no willingness or ability to try to address the challenges of class size in ways that meet the needs of children and allow teachers to do their job.

Rather than committing itself to reaching out in a meaningful and creative way that is both innovative and seeks to solve problems, they've squandered an opportunity, and that was confirmed by Mr. Connolly in his report. What Mr. Connolly said when he talked about the position of the B.C. Public School Employers Association is: "BCPSEA expressed the requirement to stay within the mandate it was given and to explore a process to deal with structural issues in preparation for the next round of bargaining."

The BCPSEA proposed to settle a collective agreement with a term of two years, with zero percent wage increases. No room to talk on the matter of money at all. But that's not all they said. "BCPSEA communicated to me," Mr. Connolly said, "that they believe proposals dealing with class size and composition are ultra vires and cannot be bargained." So we can't even talk about those things. However, of course, they indicated an interest to discuss matters that were important to them like dispute resolution and enforcement and remedies to provisions within the School Act.

So they said: "Let's talk about the things we want to talk about," but all of those things that are important to teachers, to parents and, ultimately, to students — none of that can be talked about. Isn't it a surprise that the result of that is that we had 35 meetings without much discussion, because the employer's agent — you, the employer — couldn't talk about anything?

As I said before, rather than committing itself to reaching out in a meaningful and creative way, the government, through their bargaining agent, created a situation where they couldn't solve problems and where they squandered another opportunity — the way this government squanders many opportunities.

They squandered the opportunity to be creative. They squandered the opportunity to be innovative and progressive, because their consistent conduct since 2001 regarding education and teachers has demonstrated a complete inability to develop and maintain a relationship of trust, to show any respect for teachers at all and, frankly, as a government, to be honest with the educators of this province about the matters that count.

Teachers — for very good reason, based on the continual conduct of this government — simply cannot trust this government. They can't trust them to live up to their commitments or to respect teachers' contributions to British Columbia. The government has conducted themselves no better than the worst schoolyard bully. There can be no meaningful relationships when the dominant party in a discussion has no meaningful respect for the other parties in that discussion.

The government is the dominant party. They are the ones who ultimately control things. They will decide the legislation. As our leader said, it's true that at some point you will pass this legislation. The legislation will be passed by this government, and they'll pass it with no regard for the consequences and no meaningful discussion with the parties involved.

This was best exemplified by the Premier, and it was exemplified just before the election. It was exemplified by the Premier when four days before the last election…. What did he do when he was worried that he just might lose the election, when he was worried that he desperately needed a few extra votes? In a most cynical, cynical political move, he desperately called press conferences and made every effort to pit teachers against parents — desperate for votes, no consequence, no consideration at all of what this meant for the future in education. It was just simply a matter of hanging onto a few votes, hanging onto a few seats. Nothing else was of consequence — using students as pawns in a crass political manipulation that is about political gain with no respect for the educational impacts and consequences.

Of course, the government, to their credit — they're not exclusive; they don't simply blame teachers — can find all kinds of other people to blame for the difficulties in education. They blame school districts. This is one of the remarkable strategies that this government has adopted, and they've done it in education; they've done it in a whole range of areas. They have a situation where they essentially take a body that is at arm's length from them, but a body that is reliant on them for all their resources, and what do they do? They give them not enough resources to be able to do the job they're mandated to do, and then they blame them when the job isn't done. That's how the government works.

They do it in health care. They do it in education. Pretty much everywhere they tread, they do it, with one exception. The one place they're very effective and successful is with corporate tax policy. They do a very good job on corporate tax policy for the people involved there.

The decision of the Minister of Education…. This is an example that I'd like to give you. Here's an example of the conduct of this government, and it revolves around class size, which is a very important issue in the discussion we've been having: the decision of the Minister of Education earlier this year, not very long ago, to require school boards to report class size annually to Victoria. Well, this is fine, but to make the decision that they must report class size when this government does absolutely nothing to address the issues of deteriorating classroom learning conditions in B.C. is outrageous. It's like saying: "We know the car is heading off the cliff, so what we want you to do is tell us as it goes off the cliff, but we're going to do nothing to stop it from happening."

The minister ignored the real issues of class size and its key associated components. Those are critical issues, and they're a big part of this discussion we're having. They are issues around class composition. What is the makeup of those classes? They are questions around the distinct learning needs of particular students in each classroom.

In Vancouver the best estimate right now is we probably have in our district somewhere between 17,000 to 20,000 students who in some way, shape or form have a special need. They have consequences, bigger challenges and different challenges than other

kids in the district. That district — the district where I come from — is having huge challenges in dealing with those questions.

I know the school that my daughter goes to, Van Tech High School, is a high school that has faced huge pressures. I think they have there about 280 kids who are deemed to have specific special needs, and I believe they have three staff to help the teachers for those 280 kids. They have three specialists in the school to help the teachers. It doesn't work.

We've heard a lot on this side about reduced enrolment. I thought that was a pretty important question, so I decided that I would find out what the situation is in my daughter's school. I talked to the principal at the school, and I asked him what was happening over the last couple of years with enrolment and its relationship to faculty. They're still sorting out the numbers for this year. They're still getting adjusted, so I asked him about last year's numbers. He said that last year the school, which has about 1,740 kids in it…. They reduced their enrolment by 17 kids last year. Their faculty were reduced from 102 FTEs to 96 FTEs. So they lost the equivalent of six full-time teachers, and they lost 17 students.

The principal told me that, because of the extraordinary efforts of his teachers — of their commitments and their acceptance of additional students into their classes and to work extra hours through their own commitment — and of the innovation of the school and the principal's own good work, they could make it work. They did make it work, but he told me at that time that there was no room. There was no latitude here for any more cuts.

Well, this year my daughter was telling me…. When I asked her, after she started into school, how things were in school, she told me about the classes where there aren't enough desks for the kids. She told me about the classes that are supposed to have 26 to 27 kids in them and have 38 kids in them. She told me that it's creating all kinds of pressure. She told me about the pressures for quality textbooks that she's having in grade nine.

I've talked to the people at the school, and they're working very hard to work through this and deal with these issues. They're doing the best they can, but it's of no thanks to the government. The government is not helping them to accomplish these objectives at all.

So the problem here is that there's nothing offered. The Minister of Education has offered nothing of substance for students with special needs, nothing of substance for ESL students. We have students, I know, in my community…. Forty percent of my constituency is Chinese-speaking. We have ESL there, but of course, we know we have a capped ESL program at five years for immigrants. Well, lots of those folks need more than that, and they're not able to get that.

So that's part of the challenge. We have a wide range of students with learning difficulties that require additional support and assistance. They're not getting that support. These are real challenges that need to be addressed, challenges that the minister has offered no solutions or support for and challenges that this piece of legislation will simply make worse.

That's why the amendment moved by this side makes perfect sense, because there is time to stop this disaster before it happens, and you just have to step up on that side. The members have to step up, and they can do that.

It's interesting, on the discussion around class size, that there's been a gradual but consistent erosion of learning conditions in classrooms across B.C. since 2002. We know that. Even the B.C. School Trustees Association sought clarification from the minister for this demand that she made about information on class size without offering one iota of support to deal with the issues.

We have a situation where, rather than trying to help meet the challenges of class size and learning conditions, the minister followed the time-honoured B.C. Liberal tradition of "Don't solve the problem, but buy some advertising and blame the other guy." When the minister did speak on the issue, she reflected the attitudes, I believe, of her leader — which were not, in my view, respectful of the role of educators in the critical questions about what happens here.

Every parent across this province would tell you that teachers need to be part of this discussion about critical learning conditions and issues, but at this point — certainly, based on what the government has directed BCPSEA to do — there is no sense here that the government does see fit to have teachers playing a fundamental role. You would ask why teachers feel disrespected, why teachers are discouraged. Why are the teachers angry, and why don't the teachers trust this government to treat them fairly? Well, it's because the conduct of this government has warranted exactly that response from teachers.

A 25-year teacher in Vancouver sent us some of their thoughts about how they feel. The teacher said: "Teacher morale is suffering because of increased workload. Teachers are in deep conflict and thereby stressed. They feel it's impossible to properly serve the students because of too many special needs students and a lack of support for them. On top of all this, we have been saddled with a ridiculous provincial exam for grade tens. Who needs the extra stress?"

Another teacher said: "Classload numbers. I do have a student who I believe requires assessment, but I was told that if I brought them to a school-based team, nothing would be done this year because we have too many grade sevens that need assessments before going to high school. So she only receives two periods of support a week and no other support. I'm not meeting her needs."

Another teacher said: "Class composition" — this is a 30-year teacher — "and student numbers have cre-

ated a dangerous environment where injuries occur and curriculum is abandoned on fear of injuries. Kids are frustrated. I'm paranoid. We're not having fun, and this is supposed to be PE."

The last one. This is a teacher who's been in the system for more than 30 years, and they didn't have a lot to say. They had one sentence to say, and here's what they said: "The government has systematically destroyed public education."

That's how the teachers feel. That's their response. You add this to the hammer of Bill 12, and now the actions of the government getting a ruling by the labour board that can make our teachers criminals, and no one can wonder why or how the environment between teachers and governments has become so poisoned. It's pretty obvious how it became poisoned.

So what do we do now? What do we do now to deal with the government's conduct, their attempts to turn parents against teachers? Well, I'll tell you, I've talked to an awful lot of parents in the last few days, and it's not working. Parents are with their teachers; parents are supporting their teachers. Parents believe that teachers are doing a good job, and they're happy, and they stand with their teachers.

What I'd like to do is read a couple of letters. The first one is from a parent who lives in Vancouver:

A letter from an organization called the British Columbia Society for Public Education, which is made up primarily of parents who do research and analysis on education in our province. They sent this letter on October 6, 2005. They made this statement regarding the action that's going on now:

Canada's important history of providing quality universal public education contributes to the strength of our unique and diverse society. We value the work of B.C. teachers and regret that they feel compelled to take this current job action. The B.C. Society for Public Education hopes this situation is resolved in a way that contributes to a positive environment and positive morale for both students and teachers in classrooms. We call on the provincial government to take responsibility for establishing a new and respectful bargaining process.

Bill 12 isn't what they had in mind when they talked about a new and respectful bargaining process.

The last letter that I want to read is from the inner-city parents in Greater Vancouver. This is a letter that was addressed to the Premier, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour.

B. Ralston: I rise to support this motion. This motion is proposed because there is still an opportunity to let the collective bargaining process work. Things have come to a point of crisis, but given the situation, which — as in many other labour relations matters — is fluid in the opinion of those on this side of the House, there is an opportunity to engage in collective bargaining.

The bill itself would end collective bargaining for this term of the collective agreement. It simply extends the collective agreement for another nine months without any bargaining, without a wage increase, without any discussion on class size and class composition.

In a parallel process the government has appointed Mr. Ready as an industrial inquiry commissioner. There is some reason for optimism, given that Mr. Ready has been appointed. But this bill and the work that Mr. Ready is about to do don't require the passage of this bill. The process that he has embarked upon is completely separate from this bill and, indeed, could have been started at any point. The government could have chosen, and perhaps should have chosen, to involve an industrial inquiry commissioner well back in this process, and perhaps we would not have come to this point.

The government sincerely believed that the bargaining relationship was broken. This avenue of appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner to examine the bargaining process and propose a new method for resolving these collective agreements between the teachers and the government could have been undertaken long ago. Given that Mr. Ready is now involved and given his record…. He will be familiar to many members of the public over the last 25 or 30 years as a very distinguished mediator, arbitrator and negotiator — most recently, perhaps, in the trucking dispute on the Vancouver waterfront and a number of other collective agreements. He's, in fact, probably indispensable to the industrial relations system of the province.

There is cause for optimism in the sense that Mr. Ready will be able to examine those questions — I'm sure he has the respect of the parties — and that pro-

cess could go forward. So the passage of this bill now is not necessary and in fact will inflame and damage the possibility that Mr. Ready's appointment offers. It is for that reason that this side of the House proposes that this bill simply be stopped in its tracks for a period of time to see if the situation can be resolved without resorting to this legislative hammer.

I'm sure that the government has engaged in the passage of this bill out of a sense of some political calculation. Doubtless, the government considers that taking this approach will reap them some political advantage. But a recent poll — a poll published yesterday and reported on News 1130 radio — says that over half the people, when they were asked who they supported, support the teachers. So the government is not, even in its own cynical political terms, winning the public relations war at all. Even more reason for them to reconsider their position and withdraw this bill.

The public is on to the government, in my view. This poll also asked a question about class size, and what the news report here says is that the question of class size was seen as very important: 80 percent feel it has an impact on the quality of education. The public understands that the issue of class size is not simply an academic issue that is of narrow concern to the representatives of teachers rather than to parents, children, the public and indeed to society as a whole.

I will speak further about the impact of class size upon educational achievement, because it is supported by substantial academic studies throughout North America and indeed throughout the world. It's a well-known fact, so that point has been grasped by the public, in my view, and the public isn't fooled by the approach that the government's taking in refusing to deal with the teachers on this very, very important issue. It isn't simply an issue about the working conditions of teachers, making life easier for teachers, as a cynical view might take it. It's about improving educational opportunity and educational achievement for the children of this province. That's why the teachers are so exercised about the issue of class size and class composition.

There are members on the other side of the House whose political roots rest in the Social Credit Party, a venerable political institution that no longer exists, except perhaps in the minds of a few. I refer to the member for Comox Valley, the member for Peace River North and the member for Kamloops, all of whom started out their political careers in the Social Credit Party. The leader of the party — perhaps the best-known leader, W.A.C. Bennett, the Premier of the province for many years, from 1952 to 1972 — had an expression when he felt that mounting public opinion had weighed in on an issue of public policy and it was time to re-examine the government's assumptions about proceeding with the implementation of a certain policy.

He called it taking a second look, and what I would recommend to the government is they look to some of the elders of their tribe over there — like the member for Comox Valley, the member for Peace River North, and the member for Kamloops — and ask them about that. W.A.C. Bennett wasn't afraid of taking a second look. It was a strength of leadership to say: "Maybe we got it wrong. Maybe this is not the way to go. The public has weighed in on this issue. I'm listening, and I'm ready to change."

In this circumstance, in this very fluid labour relations context, in my view, there would be no shame, no reflection on the political leadership of the members opposite. Indeed, it would add to their claim of political leadership on this issue if they were to take a second look.

I urge the members opposite when they go back into their caucus, maybe tomorrow or Sunday — I don't know how long we're going to be here, but we seem to have only just got started — and you have those discussions and you're wondering, you're shaking your head at the Whip, or at Madam Speaker or at the members of cabinet as to just why we are all here, perhaps that discussion might take place. Maybe it is time to take a second look. It is possible. I will concede that it is possible for this government to change course.

I give the example…. I'm glad the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is in the House, because my comments….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we don't make references to member's presence or absence in the chamber.

In any event, the Liberal Party in opposition, under the leadership of Mr. Campbell — now Premier Campbell — and the former Attorney General, vigorously opposed the implementation of the Nisga'a agreement. In opposition, they took nearly three months of every procedural tactic to oppose the passage of that bill. The Premier and the then Attorney General in opposition commenced a legal action in the B.C. Supreme Court, arguing that the province did not have the jurisdiction to pass the legislation that the government of the day proposed to pass. That litigation was only abandoned upon the election of the Premier and the Attorney General to government.

After the election the government promulgated a referendum on aboriginal questions, which was roundly condemned by all aboriginal groups in the province and was regarded universally as a very divisive referendum on that question. It inflamed the situation. What has taken place recently in the Speech from the Throne, with the support of members not only on that side of the House but on this side of the House, is that the government has entered into a new relationship in the matter of aboriginal affairs. I submit that while the analogies are not perfect, given that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is now entitled Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, it's open to the government to rename the Ministry of Education the Ministry of

Education and Reconciliation, because that's what's required. It may be an example that's not perfect by analogy, but that's what's required.

A change of heart is required here, and the government has to lead on this particular issue. The bargaining relationship could be altered. Mr. Ready offers that alternative and that opportunity, so I would beseech the members on the other side to consider ending this bill in its tracks and taking the opportunity provided by Mr. Ready. Take some leadership and begin the process of reconciliation by meaningful discussions. The representatives of the teachers are open, according to the report I've received just today, to that discussion. So the opportunity is there. This situation could be improved, rather than worsened by the passage of this bill.

Ultimately, if this bill does pass, the situation will not get better. The situation will get worse. That's not what anyone on this side of the House wants. I'm sure, upon reflection, it's not what anyone on the other side of the House wants. It's not what the public wants, it's not what parents want, it's not what students want, and it's not what teachers want. This opportunity should be examined, seized, taken and proceeded with, with dispatch. The way to do that is by agreeing to this motion here, letting everyone go home rather than spending tonight, tomorrow night and Sunday night here in this chamber debating this particular bill.

I spoke earlier about the importance of class size as a factor in academic achievement, and one of the very significant frustrations on the teachers' side of the bargaining has been a complete inability to discuss that issue at the bargaining table. The mandate that was given to the negotiator did not include discussions of class size and class composition. That is because those issues, which were formerly in the collective agreement, were taken from the collective agreement by legislation in 2002 and 2003, as many of my colleagues on this side of the House have set out.

In fact, that issue was of paramount importance to representatives of teachers when they came to the sessions that the Minister of Labour refers to, and they were simply rebuffed in their efforts to deal with that issue. There were creative ways to deal with the issue because, although technically speaking it does not fall within the jurisdiction, it no longer was an issue that could be dealt with at the bargaining table, strictly speaking.

Labour relations and negotiations are a very flexible instrument with skilled negotiators. It's possible to devise a way to deal with those issues. Indeed, proposals were made to deal with those issues at a separate table linked to the bargaining process so that, while formally the issues were not being discussed as part of the collective agreement on the mandate, informally they could be discussed directly with the government. Those proposals were made, I understand, repeatedly.

There was a mechanism available to a creative negotiator and a government with the will to attempt to settle this matter, which could have been taken. That path, unfortunately, was not taken. The report of Mr. Connolly, the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, chronicles the refusal of the government to give those instructions to their negotiators. It really is simply a legal fiction to suppose that there's an independent employers' association that is somehow thinking on its own on major issues and not being simply directed by the government. What we're really talking about is negotiations between the B.C. Teachers Federation, representatives of the teachers, and the government.

That opportunity was available to discuss class size. Although the Minister of Education repeatedly says — and it's a constant refrain on the other side of the House — that they took the issue of class size with such seriousness that they stripped it from the collective agreements and put it into a statute, therefore leaving the impression, perhaps, with the linguistically unwary that putting it in a statute gave it some greater importance and the effect of placing it in the statute meant that it was more important or the result was better. Indeed, no such result took place.

What happened was that after 2002 and 2003, when the ability of teachers to enforce class size through the mechanism of the collective agreement was taken away, class sizes began to increase. Under the pressure of funding cuts and downloading to the school boards, the average class size began to increase.

There were a number of attempts by the government to paint a rosier picture of that situation than was in fact real. But the long-term effect of taking the issue of class size and class composition out of the collective agreement and putting it into statute has not meant the improvement — in other words, the reduction — of class size. It has meant the increase of class size and has given school boards no choice, given their budgetary restraints, but to let class size increase, particularly in the critical elementary school years where the research would show that it's of the greatest importance.

I want to talk now a little bit about the benefits of lower class size. As I said at the outset, this issue comes up and is sometimes viewed as a somewhat arcane issue without a lot of direct relevance to the process of education. But research over many years has firmly established that lower class size is positively related with educational achievement. In other words, the fewer children in the class, the better the academic results in the long run.

The most significant project that's dealt with…. There's some debate about this, but no reputable research, I would suggest, that disagrees with this fundamental proposition. Perhaps the best-regarded study — and by best-regarded, I mean the academic study with the most integrity; the most research, range, resilience and in-depth consideration of the topic…. They call it a longitudinal study because that means it takes some time. It simply doesn't take a snapshot of classrooms in any one year but follows students for a number of years.

That particular study is called the STAR project, and it took place in Tennessee. Now, Tennessee is not

known as a particularly strong bastion of social democracy, I wouldn't think, although one presidential candidate, Al Gore, did emanate from Nashville. They have not a bad hockey team in the Nashville Predators some years, when hockey is on.

This is a study in a state where the legislators there set out to find, in a serious research project, what the effects were. Given the importance of this result, I think it's worth dwelling a little bit upon the methodology just because, in order to be confident in the results, one has to examine how they were arrived at. In other words, I want to support what I say with some evidence.

Judging from some of the speeches I hear on the other side of the House…. I was asked, as a lawyer, what it's like to speak in the House, and I said it's not that much different from speaking in court — oh, the other side doesn't seem to have to rely on the evidence very often.

On this particular project, the strengths of this initiative should be underscored. It was a within-school design, so it included the difference between different school settings. It tracked a large and diverse population of students over a four-year period. It followed them from one grade to another, and it examined rural schools, urban schools, inner-city schools and schools in suburban areas of the state. In each year of the study, the result was carefully examined and correlated with a number of academic achievement indicators.

What were the results? I want to quote from a document that I've located, provided by the researchers themselves — a summary of their results. At each grade level, kindergarten to grade three and across all school locations, the small classes made the highest scores on the standard achievement tests. They call it a criterion-of-basic-skills-first test. These results were both statistically and educationally significant. It's not a question of the subjective view of teachers that the results were better. This is a research result with objective tests that proves there's a definite, positive correlation between smaller class size and academic results.

Teachers also report, in particular — and this is significant for some of the members here — that small classes located in inner-city schools made the greatest gain scores on the standard achievement test, and small classes located in rural schools made the highest SAT and BSF scores. Not only did it benefit urban students, it benefited students in small rural schools, and many of the members who represent constituencies where there are a number of smaller schools in rural areas will be interested in that result, I'm sure.

Teachers reported that small classes helped them to better identify student needs, allowed them to provide more individual attention and enabled them to effectively cover more material. What were the results in Tennessee? It's sometimes perhaps not regarded, maybe unfairly — I don't know — as one of the more progressive jurisdictions in the United States. Tennessee allocated funds, as a result of this, to reduce the teacher-student ratio in all kindergarten-to-grade-three classes for school systems located in counties with the lowest per-capita incomes. The school finance plan includes incentives for school systems to reduce class sizes to 20 or fewer students.

This study has entered into the literature across the United States and become a benchmark for policy-makers in evaluating their own programs. In addition, this study, which took place some years ago — in the late '80s…. There have been efforts in the later '90s to follow up with those students who benefited from smaller class size in the early years and examine their academic results and behavioural patterns in their later years of high school. They looked at tenth-graders. I'm reading from a summary of a study followed up by an organization that was tasked to follow up on the STAR project.

There is still ongoing research on this project. Not only are the benefits apparent in the early years…. In other words, there's an immediate result, a positive correlation. Students have better academic achievement in the early years. Once they get that start in the system, the result persists and continues to the later years.

The issue of class size and class composition, when you look at this kind of data…. This is the kind of discussion that should be taking place at the bargaining table. This should be taking place across the table between the government and the representatives of the teachers. This kind of discussion should be taking place there in an effort to fashion the solutions that will benefit children in the long run.

Now, it's difficult to see how the government can claim that in this alleged golden decade we're either in the middle of or have just started — I'm not sure of the timing; it seems to vary — that this shouldn't be part of achieving those….

B. Ralston: This decade. Well, the members opposite are very replete with mineral analogies, and I think that's appropriate given their composition on occasion.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Could I just remind members to make sure they keep their information relevant to the amendment.

B. Ralston: Well, I was simply responding to the inspiration provided by members opposite, but I'll re-

turn to my text. Those issues should have been and could be properly discussed across the bargaining table, because to some extent, while they are important public policy issues, the way in which those issues play out in a collective agreement should be the subject of negotiation.

Certainly, school trustees — who administer the funds provided by the provincial government in order to achieve the educational objectives set for them by the Ministry of Education but are obliged to make, as we so often hear from the minister, the tough choices about where to allocate funds — should be part of that, and there should be funds provided to achieve those kinds of academic results. If the government were to seize this opportunity and open up the process, those kinds of discussions about those important issues of public policy could take place.

It is with some hope that I support this amendment, this motion that's put forward, to stop this bill in the tracks and to get back, using the good offices of Mr. Ready, and begin a process of bargaining, which is really all that the parties on the teachers' side desire — and parents and students desire as well. Everyone is looking for a result that people can be proud of, and this occasion provides the opportunity to do that. I urge the government members on the other side to take a second look and agree with this amendment. Let's get on with the job, and let's stop fighting among ourselves.

D. Chudnovsky: Madam Speaker, good morning to you, good morning to the members here assembled and, in particular, good morning to the students who join us in the gallery here today.

I don't really remember what time it was, but last night I had a chance to visit with some of the students out on the steps of the Legislature, and I told them that it was a wonderful opportunity for me, in particular, because I am a teacher. I haven't been teaching for a year and a half, and I miss it terribly. I miss being with the young folks and learning from them, hearing what they have to say, and I miss the energy and the vitality. Although there is at times some energy and vitality here, it doesn't compare to what I have experienced in my many years of teaching.

I said something else to the students who I spoke with last night, and I want to repeat it here today. I said to the students: "Don't listen to them in there. You're the experts. You know better than anyone the situation in our schools." These young people who are here today with us in the gallery can tell us the stories of the situation and the learning conditions of students in our schools better than anyone. They know about the changes that have taken place in classrooms across the province over the last four years. They can tell us, no matter what is said on the other side, about increased class sizes, problems with class composition, crowded classrooms, fewer resources, textbooks that are broken and services of specialist teachers who should be there and aren't there. They can tell us of the cuts in the art programs and the drama programs and the music programs — those things which, together with the academic courses, make us human beings and teach us and give us the opportunity to share and build community. They can tell us, and I see them nodding in the gallery.

It's not for us to tell them. It's for them to tell us, and the students of British Columbia today are telling us what side of this struggle they're on. I note in the paper this morning a photo of the students at Templeton Secondary School — I think, in the riding of my dear friend and colleague from Vancouver-Hastings — who put up a banner on the school yesterday: "We support our teachers." Why is that? Why would they do that? They do that because they, like the students who are with us today, are the experts. They're the ones on the front lines, they're the ones in the classrooms, and they understand the stakes of this struggle. They understand what's going on in the schools of B.C. today, and all across the province the students have come out in support of their teachers.

I'm going to talk a little more in a few minutes about what's happening today and what I expect will happen over the next few days, but first I want to talk about the law. There were a lot of people talking about the law yesterday, the day before and today. I expect that we'll hear more about it. This government has been found to have broken the law with respect to teachers, to learning, to labour standards and to labour law internationally — this government.

The members opposite need to take responsibility for their actions, which have been found to be illegal. I think it's important that we look very carefully at the actions they have taken and the action they propose to take today. It is directly relevant to international legal decisions that have been made. I will, hopefully, take us through that in the coming minutes. They have to take responsibility for having broken the law with respect to the relationship they have with the teachers of this province.

Where does that decision come from? The decision comes from the International Labour Organization. It's important to talk about what the International Labour Organization is.

Deputy Speaker: Member. May I again just remind members, when they're speaking through their deliberations, that they tie it back to the amendment that's before the House.

D. Chudnovsky: Absolutely. Madam Speaker, thank you for that advice. I will say to you that the argument I'm making — and it's an important one — is: this bill, here proposed, is consistent with laws previously passed by this House which have been found to be illegal; therefore, it is appropriate for this House to pass the amendment before it. It's a simple and straightforward argument. I thank you for your advice, and I'll continue to make that point.

What is the International Labour Organization? The ILO is an agency of the United Nations which has received in 1969 the Nobel peace prize. The ILO is unique within the UN system because of its balanced, tripartite structure. That is, Madam Speaker, those who make the decisions and have decided that this government has broken the law are representatives of labour, management and government.

The ILO works to uphold eight conventions fundamental to the rights of human beings at their work. They cover freedom of association, the right to organize collective bargaining, abolition of forced labour, etc. A number of years ago, after this government had brought in a number of bills — specifically Bills 18, 27 and 28 — those decisions were forwarded to the ILO, the International Labour Organization of the United Nations. That organization — a tripartite organization representative of business, labour and government — was asked to rule as to whether those bills were consistent with the rule of law as expressed in the conventions of the International Labour Organization, conventions which the government of Canada, on behalf of all of us, has signed.

The first bill that was submitted to the ILO was Bill 18, the essential services act, which was passed, I believe, in the year 2001.

The second bill was Bill 27, the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, the bill which ripped up the provisions of the teachers' collective agreement in the winter, in January of 2002.

The third was Bill 28, which made it illegal in British Columbia to negotiate the learning conditions of students. As I've said before in this House, it is illegal in British Columbia for school teachers and their employers to sit down and collectively bargain improvements for students' learning conditions in schools. It's illegal. It seems preposterous, but that's what Bill 28 did.

These three bills were submitted to the International Labour Organization. The organization was asked to convene a tripartite panel to determine whether those decisions of this House were consistent with international law. The decision in each of those three cases was that the passing of those laws in this House was inconsistent with international law — illegal.

Let's try to be logical here. The bill before us, which we are trying to amend, is to continue the effect of those three decisions which were found to be illegal — in particular, Bills 27 and 28, but including Bill 18. This government, I would submit to the House, is proposing to us that we once again take action which the United Nations three times has decided is illegal. We need to be clear about what it is we're being asked to do. Therefore, it is only logical and rational for this side of the House to put before the members an amendment asking us not to do that which is illegal.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm going to read the amendment. The amendment reads:

D. Chudnovsky: Madam Speaker, thank you for that. I would ask, Madam Speaker, for your direction, please. We are asking that this bill be not passed today. Our argument is…. We've made a whole number of arguments that would permit government to take up the offer of the teachers of the province to engage in discussions with them, a range of arguments have been made as to why that is a good idea and why the amendment should be passed. This is one in a range of arguments that have been made. So I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker, as to why this argument, which is one within a range of arguments that's been put forward, is somehow inappropriate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Chair advises that there is an amendment on the floor and that members speak directly to the amendment.

D. Chudnovsky: Madam Speaker, with great respect, it's my belief that that's precisely what's being done here, but I bow to your authority, and I will move on to other arguments in the…

There's something going on in this province that is quite unique. Over the last couple of days, we look to the response of the people of the province to the problems that we have been debating — in individual communications, in letters to the editor, on call-in shows, in manifestations like the one that we've had for the last couple of days in front of the Legislature, and in petitions.

We note that the people of the province, more and more, are suggesting to us as a House that we do exactly what this amendment asks of the government: that is, that we take a step back from the brink and allow for the possibility of continued negotiations.

I'd like, Madam Speaker, to indicate to you some of those opinions that instruct us or give us advice as to the course that we should take and that are supportive of the amendment before us. For instance, a constituent of the Premier writes: "I have to side with and ask you to represent me" — the constituent asks of the Premier — "by siding with the teachers. Changing the rules of the game after the game has started is highly inappropriate, in bad faith and borders on unethical. Realize that you cannot force the teachers back to work ethi-

cally after you have changed the rules." That from a constituent of the Premier's.

The trustees of the Vancouver school board, who are, in fact, the employers of almost 10 percent of the people who this government chooses not to engage with to find a solution to this problem, have written the following — and again, this encourages all of us, I think, on both sides of the House to look sympathetically at the amendment before us.

They go on to talk about the need for stability and finish with: "'When almost 91 percent of the province's teachers vote to take such action,' says Wong, 'the provincial government needs to realize that these professionals have been deeply offended.'"

Therefore, we should move to accept the amendment before us. It's worthwhile thinking a little bit about the relationship between teachers and their employers and how you build the kind of environment and the kind of trust that allows for progress to be made and for solutions to be found.

It's instructive to think about the Vancouver school board, the employers of almost 10 percent of the teachers of the province, faced with the same kinds of difficulties in funding that every other school board has faced over the last four years as a result of the inadequacy of the resources provided to school districts. Yet it's my experience and the experience of the other MLAs here representing Vancouver that there's never been a better relationship between teachers and their employers in the history of schools in Vancouver than there is now.

How can that happen? How can that instruct us, on both sides of this House, as we struggle and grapple with this problem? We should be instructed by the level of respect, the level of cooperation, the level of consensus-building and the level of real consultation. That's what the teachers of Vancouver have experienced with respect to their direct employer, the Vancouver school board, and it's why that relationship is…. Not to say there aren't problems.

The school boards, the employer…. The teachers in Vancouver have a union — a very experienced union — that advocates on their behalf, and there are disagreements from time to time, as there always will be between employers and employees, but there's a level of respect and cooperation that transcends all of that.

It's instructive to us as we look at the problem we face right now. What does an employer that is looking for solutions do? I would argue that an employer looking for solutions supports the amendment before the House.

A letter from some parents, which was copied to me but was addressed to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour.

Instructing us and suggesting to us and counselling us, once again, that the amendment before us should be passed so that we can respond to the kind of point of view that is expressed in this letter.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, an hour ago or three hours ago or whenever it was that he was speaking, began to read a letter from an organization called the New Proposals Publishing Society and the inner-city school supporters, and unfortunately — because I thought he was doing a wonderful job, but time marches on — he wasn't able to finish reading that letter. I'd like to do that, if I may.

Again, giving us advice on how we as a House should respond to the kind of situation we face. They say:

It's signed by dozens and dozens and dozens of people who live in the province and who, once again, provide advice to this House as to how we should go about resolving this situation.

A few minutes ago, I received a very interesting e-mail. It's from a resident of Quesnel, who is known to me. His name is Chris Kempling; he's a teacher. I need to say to you, Madam Speaker, that he's a colleague with whom I, as a teacher and as a teacher leader for many years, disagree about virtually everything.

Members here present may have read about Mr. Kempling's point of view on a whole number of questions. His point of view is, to underplay the situation dramatically, somewhat at odds with the prevailing view of the members of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. Nevertheless, he's a member, and he writes to his MLA, the member for Cariboo North:

That's from a Liberal Party member in Quesnel. Again, implicit in the e-mail from the teacher in Cariboo North is advice to us as the representatives of the people of British Columbia about how this dispute should be dealt with. The advice is consistent with the amendment which is before us today.

I think my time is almost up, but I want to say something. I say this with the utmost of seriousness and with the greatest respect for many of the members opposite, some of whom I've come to know over the last few weeks. If anyone on the other side of the House thinks that Bill 12 will create stability and calm and predictability in our schools, they need to think again. With the greatest of respect, I ask that they think again. Bill 12 won't deal with the real challenges of the learning conditions, the conditions under which children learn in this province. It won't do that.

The government and its representatives opposite have from time to time over the last number of days pretended — I use the word "pretended" with respect — that nothing is amiss. Ask those kids. Ask these young people. Don't pretend to yourself that the learning conditions haven't deteriorated. I suspect that most members on the other side know and understand that. I suspect you know and understand that. It's important that — again, with respect — I ask that you act on that understanding.

It doesn't create stability in the learning conditions of children to pass this bill. It doesn't deal with the teachers' request for a fair and reasonable wage hike to pass this bill. If members opposite don't care about that, think about the kids. What about recruitment and retention of teachers in this province? What about the relationship between salaries and those in other provinces?

Mr. Speaker: Member, I'm giving you the broadest of leeway, but be specific to the amendment.

The legislation purports to solve the problems. The amendment suggests that the problems of the system will not be solved by the passing of the legislation, and here's a reason why: you can't legislate loyalty. You can't legislate morale. This legislation will significantly reduce the morale of our front-line workers in education, our teachers. You can't legislate enthusiasm. This legislation will dampen and curtail the enthusiasm of tens of thousands of teachers in this province. That's why, with respect, I encourage members opposite to vote for the amendment.

Finally, a good friend of mine — he's a hero of mine — calls teachers "workers of the mind." The public school teachers of this province are indeed our workers of the mind. They do the hard slogging. They do the caring. They set the standards. They make the magic happen in our classrooms across the province every day. Bill 12 does absolutely nothing to solve problems. On the contrary, it creates more problems. It makes things more difficult.

But there's still time. There's still time. We have put before this House an amendment. We're not joking. We do it with utmost seriousness. There is still time to create dialogue, to create consensus, to look for solutions. I ask every member to support the amendment.

J. Horgan: I want to thank those in the chamber for that rousing applause. As the designated speaker on this amendment, I look forward to the next two-hour tour as we go through the importance of this reasoned amendment.

I'll read the amendment, just so we're clear — at least the salient point, and that is "not to be passed now at second reading" — because an opportunity still exists for the parties to engage in collective bargaining — a golden opportunity for a golden decade. I would think that would be thematic for the group on the other side. I would think that the government would want to seize the opportunity to add another golden appendage to their policies and platforms, a golden opportunity to stand down the hostility in this province, to stand down from pitting one group in our society against another, to stand down from confrontation and conflict.

My colleagues have spoken very eloquently, and I'm proud of each and every one of them for standing in this place and speaking with passion, sincerity and commitment about the importance of public education and the role of educators in that system. I've said now, it seems many, many times over the past number of days, that if you don't have educators in a room with kids and students, you've just got kids in a room. You can't have one without the other. What we've appealed to the other side to understand…. I know they understand it, and I'm still flummoxed at why they continue to ignore the importance of the person at the front of the room.

Over the course of the past number of hours as I've spoken to Bill 12, I've reflected upon the teachers that have had a significant impact on my life, and I know there are many of my colleagues who are anxious to….

Mr. Speaker: Member, it's the "opportunity still exists for the parties to engage in collective bargaining."

J. Horgan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that's exactly the point I'm getting to with my comments. The opportunity exists for this government to stand down. They had an opportunity in 2002 as well. They had an opportunity then, and they tore up an agreement. They imposed at that time a collective agreement on the parties that we're discussing in this bill. And with this amendment, we're hopeful that they will seize the opportunity this time to reject that course of action and return to a more commonsensical approach, an approach that people outside of this place would understand.

The citizens that elected us are appealing to us through their e-mails, through their correspondence, through the students in the gallery, through the teachers that are gathering at this place. They're appealing not to us on this side but to those on that side to seize the opportunity. I don't believe the situation could be any clearer.

Citizens that elected us, that sent us to this place, students, are speaking out. In today's daily Province: "As word of today's teacher walkout made its way around the halls of Templeton Secondary School in east Vancouver yesterday, some grade 12 students went to work with their own message." Their own message. I'm now asking the government to seize the opportunity. "They made two large 'We Support Teachers' banners and hung them from windows at the school's main entrance." An appeal to this Legislature, an appeal to the government side. Take the opportunity. Sit down and negotiate. Sit down and reach a truly, fairly, freely bargained collective agreement.

A student at Templeton said further, and it's quoted in the Province. "'I definitely support the teachers,' said Sam Wilson, 17, a grade 12 student. 'I think they have to do whatever it takes to show they are serious about our education.'" What could be more poignant than that?

We've heard members on the opposite side talk about how essential it is that kids remain in the classroom. It's no more essential than to grade 12 students. There can't be a group of students in school today that require the attention, care and nurturing by teachers more than grade 12 students. I have a grade 12 son myself who's at Belmont high school right now, talking with his teachers, supporting his teachers. I respect my son for doing that. I'm proud of my son for doing that, as I'm proud of the children in the gallery today.

The opportunity exists, and that's why we've put forward this amendment. We've been here for dozens of hours now, a score of hours — not four score but dozens of hours — appealing to the other side to take the opportunity that's been presented to them — a golden opportunity. They had the opportunity in 2003, and they rejected it at that time, as well, when they stripped teachers of their self-governing responsibilities within the teachers college.

They had an opportunity, and they ignored it again, in 2004 when the B.C. Supreme Court decision said that classroom composition was a working condition and should be freely bargained in a collective agreement. They had an opportunity then, and they rejected it.

Our objective here today is to make it absolutely clear that those members on that side of the House will have our complete and full support. I will stand here and applaud each and every one of them when they get up and vote in favour of this amendment to take the opportunity to sit down, do the hard work necessary to bargain an agreement and make some trade-offs.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your desire for precision over the next two hours, and I'm going to do my level best to be as precise as I can and speak to the amendment about this golden opportunity.

My friend from Hillside reminds of me of my time at Lake Hill Elementary School here in greater Victoria.

In grade seven, in fact, it was Mr. Smith. He was the vice-principal at the time.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Was that the first time? The first year in grade seven or the second?

J. Horgan: Just the first. It was grade nine that was troublesome, hon. member, but thank you. In grade seven, I was actually quite good. It was in grade nine that the wheels came off the cart.

And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for keeping me on track. I realize it's very important that we use repetition as much as possible so that members on the other side truly grasp this opportunity, seize this opportunity.

I see the member from Fraserview; I know he's anxious to stand with me and support teachers, support kids. I see my friend from Burrard, and I do call him a friend. We've only been here for a short time, but as I get to know the members on the other side, I do realize that they are human beings, as well — as are we on this side. I acknowledge that.

As I've said earlier on, I sought election to come to this place so that I could work with all points of view. That was what my mom taught me back in grade seven at Lake Hill Elementary School. My mom taught me to work with my friends and to work with my enemies to find common solutions to common problems. Collective responsibility — that's what my mother taught me.

The challenge that I have in this place today over the next two hours is to speak…. The member from Langara gives me a smile, and I appreciate that smile very much, as the member from Hastings knows. The challenge I have is that I've been saying it over and over again. My colleagues, each and every one of them, have stood up throughout the hours, as we go through this legislation by exhaustion, appealing to the other side, appealing to my friend from Burrard: do the right thing. Grab the opportunity.

As we speak to this amendment, I've been advised that throughout this province, across this land that we are privileged enough to represent, administrators and superintendents are serving papers on individual teachers in front of their schools, in front of their workplaces. They're not going to the leadership of the union. They're going to individual teachers — intimidation tactics that, quite frankly, are startling in this day and age, in this province at this time.

As I was coming into the chamber to speak to the importance of seizing the opportunity, I also heard people talking about rallies in Latin American countries today in support of teachers in British Columbia. I know, Mr. Speaker, you'll indulge me for a moment when I pause and reflect on how bizarre that truly is. I remember, as I was growing up, going to rallies in support of democratic rights in Latin American countries. Now we hear, as we come into this place today, that there are groups and individuals in Latin American countries that are coming together to support democratic and human rights here in British Columbia. It's amazing, truly amazing.

Division, intimidation, disregard — that's what we've been trying to focus on in our remarks over the past dozen hours or so. Two dozen hours, three dozen hours — I've lost track now, but that won't take me away from my objective, which is to speak precisely to the amendment that's before us. I'll speak as precisely as I can to the opportunity, because we were blessed being born in this province. It is a province of opportunity.

I recall that the Premier in the 1990s, a friend of mine — the early 1990s; that would have been the taller Premier with less hair — used to say it was a big province, and it was a wide province. Of course, these are factual statements, but if you stop and reflect on it for a moment, it is, indeed, a big province and a wide province filled with educators and filled with students who respect and love the work that their educators are doing.

That's why they're filling this gallery. That's why they're filling the stairs out there. That's why they're walking in front of their schools with their teachers, thanking them for the years and years of dedication that they've got from them.

J. Horgan: They would support the amendment, absolutely. They would want this place, this House, to seize the opportunity that's before us. There is an opportunity. We've highlighted that opportunity with this amendment.

J. Horgan: It's a golden opportunity, as my friend from Surrey points out. I've had correspondence from teachers in my community, constituents that I'm here to represent. If you'll indulge me again, I'd like to read a few comments. I won't be overly long with it, because I have other remarks about this opportunity that I want to make over the course of the next number of hours, so I'll just read briefly:

We've heard the members opposite talk about essential services and how it's essential that children be in classrooms. The act used to say…. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I've read it before, but for those watching at home and who don't want to go through the time to find Hansard…. I know that if you don't have access to a computer, it can be difficult to access this place. For those who do have television and the cable bundle that provides people with the opportunity to watch this fine programming, I'll read to you what it used to say with

respect to essential services. It used to say: "…the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." That's what the essential services designation was for.

That was for my brother who was a firefighter in this city for 30 or 35 years. I don't know exactly how long it was, brother Brian, but it was a long time. He put his life on the line. He was a member of a trade union. He worked very hard protecting the citizens of this community, and he knew, even as a trade unionist, that what he did was essential to the community for the health and safety of the community. I respect him for saying, "No, I'm going to take my democratic rights and I'm going to put them aside because it's important what I do."

I believe, although teachers are vital to lifting up our citizenry, that it's not so vital that we should put them in a classroom that's dangerous. I've got teachers who have written to me and said that they are working in unsafe, overcrowded conditions. Now my brother, the firefighter, would say: "If the fire marshal went into one of these classrooms, what would he say?" What would the fire marshal say if he went into a classroom with 30, 34, 35 students? He'd be shocked, I would think. I know my friends here on this side of the House would appeal to the fire marshal and say: "Don't you think, fire marshal, that the government should seize this opportunity — this golden opportunity which we're focused so precisely on in this debate right now?" I think the answer is yes. I think they, fire marshals across this province, would want this government to seize the opportunity. Are you with me? Can we have a hallelujah?

We need poets in our society. Mr. Speaker, you know that. I'm certain you know that. We have an English student working hard, trying to excel in an area that she's passionate about, yet she's compromised by math concepts. She's in a classroom with 30-plus students. She can't get the attention she needs. She would appeal to this place to seize the opportunity to talk about the important issues of class size and class composition so we can lift up our citizenry.

We can give our students the best education possible — a golden goal, a golden opportunity for the golden goal; the most literate and well-educated jurisdiction in North America. I know they don't say "bar none," but I'm going to say it: bar none, bar none.

This is a letter that was sent to me. It's a copy to me as a member of this Legislature, but it was sent to the Minister of Education. I know that with FOI we could maybe appeal to get this read on the record some months down the road, but I'll take the opportunity, as I have it here before me. It goes as follows: "Our teachers in British Columbia are bravely fighting a worthwhile cause and need our 100-percent support to realize necessary requirements to improve the conditions of work and therefore the quality of education in our schools." An appeal to seize the opportunity.

My friend from Oak Bay, I know, would want to seize that opportunity. She works very hard in this community. She knows the importance of schools in her community. When I was at Reynolds high school, we used to play basketball at Oak Bay high school in her community. I think I mentioned my basketball coach a couple of days ago. It was Jack Lusk. He lives in Cowichan Station now, in my constituency, and I had the opportunity to see him the other day, and he said: “Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, you won't be able to dunk a basketball anymore. You must be 40 pounds overweight.” I said: “Well, maybe 30, Mr. Lusk, and I'm trying to get it to be 20 so that my friend from Alberni-Qualicum can cart me on his back up the West Coast Trail, which I spoke about in my remarks at the start of the session."

When I was in Oak Bay playing basketball, we lost regularly. We lost regularly to the Oak Bay Bays from my colleague's constituency. I don't know what the cause of that was. Maybe it was that we were just slower and smaller and not as good, but….

J. Horgan: My friend from Langara said: “That could be it. You might be on to something there, hon. member. It could well be, you just weren't good enough." Well, that could be, but it wasn't for lack of trying. We tried very hard, we saw the opportunity, as my friend from Saanich South says, and we did our level best every time we stepped on to the court.

That's what we should all do in this place, every time we step on to the court. Every time we step on this carpet — which I'm guessing is red — we should do the best we can to lift up the people in our communities, to lift up people in constituencies right across this province. The way to start is to support educators, to treat them with respect, to listen to their concerns and to listen to them when they say: "There are too many kids in the class right now to achieve the outcomes we all want." The outcomes that those on that side of the House want, the outcomes that those on this side of the House want is the most educated and literate citizenry

We've been in this place for dozens and dozens of hours, because we believe profoundly in the quality of the public education system in this province. I was in a scrum outside of this place, and someone asked me what I was going to do if something happened today. I said that I was confident that my kids were getting the best education they could, but it could be better. And it could be better if we reduce class sizes. It could be better if we provided the resources for education assistants in classrooms, if we provided more funding for teacher-librarians, if we provided more funding for other important workplace improvements so our teachers could get the best out of our kids.

My kids are at Belmont high school, and they're doing the best they can. The teachers there are doing the best they can. I have to speak, also, just for a moment about a math teacher, and I did read about the poet that we have who's having difficulty with concepts. At Dunsmuir Middle School in my constituency, there's a Mr. Ross, and he's out there, I tell you, he's out there. He's a math and science teacher. We would go to parent-teacher meetings, and we would talk with Mr. Ross, and I have to confess that I had a little trouble wondering where the heck he was going. Where are you going with this stuff? My son Evan excels in math and science, and he had a bond with this teacher because that was his aptitude, that was his skill, that was his passion. So this teacher, passionate about math and science, was able to take my son's passion and elevate it because they had a relationship, because they had interaction. With class sizes that are in excess of 30 students, you don't get that relationship.

That's the whole point, and I know the members opposite don't want to hear my school history, and I appreciate that. The point of it was: teachers matter in our lives. Teachers matter in our children's lives. Teachers matter in the lives of the students that are in this place, so much so that they followed a teacher who walked here on Wednesday to make a point and to appeal to us to seize the opportunity, as we're asking in this amendment. Seize the opportunity to lift up our citizens, to bring people together, not divide them. Don't serve people with summons. Serve them with compassion and empathy and respect. That's what they want. That's what they do.

The opportunity that we speak of in this amendment has been presented to us in a number of ways, through back channels, through individuals that we know and respect who have talked to us about their interactions with government. We know from comments that the Minister of Labour has made over the course of the past number of days — and these have been difficult days for government, difficult days for this side of the House, very difficult days for parents concerned that their kids are not going to be in school, their teachers are not going to be doing what they love to do, what they were trained to do, because of policy decisions by that side of the House….

I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, about that opportunity that's been presented and why we've been focusing on it, why we believe that the government should involve themselves in this dispute and not be aloof to it, not pretend, as some of my colleagues have said, that there's a car accident over there that…. "Well, I don't know anything about that. All I do know now is that the car is broken, and I'm going to get a commission together, and we're going to look at it in six months and see just what happened there." What we're saying is: "Let's do that now. Let's do that today. Let's involve ourselves — government members — in solving the problems today."

Students that are with us in the gallery are saying: "Why are they here? What's going on? Why do all these people get together, read their correspondence and listen to the debate that's going on, if they weren't here to fix the problem?"

I went out, as my colleagues did, to speak to the students on the steps over the course of the evening, and I tried to…. In fact, three came into the office when I was away from this place with other business. I was talking to them, and I was respectful of the members on the other side. I wanted to make sure — I did, genuinely, want to make sure — that those students didn't feel any antipathy to the members on that side of the House. I tried to explain to them that this was a policy issue that the two sides had a profound difference on, and we needed to respect the views on the other side, but we also needed to cajole — to appeal with our reason, our passion and our amendment — to have them see our point of view. That's what the debate is all about; that's why we're in this place.

But while we're here, well, we've got a captive audience of young people who are wondering, for perhaps the first time: "What is this process all about?" The social studies lesson that they're getting right now is profound. Yet when they walk away, I think they might be a bit disappointed. They're going to say: "Hey, all the people on that side stood up and spoke about this. They introduced amendments to try and change the bill, to try and soften the impact on our community. They tried to improve the situation; they tried to lift the debate." I'm hopeful that we'll be successful when we do that. I'm very hopeful that we will be successful.

I want to read from the Vancouver Sun today. It's from a columnist, and it goes as follows: "Nothing stops the government from negotiating directly with the BCTF as it now does with government workers. By neutering the school boards and precluding negotiation of class size, it has essentially placed the teachers in the same position as its own workers."

So what this columnist, a gentleman by the name of Norman Spector, a fine individual…. He was a deputy minister in this place for the Premier in the 1980s. He was chief of staff to a Conservative Prime Minister, and I would like to think that Mr. Spector and I are friends. We've come to know each other over the course of time, and….

J. Horgan: Well, I don't know if he loves our party now, as the member across says. He loves ideas. What Norman Spector loves is ideas. He loves a good debate. He loves to be challenged.

J. Horgan: I think we're off track, Mr. Speaker. I think I'd like to get back to my precise arguments on the amendment before this House, but before I do that, I would like to say one more word on Norman Spector, because I do value his ideas and his friendship, and I know that the members opposite do.

He puts forward reasoned arguments, always. He is a keen observer of public events — around the world, in fact. He is certainly an authority on issues in the Middle East. I know some would take issue with his perspective, but my goodness, he is certainly well-read, well-travelled and well-informed. He says in his column today that government has an opportunity. Government has an opportunity to directly involve themselves in this negotiation, as they do with other groups in society and other public sector workers.

So we have Norman Spector supporting this side of the House, supporting this reasoned amendment, appealing to the government to seize this opportunity to sit down and find a freely, fairly and fully bargained collective agreement.

I have some correspondence from another individual in my community, and I'd like to read it into the record, if I could have the latitude. I know I've only got the two hours today, but I'll be brief so I can get on to the other remarks that I want to make at this point in time.

It goes as follows: "This year I have two children with severe behaviours. One child is deaf in one ear and almost impossible to understand when he speaks. There are two other children with severe speech problems. I have a child who was assaulted as an infant and is seeing a therapist. She is terrified of noise and change."

These are the kids that are in our system today, and we need to do everything we can to get them through the traumas that have been visited upon them and do everything we can with the public education system that we have so proudly built over decades in this province to provide them with the best opportunities possible. You don't do that by taking resources out of the classroom. You don't do that by reducing teachers in the community. You don't do that by turning your back on front-line workers who are appealing to the government to take the opportunity before them, sit down, talk about these issues of class size and class composition so that everyone in our society will benefit.

That's all we're asking. Sit down, talk to front-line workers, find solutions to problems — don't ignore them. I know my friend from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain…. He and I have talked at length about the importance of debate in this chamber. He has guided me, and I thank him for that. Everything I've learned, I learned at his elbow or elbows similar to his over the course of my time here.

But this is a serious debate, and I know sometimes…. I think I asked for some latitude about my irreverence, again. I guess it was a trick I picked up when I was at Reynolds high school here in Victoria, in my grade ten year. I know I'm skipping a couple of years, and that will be a challenge for those on the other side, but I promise to fill in my colleagues on "John Horgan: The Lost Years." I'll start on those, and if members opposite care to join me, I'm pleased to sit down with members opposite at any time to fill them in on those lost bits.

But at this moment I would just like to talk a little bit about Reynolds high school and why I'm so passionate about education. I was drifting. I was drifting, Mr. Speaker and colleagues. They know that. We've had some discussions about this. Teachers cared enough. They saw enough in me. How, I don't know, but they did, and they put down a hand. I was bright enough, thank goodness, to grab it.

But today with class sizes burgeoning, bursting at the seams, teachers don't have that opportunity. They see potential. They try and grasp it, but if they don't get it at the right moment, it may be gone forever. As educators have said to me…. I've had the honour and privilege over the past number of months to meet with groups, teachers in all walks of life and all areas of endeavour — music teachers, drama teachers, teachers of dance, home economics, science, math. I met with aboriginal teachers. My friend from Alberni-Qualicum and I met with aboriginal teachers earlier this week — passionate about what they do, committed to their craft, anxious, anxious to meet kids, to bring them to the best possible outcomes. Seeing potential, squeezing it out so that everybody benefits.

Members on that side of the House, members on this side of the House: how do we do that after dozens and dozens of hours in this place? I see some blank faces in the gallery, and quite frankly, you should have seen us earlier on. If you think this is blank right now, they're here because they, too, want to watch democracy in process. Our side of the House is appealing to the people over there to seize this opportunity, this golden opportunity for a golden decade, so that we can have the most literate and well-educated citizens in the continent, bar none.

I've got some papers here, and I apologize. I have two hours' worth of documents, and it's going to take me a moment to find it. Here it is. This is what I was looking for. This will be the last letter that I'll read from, and then I'll carry on for a little bit longer, if that's all right with those on the other side.

J. Horgan: "Bring it on," he says. It goes as follows: "I'm appalled by the actions of this government, who decided to legislate us back to work again." My friend from Kingsway very eloquently outlined the six times since 2001 that this government has legislated activities and actions against this body in society, this group of individuals. "Don't they realize that in their quest to damage and to degrade our profession for the sake of privatization of our schools, they are hurting children?"

Now, I want to stop on that point for a moment, because I've said on a number of occasions as I've been speaking over the hours here that I don't for a minute think that the people on that side of the House don't want to achieve one of their golden goals. I believe sincerely that they do. It's all a matter of how you skin the cat, and we on this side of the House are of the view that the best way to achieve positive outcomes, as my leader has said during the campaign, during the months that we've been here, is to sit down, be respectful, seek consensus, be balanced, give a little, take a little. The outcome is that everybody wins. I will not say win-win beyond referring to not ever saying it again, but the matter is, as I look down at my paper, that the only way for all parties to benefit from an agreement is if you sit down and you give a little and you take a little. Everybody understands that.

So composition of a class is absolutely crucial, and I've had the benefit of discussions with my friend from Vancouver-Kensington and my friend from North Coast, former teachers, former professionals in their area. They have advised me of the importance of this issue. I have spoken about my children, with their role in the classroom and how they fit. My friend from Cowichan-Ladysmith is passionate about education. Those on this side of the House have been informing me about what it's like to be in a room with 30-plus kids, some of them severely challenged.

But you know what? When they talk about those severely challenged kids, they do it with a bit of sorrow that they can't spend enough time with them. They don't have the resources in the classroom to ensure that those kids can turn around situations, if it's a behavioural issue, that they can lift them up, if it's a question of mental illness or a disability…. They are as passionate about those kids as any others. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about that. The issue is about how you address the diversity within the room, whether it be language, physical infirmity…. Whatever it may be, you can't do that unless you have resources.

Teachers in this province, represented by their union, have been appealing to this government for over three years. "Take the opportunity," they've said. We've said it today in this amendment. Take the opportunity, and let's sit down together cooperatively, and let's see if we can solve some of these problems. Let's see if we can raise up the kids in our classroom. Let's see if we can improve outcomes, not just teaching to tests, as the Minister of Education likes to say we're doing. Rather, she doesn't say that, but that's in fact what we are doing. Let's not just look at the performance measurements, as the Premier is so proud of. Let's look at the human beings. Let's look at the human beings that are in the gallery today, that are out on the front steps, that are walking with teachers in front of their schools today. Let's look at them and see what they want, how we can improve their lives.

I've read some quotations from the newspaper. Students, teachers, individuals passionate about this debate, passionate about this issue — they are appealing to us to take the opportunity. They are appealing to us to do the right thing.

I said earlier this morning, at a time I can't recall, that we have a lot of bright people in this room, Mr. Speaker — you foremost among them, of course. That's why you're in that chair. But those on that side of the House, those in the executive council, those that have the weighty decisions before them, should just pause for a moment and put down what they're doing and what they're thinking about — they have very important decisions to make and very important things to do — and think about the people. I know that's why they got involved in politics. I don't know a person of any party in any community in any place in this country that didn't get involved because it was something about people. They wanted to make their community better. They wanted to make their neighbourhood better. They wanted to make their province better. They wanted to make their country better, and we all agreed that the foundation of making this a better place is having the best education system in North America, bar none. We all agree on that.

What we want to do on this side of the House is involve all parties — the front-line workers, the teachers, the people that we entrust our children to each and every day, year after year. We want them involved. We want them to be active, vibrant participants, welcomed by those that are funding the programs, those on the other side, those in the executive council.

With that, I would like to appeal again to my colleagues. I want to thank them for their support over the course of the past number of hours, and I would like to sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call the motion on the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, with thanks to members who participated in the debate and their comments, I move second reading of Bill 12.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 12 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting.

Bill 12, Teachers' Collective Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, before we adjourn, I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed by several members in relation to the extraordinary, efficient and courteous service we've received from staff during this strenuous period. We sometimes take for granted that the staff and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the dining room and Hansard will automatically be available, but I know the members will appreciate that the staff's resources are sometimes considerably stretched, yet they still manage to accommodate. I'm certain that all members will again join in extending our sincere appreciation to all who assist and work in the Legislative Assembly.

M. Farnworth: I just want to make a few comments at this point on the motion. It is an interesting motion. We will be supporting it. We did not vote in favour of the original motion to get us to this place because we felt there were other mechanisms to deal with the bill,

but be that as it may, when we went into this debate and passed the original motion, time stood still. It was Thursday, and it has been Thursday now for quite a long time. With the passage of this motion we will now enter the real world, and it will be Friday.

M. Farnworth: His birthday is over, and we then have to deal with the realities of what we have done this Thursday.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
SENIORS' AND WOMEN'S ISSUES
(continued)

Hon. I. Chong: Before I begin, I would certainly welcome the participation of additional members from the opposition, and I want to very quickly reintroduce staff, in the event that they were not able to hear who was here earlier today. On my left I have Assistant Deputy Minister Dale Wall. To my right is Deputy Minister Sheila Wynn; Barbara Walman, assistant deputy minister for women's, seniors' and community services; and Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister, management services division.

M. Karagianis: I have a few questions here that pertain to seniors and that may or may not actually come under this minister's jurisdiction, so please correct me if in fact you are unable to answer these.

I do know that part of the ministry responsibilities extend to manufactured homes, and manufactured homes tax is under…. I'm seeing lots of heads shaking here. I actually am here to ask some questions about the SAFER program. I did see some reference to manufactured homes here, and I do know the minister is responsible for seniors, so is the SAFER program in fact under your jurisdiction?

Hon. I. Chong: This may go along faster than we expect. The SAFER program is the responsibility of the Minister Responsible for Housing, so certainly, he will have information the member may wish to peruse, there.

M. Karagianis: Then can the minister clarify for me…? The "Seniors'" designation covers what aspects of seniors living?

Hon. I. Chong: The area of seniors living would be under the Minister Responsible for Housing, as well, along with assisted living, housing, things of that nature. This ministry as the Ministry Responsible for Seniors' Issues will work across government with issues that affect seniors — as I say, on a cross-government, cross-ministerial basis — in order to ensure, when looking at programs and services and various ministries, that the seniors perspective is also considered.

As the member is aware, government supports a variety of programs and services as well as legislation for seniors in British Columbia. What's most exciting, of course, is the recent announcement of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues, where 18 members from the public who are interested in seniors issues will come together, will tour the province as well as have meetings in Vancouver, and will have a dialogue at the Wosk Centre, where people will be able to come and engage as to what issues are important to seniors.

Issues such as transportation, housing and health will be raised, and while those are areas of responsibility in other ministries, it still needs the collaboration with my ministry to be able to help provide support for that council and bring things together. That's how our ministry will be able to seek out that information: to see what recommendations come out of this council and to then advance them through the various ministries and ensure that these recommendations will be considered.

M. Karagianis: I'm intrigued, actually, by the idea of an advisory body on seniors issues. Does the ministry see itself as an advocate on behalf of seniors? Is that one role you would actually agree may be under your responsibilities?

Hon. I. Chong: In fact, all ministries will — because seniors touch every ministry. I believe that all ministers will be advocates in the sense that the programs they deliver that affect seniors need to take into consideration their unique and special needs. What we're able to do in this ministry is work across government to ensure that those unique and special opportunities are not forgotten.

We know that seniors are the fastest-growing population in British Columbia. It was startling when I found out that one in four of us will be seniors in the not too distant future — that we'll be looking at that. So we do need to take a look at ways to support seniors and support seniors' independence. It means looking at the ability of seniors to stay in their homes longer. It doesn't just mean looking at healthy lifestyles and nutrition. It means ensuring that if there's fall prevention, actions and initiatives that can be taken, we will look at that. It means looking at the issue of mandatory retirement as well.

These are not restricted, by any means, to any one ministry. However, it is important that as cross-government, we address the needs of the aging population and that we can coordinate that, and my ministry will be able to do that. I believe there is a council or a committee of deputy ministers, as well, who meet on a regular basis to see how cross-ministerially, cross-governmentally, these things can be discussed and advanced. I hope that provides more information to the member.

M. Karagianis: Yes, it does somewhat. Now, the advisory body that the minister has discussed — is that, at this point, being put together? Is there an opportunity for seniors to step forward and volunteer to sit on this body?

Hon. I. Chong: The seniors council on aging was announced in April of this year, and the call went out to everyone in the province who was interested in seniors issues, so not just seniors could have applied to be on this council. I want to make that very clear, because we have people who are not seniors but who are interested in seniors issues. That call went out across the province, and applications were sent in.

What we found, though, in probably early June, just shortly after the election, when we took a look at all the applications, was that those who sent in their resumes and showed their interest were heavily concentrated in the lower mainland and Victoria, for obvious reasons. We have the largest density of population. What we did was we extended the deadline for people who were interested until July, again encouraging more people to send in their interest and their background. An overwhelming response — about 220 applications came in. Well, you can't have a council with 220 people on it, as we well know.

Dr. Patricia Baird, who was appointed to the chair and is a well-known adviser on seniors issues who has advised the World Health Organization, decided that it would be best to have a council that was workable. The number that she came up with was 18. She went through all these resumes. She read them all and looked at everyone's background and tried to reflect the province in many ways — in backgrounds, in education, in ethnicity, representation in urban areas and rural, remote areas, so that it wasn't heavily concentrated in Victoria and Vancouver.

The council…. I believe the press release went out on Monday as to who has been appointed. It is on our webpage. Their backgrounds are all listed there. They are planning a seniors congress in Vancouver at the end of the month. I know they are busily working now. They are going to invite people to come to speak to them on a number of issues. Then they are going to go around the province. I don't have all the locations, because I know they are still developing the agenda as to where they want to visit. I'm sure they are going to the north and to other parts of the Island, to other parts of the northeast sector, the northwest sector, the southern part and southeast part of the province to get a good flavour of the kinds of issues that each community wishes to raise with them. That is taking place now.

The website that we have on the seniors council, I believe, should be updated. For people who have an interest in issues for seniors, they can write to the council, they can phone, or they can fax information, submissions — or e-mail submissions. They wouldn't be able to phone. They are very, very busy on the road. Submissions will be received, and all that will be taken into account. Again, if the member would like the fax or e-mail, we can provide that information to her, but I think it is on the webpage as well.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much. That would be very useful. I have a number of seniors who have been speaking to me about the SAFER program, and I'm trying to find ways to direct them to information and, I guess, to an outlet for reporting their experiences.

So the seniors council is going through a process of outreach of consultation all over the province, and there's going to be a report or some process for making this information available once it's been collected, is there?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes. The council has determined in order to do their work they need a full year to go out to do the outreach, as the member has indicated, and they will be coming back to government with recommendations that they would like government to consider and possibly to advance. So we certainly will be waiting for those recommendations. I believe Dr. Baird has indicated that it will be in the fall of next year, but I'm sure that she will, from time to time, be in contact with us to let us know how things are going. I'm sure the submissions that she receives and any reporting that she can make, if she's able to do so, will certainly be made available to the public, but the actual recommendations that she brings back to the government have been timed to be next fall.

M. Karagianis: The recommendations that are coming back then will have some influence on government's decisions around anything affecting seniors — from legislation, through policies, through funding and that kind of thing? Is that the expectation of the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I don't want to speculate on what may or may not come back. What I do know is that as a result of the council reaching out, bringing in

expert witnesses — for a lack of better term — and having them report to the council and having the council have interaction with people who come and present, it will certainly allow them to broaden what they believe is their approach to looking at seniors issues.

Sometimes we, as legislators and those elected, hear from our constituents, and rightfully so, and we hear on a more narrow focus. We think we hear broadly, but we actually do hear more narrowly than what would otherwise take place. With this council, as I've indicated, they will be able to bring in people — experts — who may give presentations on what is happening across Canada, even in other parts of the world. I think that will be very valuable.

Those recommendations, however they are brought forward, certainly will come to government. We will have a look at them and have an opportunity to see whether those fit in with the ability to…. Some things may be able to be acted on quickly; others may not. Again, I can't speculate on what it may be, but I'm looking forward to hearing from them.

M. Karagianis: This question may already have been asked, so I'm sorry if this is repetitious. Are there some resources put towards this council? Is there some funding, and how much funding has been put towards this process?

Hon. I. Chong: We have allocated some funding for the council to support the council. I believe around $500,000 has been made available, in addition to support by ministry staff. If Dr. Baird and other members of council want to call in and ask for administrative supports, that certainly will be made available to them.

C. Trevena: Minister, I wanted to ask you specific issues on transition funding. I just wanted to make sure that in the service plan, is this under the section "Strong and Healthy Communities"?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize to the member. I just wanted to make sure. I do believe I understand where her question is going when she mentions transition dollars. There are transition houses that we deal with, as well as community transition. I'm quite sure she's referring to community transition. The dollars there are allocated out of the local government grants programs. The community transition program is where that is situated.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm informed that approximately $1 million has been set aside for community transition. Some years none of that amount is required; some years all of it is required.

C. Trevena: I wondered if you have any set aside yet in specific areas, or are you still looking at the province for how it's going to be divided? You can obviously see communities that may need it.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps if I could just provide the member with a little bit of background on community transition, that might help, as well, in understanding. The community transition services exist to assist communities largely dependent on a single resource industry that may be facing any severe economic dislocation. Because of that, these are dealt with on a case-by-case situation, on a case-by-case basis.

They do take into consideration a number of factors. For that reason, dollars are not allocated based on any one region, any one area, because you don't know at the beginning of the year what may occur. What you do want to do, though, is have some dollars available should the need arise. In some cases, if you are there to work with a particular community very quickly, you may be able to mitigate costs fairly quickly and help that community.

Community transition studies are often provided or assist with providing a grant. That can also take place so a community can actually plan. When they know they're going through some rather difficult times, they can plan on seeing how that community is going to look after that circumstance occurs and how the town, the village, the community may want to diversify or what options that are available to them. Transition dollars are available to provide for studies, as well, to assist those local communities.

C. Trevena: I'm specifically interested in Port Alice. I know there has been transition funding for the 2004-2005 tax year — the $119,000 that was announced a few weeks ago.

There are two possible scenarios still there. One is that the specialty cellulose mill reopens, and one is that it doesn't reopen. Obviously, there are two things to look at. If you can look at scenario one — best case, the mill reopens. Because the mill hasn't been opened this year, under the 2005 tax bill the village will face a shortfall of approximately $950,000, just a bit less out of its total tax bill. I wondered whether this amount of assistance is already earmarked for Port Alice or if it's still there as a possible that hasn't been earmarked.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I thank the member for raising some of these issues because I know she has a keen interest, obviously. The province has already this year provided an interim transition grant to the village of Port Alice in the amount of $819,000. I know she is aware of that, and I understand she probably will have spoken to the mayor, as have I on several occasions.

I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to what may happen, because the Minister of Economic Development is still working very closely with the mayor and with the interested parties on assisting Port Alice and seeing how we can help that community. While we're waiting for that decision, this ministry will continue to provide assistance to the village insofar as

supporting them, working with them to build on local opportunities just to ensure that they can continue onwards.

It is early, and it is premature to talk about what would be available in the future, simply because we don't set up, I guess, a program that is designed to take a look at situations where the worst-case scenario could occur. You want to ensure that you are able to deal with situations as they arise and, of course, on a case-by-case basis.

We have said we're willing to assist where appropriate. We're willing to find ways to help the town move forward. We'll continue to do that. I know there has been quite a lot of anxiety in the town, and I appreciate the fact that the town and the population have been waiting patiently, but unfortunately, these things are not in our hands. We have to wait and see what a prospective investor may wish ultimately to do.

C. Trevena: I understand, obviously, that you don't want to jump the gun, but we are already coming toward…. Well, we're halfway through the 2005 financial year. The mill hasn't been operating all this year. It's quite clear that the village is going to have a shortfall in its tax base this year.

Working on the best-case scenario that the Ministry for Economic Development negotiations work out and the mill does reopen, it's still unlikely to open before early in the new year, which means it won't be contributing to the local economy until into next year and possibly even into the next tax year. It's quite clear the village is going to have a shortfall, and it's estimated that it is going to be about $940,000 or $950,000. Just in your planning you're obviously aware that this shortfall is going to be there. I wonder, in your financial planning, whether you have looked at setting aside that amount of money for Port Alice?

Again, I want to caution those who may be watching these proceedings to not put out expectations or to speculate as to what may or may not occur.

Our ministry has been working very closely with the village of Port Alice. There was a transition study that was put in place. We're continuing to address that, and we will continue to work with the mayor and with council. After November 19, if a new mayor and new council are there, we will work with them, as well, to see how we can assist the community to go forward.

It is a difficult situation. I know in some cases people want to have absolute certainty, but a number of things can happen. Diversification in another area may happen. To put out a foregone conclusion as to how we may assist may actually take away from opportunities that we might otherwise want to look at.

I do want to give this member assurance — because I know she wants to be able to tell the people of her town that she's had a chance to peruse and canvass this area in the estimates — that our intention is to continue to work with the village, to continue to find ways to assist them along. As circumstances change, we will also change with those circumstances to see how we can assist in every way possible.

C. Trevena: I don't want to seem to belabour the point on this, but this isn't a matter of speculation. As I say, we are already halfway through the tax year. There is no way that the village is going to be able to meet its tax bill for the next year, because the main contributor to its taxes hasn't been operating. We're not speculating here, and we're not looking at a worst-case scenario. We're looking at what is happening.

I just would like to see whether, as well as talking to the village and the mayor, as I know you have been doing — I know you've been working very closely — you have yet budgeted to help the village on its expected, predicted and really definite shortfall in taxes this year.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would like to assure the member that the transition program and the planning that has taken place do allow for flexibility. What that means is that we will continue to work with the village. We are in close contact with them, and we are continuing to maintain those lines of communication. We are planning for a number of contingencies. As I say, depending on what result occurs, it will allow us to then work more closely with one plan versus another. It is very difficult to, as I say, put us on a path where: "Well, we know this is going to happen, and therefore this is the only solution there is." We want to have as flexible options as possible.

At the UBCM last week I was able to meet with Mayor Pepper, who came in. I asked him what concerns he had, and he actually was very gratified. We had staff there that he had a chance to meet, and he thanked the staff, which I thought was very nice of him to do. He said that he wanted to stay working closely with us, and as situations arise, we would deal with them as they progress. Again, I want to provide some caution here. I don't want to suggest a plan that may not actually be the one for the path that we go down without having the mayor involved in this at all times.

C. Trevena: Obviously, you don't want to speculate, but you have a budget of $1 million for transition for communities going through difficult times for resources for the year. Again, this is the budget for this year, and we can see what is happening. While we don't want to speculate, I wanted to know how much you can put towards the transition plans.

I've seen a number of different scenarios for Port Alice, like you have. I know your ministry has been working very closely with the village on this. But $1 million — when we are looking at, firstly, the tax shortfall and, secondly, the transition for the village — isn't much when other communities in my own constitu-

ency…. Tahsis got $900,000, and Gold River had about $6½ million over five years.

I wanted to know what proportion of that million dollars you could commit to putting towards a transition plan for Port Alice.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would like to provide some background for the member. In addition to the $819,000 that was forwarded, I think, on August 31 or September 1 to the village — the interim transition funding that went to them — there were dollars provided for a transition study, about $45,000; another $50,000 on the viability of the pulp mill, in terms of the condition of the site; and another $50,000 there. A substantial amount of money has been provided to help the community, to let them know that we are very concerned about their future.

The allocation in our budget is there, as I say, as a place in the year. You never know what can happen around the province. Some years the requests for community transition may never exist because all the resource towns are doing particularly well. In some years that may not happen. So we do have the $1 million that was set aside, and much of it has been used.

In the event that we need to go beyond that, government also has a global contingency budget where ministries can make a presentation and basically ask for additional dollars to provide for circumstances that were not anticipated. Of course, we don't anticipate our towns and our villages going through situations like this, and should that be necessary, we certainly would be able to access this. But the last thing you would want to do is put a budget forward that has $4 million, $5 million or $7 million for community transition, with an expectation that that's what you will want to see happening around the province.

Dollars are set aside. Oftentimes it's sufficient, and in cases where it's not, we certainly will make a case to ask for some of government's global contingency funds to be provided to assist a town, if we need to do that.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things there before I move on. The $45,000 — that was for the transition study, was it? The $50,000 was, if we can just go…. In terms of the report…. The other $50,000 was for the NLK report?

Okay. My concern is that the Port Alice situation is something that in many ways can be predicted. It can be predicted in two scenarios: one is that the mill goes ahead; one is that it doesn't.

We have really got time to prepare the worst-case scenario of a good, solid transition. I know that you are working with the mayor and council on this, but I really just wanted to have some indication of what level you're looking at. I mean, the transition that the mayor has been looking at is small-scale. It's industrial parks, marinas and so on. I just wondered what proportion of a million dollars you think Port Alice would be getting.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, our ministry will in fact continue to work with the village on additional transitional strategies, if that's what they would like to do. As I've indicated, we certainly will consider further assistance and funding if that is what's required to help the village make a successful transition.

Again, I don't think it would be appropriate or prudent to suggest a specific dollar amount, because I think that would take away from the opportunity for us to work with the village on what other transitional strategies that may take place.

Circumstances can change, and the request that the mayor and council may put forth could be quite different, or the request for assistance could be quite different. What we have said, though, because we do want to help, is that we would certainly consider further assistance. Again, we need to wait and see what that may be, and the mayor and council will then certainly contact our ministry and present what that may be. I hope that's helpful for the member.

C. Trevena: If this has to happen, and the mayor comes forward and the council comes forward with a transition plan, how much direction do you give in the way the money is spent? Or is it just a sum that is given to the village that they can use in the way they see best?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, to be specific would not be particularly productive or constructive, so perhaps it may be helpful to provide the member with what has happened in other situations such as Gold River, Tahsis and Tumbler Ridge. Every situation is different, and that's why we deal with it on a case-by-case basis. In some cases you assist the community by helping retire some of their municipal debt. In some cases they require transition dollars to help with economic diversification, and in some cases you help them adjust to the loss of the tax base.

So every situation will be different. It could be a combination of these. It could be one of these areas. Again, it is important that we are able to sit down with the village to find out exactly what they would like in terms of assistance from our ministry and from this government.

It also requires that we work with other agencies where they may be applicable — other ministries. It may also involve the federal government at times. As I say, every case is different. Every situation is unique, and we need to have that flexibility and that latitude to work through the difficult time that is there.

Again, I want to assure the people of Port Alice that this government is willing to continue to work to find some way of helping that move along. We will depend largely on dealing with the mayor who obviously is a spokesperson for that.

N. Macdonald: We'll just jump back to where we left off some hours ago. So the mission then is to promote and sustain economically viable communities. What we were talking about is one of the vehicles that you have for that, which is new for me, which is the

Community Charter. You've described that it's a two-year process that you went through.

We've also described some of the changes that are in there from the old Municipal Act, which I may have been familiar with. Just coming back to that then, you had said there aren't a lot of vehicles for raising additional moneys. I think the last thing I talked about was Bill 55, and it's around the railway taxation. Just to come to that again: were there any changes?

I just remember that the present member for Shuswap when he was in local government — and I know that he acted as the minister here — was very much against that imposition. I just wonder: when he was the minister, were there any changes to the taxation on Bill 55?

Hon. I. Chong: Back to the Community Charter. I just want to make it clear, in case we have new people viewing this, regarding what the discussion was this morning about the Community Charter. After the two-year-long process of consultation that took place, it was agreed upon — it was not a unilateral decision from government — with mayors and the Community Charter Council and all those who participated that providing additional tax-raising or tax revenue goals were not to be included in the charter.

I know the member knows that, but I just wanted to make it clear. It wasn't something that we said: "Oh, you don't get to raise revenues." It was something that was agreed upon.

It was certainly an area that first sparked a lot of interest, but at the end of the day, when the Community Charter was agreed upon and the legislation was brought in, it did not bring in those taxing powers. That was certainly done by consensus.

Bill 55, as the member has raised, was a bill that was introduced in either '96 or '97. I have to apologize. I'm not as familiar with the circumstances surrounding the debate on that, but it was introduced back in the '90s. The short answer to the member's question on whether we changed any part of it is no.

N. Macdonald: I have a number of questions on that, but overall there really hasn't been an increase in the ability to tax.

What comes — and here again the language…. Sometimes when people describe it, they talk about downloading. Perhaps that's an inappropriate term, but in terms of…. There are some things that communities feel are additional costs that create problems for them. If within the Community Charter there aren't abilities to raise more money, then is there some thought in terms of whether it's…? It wouldn't be through this ministry necessarily, but within the mandate here you talk about — perhaps advocacy isn't the right word — working with other ministries to try to meet some of those needs.

Can I just ask you about some of the things that people have asked about — about programs that used to be in place and that now they're finding, as local government, they're having to deal with? One that you'd be familiar with from the UBCM was around just the social services, the welfare and some of the systems that are in place which local governments have said they're having difficulty dealing with. Is there any thought within this plan as to how community services would deal with that?

Hon. I. Chong: The member raises issues that deal with particular ministries. I would have to ask him to defer to those ministries.

In the context of the question that he posed in terms of local governments and their responsibility to their citizens, there was for a time some rather large and significant decreases to grants to local governments. It occurred at a time when I think the member was on council. I was certainly here when I heard those debates, when there were municipal grants that had been severely decreased.

In 2001 when we were elected, we made a commitment that we would not further decrease those municipal grants — those unconditional grants — so we've maintained that. But we also said what we would do in working with municipalities and local governments was try to find ways to partner with them to help them move their communities along. One of those was the traffic fine revenue-sharing. Again, these are dollars that have traditionally come into the provincial government and were never made available to local governments. We said: "We'd like to return 75 percent of that to you so that you can deal with making your communities safer, looking at crime prevention strategies or initiatives, whether it's hiring more police officers…. You decide what you think works best for you and address those local needs."

I think everyone was surprised in 2004 when the Premier announced that we were going to surpass that. Rather than the 75 percent return, we would actually increase that, and 100 percent of traffic fine revenues were returned.

I know municipalities are still looking at how to put in strategies and initiatives that work. Again, by working with local government, giving them opportunities, we're looking at how through UBCM we can empower our local governments. The $25 million for the tourism strategy is meant to go out to our local governments for them to build economic opportunities, because tourism is one of our fastest-growing industries, in their various and respective communities.

We also worked very hard to ensure that we were the first province to sign this new deal for cities and communities agreement-in-principle, and that was significant. We should really take pride in that, because every other province in Canada looked to us to be the leaders, to have that new deal put in place. It's $635.6 million over five years coming back to local governments as a result of the work that was done, and I applaud the work and the dedication of the people on the UBCM executive. The Premier and my predecessors

As I mentioned at UBCM, the beauty of these dollars is that they are not even required to be matched. The local governments will be able to access these dollars to do more in their communities, to build on infrastructure — cleaner air, cleaner water, their transportation systems — that they feel they want to work on. I'm very pleased about that.

We continue to look at ways to help our local communities, as I say, by ensuring that we have not reduced the grants — providing other dollars through UBCM — and that they can do things such as emergency preparedness. We've provided dollars for seniors housing to UBCM so that they can ask local governments to participate in that. We have the community health promotion program and just a variety of things so local governments feel more than ever that they can participate in a variety of areas and see that their communities can grow. I hope that's helpful to the member.

N. Macdonald: Then just to understand the local government. You have talked about the traffic fines and the revenue. Really, what I am interested to hear is just an understanding about the revenue side of it. Could you just take some time and first go through the amount of money that's generated — you probably have that figure right there — and then just a description of what the formula is for allocation of the funds?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps it's easier that I read it for your benefit, rather than describe it generally. "The program has placed an additional $70 million into the municipal system to improve public safety and policing. Municipalities will not be constrained in how they use these funds." It was made quite clear that the funds are intended to provide additional resources to make communities safer.

In that regard we did ask the Union of B.C. Municipalities to survey a number of the municipalities to find out exactly what was happening. They have indicated, for the most part, that they are using those dollars as was intended; 75 percent indicated that they're using these funds to hire new police officers or staff, to build new facilities or to address the increasing costs of specialized police services.

Over half of them have indicated that all or a portion of the traffic fine revenue-sharing funds were used to address increasing costs of delivering police services. Another third of them indicated that they were using these revenue-sharing funds to expand services in the community, such as a new coordinator for crime prevention programs, establishing a safer community program, and implementing new strategies to combat vandalism and drug problems in the community.

That's just sort of a brief overview on how they're using those dollars. Those are things you would expect the community to do. Normally, those would be dollars they would have to raise through their property taxes, as we all know. By providing these dollars, they are able to move on these initiatives a lot quicker. We're very happy to see them do that.

N. Macdonald: Again, if I'm sitting in a small community, how do you figure out how much each community gets? I apologize if I missed that, but what's the formula for allocation? What does Vancouver get, how do they decide it, and what does Revelstoke get?

Perhaps what would best serve is if the member wants breakdowns and details as to specific communities, perhaps his own communities…. We could provide that information, if that's what he would like. Again, I would suggest that he can avail himself of our staff, who may want to show him specifically how that formula works so that he has that permanently in his memory.

N. Macdonald: Just as a review, what are the documents you are sending me so far? I don't know if you've kept a list of the things that you've said you are going to send. I very much appreciate you sending those things, but maybe at the end I could see the list of things you intend to send.

Continuing with that, the Community Charter is described within the document as the most enabling framework for local government in Canada. The main parts are always going to be around money. This is $70 million, and it's distributed to communities based on a formula that I understand. You had talked about the communities that so far are not paying for policing. There is going to be a change to that? Perhaps you could describe what you foresee happening and some of the rationale behind it. Is that still being considered? Here I'm talking about the communities below 5,000 that currently would not pay for policing.

Hon. I. Chong: To the first question, regarding the list of items that we've agreed to send to the member, we have been keeping a list. But in the event that we missed anything, Hansard is always there, so we'll check everything we've said and make sure you have all that information.

Again, the offer remains open to yourself or any other of your colleagues who would ask to have information provided. Staff are very gracious and always

The policing costs. I know the member knows this, because we both, having been on council, have heard this time and time. It goes back a dozen years to when I was around on council. For those small communities with policing who are under 5,000 or over 5,000, that has been a discussion that has taken place, as I say, for certainly more than one decade. It will continue, because the last thing you want is a community to stop growing — not to hit 5,001 just because they're worried about policing.

There has been a lot of debate at UBCM and at various associations on how to accommodate that. I believe that there was some work done in terms of allowing communities to transition into paying a share of those costs. When that happens, then the traffic fine revenue- sharing will be able, I'm sure, to work into a formula of that. Unfortunately, I'm not able to share with the member what specifically may or may not occur, because that discussion and those consultations have taken place and have been occurring with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, because he has responsibility for policing as a whole here in the province.

If I could ask the member to direct those specific questions to the Solicitor General, he may have some more specific answers that he can receive.

N. Macdonald: Thanks for the offer of information. For the communities that are smaller, the change to paying for community policing needs is going to be significant, yet within the Community Charter there doesn't seem to be a tremendous amount of ability to raise money other than through property taxation. I realize the decision will be made in a different ministry, but it's something you certainly are cognizant of — that it creates a hardship for property owners in these small communities. Within my riding there are three of them. There is also one community that is paying completely for a police officer to come there. They're just doing that out of their tax base.

Just continuing with costs, and once again it's a cost that perhaps is outside of your area, but it impacts on some of the goals that you have within this area, and that's around diking. There used to be grants available. I think it was through the Ministry of Environment; nevertheless, it's something that municipalities benefited from. There is no ability to raise additional money other than through the finite tools that are there and that have really always been there. If the province is not participating with the funding of diking — I think it used to be up to 75 percent — while you could…. That's what I think it is. I think that we received 75 percent, and we would pay 25 percent.

Now, while it wasn't through your ministry, there would certainly be a feeling that that's a download because, of course, it needs to be done. There are costs that didn't used to be there.

I guess it comes back to the Community Charter and if it's the most enabling framework. It just seems the main thing is to get more money, you know? So if it's the most enabling, should that not be revisited and given a few more tools in terms of how you would generate funds for a municipality?

Hon. I. Chong: It is always helpful to hear from representatives and MLAs who represent small communities, and it is also very important for small communities to continue to dialogue with our government so that we can address some of the needs and concerns that they have.

I want to just very briefly remind the member — I am sure he heard this at UBCM, but in the event he didn't — that when the Premier gave a speech, he did indicate that small community protection grants were going to be doubled over the next four years. That will be one way of assisting small communities, helping them in ways that they had otherwise not been able to provide for their citizens and their communities. So that's important.

I do want to disagree in the most respectful way with the member. While the Community Charter is absolutely enabling, it wasn't designed, or it wasn't desired by all those who participated in its form, to be enabling. The one tool that they wanted was to increase opportunities to raise revenues. I want to stress that, again, while revenue-sharing or revenue-raising was certainly raised at the very beginning of the debate, by the end of the debate, mayors, local communities and stakeholders who had a say in how it was to be developed realized this was not necessarily the best way to go. They said we needed to think of other ways to enable our communities, other partnerships that we might be able to explore.

We have to remember at all times that there really is only one taxpayer, and just because you have three or four levels of government, you don't necessarily want everyone to have an ability to continue to raise or impose new taxes. That's the message that I believe came out of the Community Charter when it was developed.

The charter was designed to be enabling, designed to look at creative, innovative ways to allow communities to explore economic development, to take a look at having memorandums of understanding that can be signed, maybe tripartite with the federal government and provincial government as well, to ensure that these can be accommodated.

It's enabling in that way, and it provides avenues for communities to at least get out to their citizens and consult and then to approach various levels of government to work together and have new partnerships.

Infrastructure grants and infrastructure programs are always at the heart of three-way partnerships, and we will continue to work with the federal government to ensure that British Columbia receives its share of infrastructure dollars as well.

N. Macdonald: Just coming back, though, to the language. I mean, the language is there within the ser-

vice plan. While local government would be just as cognizant of the need to be careful with raising money…. Nevertheless, if you're talking about empowering local government, certainly the impression I had when I left, when it was still in the conversation stage, is that was going to be an important component of the new Community Charter.

Now over time — it's a two-year process — I realized that changed. Nevertheless, costs continue to accrue for local government. We've talked about policing for some smaller communities, and that's a real cost that homeowners or businesses will bear.

We've talked about diking. The fact is that diking needs to be done. Instead of paying 25 percent, and a different level of government that taxes differently paying 75 percent, you are going to have communities paying 100 percent.

The other one would be around courthouses. Many of the communities in my area have purchased the courthouses. They've done that whether that's a wise thing to do or not. It's just like hiring a policeman. Those are the decisions that communities have made, and yet they don't really have tools to get more money.

Maybe a question around taxation, again, and maybe about something you had considered. With utilities — is there any thought around taxation for local government on utilities, about a grant-in-lieu that would…? Is there something in place about it rising at a particular rate? Is there the possibility of taxation? What sort of things have you talked about in terms of giving communities more power?

Hon. I. Chong: Again I would like to advise that our government has in many ways added more revenues to local governments in ways of partnerships through the UBCM to provide, as I say, the revenue-sharing and the traffic fines, increasing the small community grant program and bringing in infrastructure programs.

We will continue to look at these and to work with local governments to see what new programs or what new initiatives they believe that we should focus on and work on together. That dialogue will not end, and I am certainly looking forward to it when the new UBCM executive starts their workplan and the area associations do so as well.

I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what I'm hearing from the member. Maybe he can clarify, because as he speaks about more empowering of local communities and that the primary way of doing that is raising taxes…. That's not what I have been hearing from local governments necessarily. When I was at UBCM I did not have, in the over 50 meetings I had, local governments coming in and saying: "We need to raise taxes, so can you let us do that? And can you change the Community Charter to let us do that?" That's not what I heard. If that's what the member's heard, then we were clearly at two different groups of meetings, I guess.

What we did hear, when the Community Charter legislation was being prepared and being drafted, was that — again, at the very beginning — that was actually what some mayors thought should happen. They thought this would be an opportune time for them to have the broadest of powers to raise taxes. But at the end of the discussion, having heard from stakeholders around the province and their own citizens, they realized this was not the tool that they necessarily wanted. That is one of the reasons why the Community Charter did not provide that.

However, they did say that in some cases, they were in a position…. Some communities were in a position to implement fees that were unique to their area, and if that's what they wanted to do, that's what they could do, and that's how we broadened that.

Again, if I've misunderstood the member, certainly I apologize, but if what he has proposed is that we need to change the charter so that municipalities can raise taxes, then I would have to disagree, because that's not what we heard when the charter was being prepared and drafted.

N. Macdonald: No, you have misunderstood, because the problem is…. For homeowners and for businesses the reality is that their taxes will go up if they're picking up costs — for policing or for doing dikes — that used to come in a different way. So what I'm talking about is: what are other ways of looking at raising those funds? They're necessary. They used to come from the province, and they don't now. That's what we're talking about. Of course, we're both mindful of the fact that every bit of money you take is painful to the person that it's being taken from. Nevertheless, there are set costs.

It really is more of a question about the statement. It's the most enabling framework for local governance, and I just wonder…. The question is just about looking around how that statement is made. What makes it the most enabling? If it's not around different sources of money, then what would it be?

But maybe we'll come to specifics then and look at increased accountability. It talks about increased accountability. Could you just take a minute and describe the increased accountability that comes with the Community Charter?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is consistent in quoting the Community Charter as being an enabling piece of legislation, which absolutely it is. Again, perhaps we are viewing this in different ways.

Enabling is not always, as I've indicated, about having the ability to raise more revenues, but enabling in the sense of allowing local governments to have a broader range of authority whereby they can make decisions that affect their local governments. This doesn't happen across Canada, where local governments…. In some cases their local government structure certainly is different, but they have broad powers and authority to make certain decisions that affect their

local communities. That is certainly meant by the enabling ability of this legislation, but with that does come a requirement to have greater accountability, because the citizens actually want that. They demand it, in order to ensure that when we've enhanced municipal powers, they are balanced with public accountability.

What that means is that councils are required to promote public participation in local decision-making that much more. It means that the new charter provides accountability tools such as mandatory annual reports and public meetings and that councils can also go to an alternative approval process or referendum. I would not undermine the value or understate the value of having those accountability tools, these annual reports.

At UBCM we were able to make a presentation to a municipality that won an award for having the best annual reports. Some people had a laugh at it, but I was quite excited about it. As an accountant, I think annual reports are really exciting things to see. If they're fully disclosed and have information, they actually provide a lot to the citizenry. Having said that, I want to assure the member: opportunities for accountability are much greater when the public also sees what their local decision-makers are doing.

I want to quickly go back to some of the comments the member made regarding the restrictions he feels that communities have — whether they're smaller or larger communities — in terms of the grants that are available. I do acknowledge that there have been some changes, but we continue to seek out new programs, arrangements and partnerships wherever we can.

The Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program was very well received. Our B.C. community water improvement program is another program very well received. As I said earlier today, we made a commitment in 2001 that we would not reduce the grants to municipalities because through the '90s quite a lot of their dollars had been scaled back. I believe up to $800 million of costs had been borne by local governments as a result of reduced grants and elimination of services.

What we decided to do in 2001 is that we would protect those grants. We will look at ways of partnering. We will have the Community Charter as a piece of legislation that enables municipalities to look at other ways to diversify their towns. We continually want to hear, as well, from the communities as to what they would like to do. UBCM is a perfect venue for that to take place, as well as our area associations, so I hope that is helpful to the member.

N. Macdonald: Certainly what I'll do is take the information that you've given and I will have more of a look at it. I would say that sometimes the language, especially in a document that we, primarily, are going to read, sounds somewhat more grandiose.

In terms of the feedback I've had on the charter, it's been generally quite positive as a document.

In terms of the feedback I've had on the charter, you know, it's been generally quite positive as a document. But like I say, the language sort of makes it seem like it's revolutionary. I know when it started, it seemed a far more revolutionary process than it has ended up. Perhaps that's the appropriate thing; I'm not sure.

I do have a question, and I'm sure it's one that you've discussed a lot, around Bill 75 and how that all meshes. I'm positive you've had this discussion before, because…. I understand the philosophical approach of the Community Charter. Even as it's turned out, I get it. Even though it's not your ministry, I don't get Bill 75 and how it meshes philosophically. Perhaps you could just take a moment to explain that. You don't have to rehash past arguments that I wasn't here for — but just how it fits philosophically and then where you see its place in the future.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his clarification of the last comments that he made. Regarding Bill 75, I certainly know the member is probably as familiar with it as I was in the last number of years when the bill was introduced. As he is aware and as other members are aware, it was introduced as a mechanism to override local government decisions should there be a more overarching provincial interest that needed to be dealt with.

That provision actually has always been available in the Local Government Act. I recall that when the debate swirled around this, we made that very clear. I know there was some thought as to why, then, we needed to bring in a piece of legislation, when in fact that overriding provision was available.

Simply put, by having it brought forward as a piece of legislation, it just reinforced that there was this provision and that if it needed to be used — should a time arise where we needed to use it for a provincial interest — that would take place. Since it's been passed, we've not had to use it, as we've not had to use that section in the Local Government Act. Again, it was introduced to allow a process that would take shape sooner in the event that we had to deal with a provincial interest that may override a local decision.

We've always continued to explore other ways to work with local governments. That's why memorandums of understanding, MOUs, are often drafted, wherever we can, to work together. From time to time we may see that this legislation may be necessary, and if it is, it's in place to do so. As the member is probably familiar with, it has not been used. Rarely has that section — or, I think, never has that section — in the Local Government Act been used as well.

N. Macdonald: I don't want to spend a long time rehashing an old fight. Within the UBCM, certainly, a lot of documentation talks about seeing it differently than the…. No need to rehash that.

In terms of language, what I think would be worthwhile avoiding is just talking about the most enabling framework for local governance in Canada when overtop of it you have something that can override everything. Around that language, you can say

that the charter is admirable — I mean, I'm just going to read it — without needing a sort of a statement that seems somewhat overblown.

Maybe to numbers now. If we could just turn to the resources summary — it's on page eight of the documentation that I was given. There were some questions about local government operating expenses, and I will just give you an opportunity to have a look at that.

Now, is any documentation available to us? Just look at your preparation book. No, just look at your binder. How much of that is available to us, in terms of what you prepared there? I know it sounds like a facetious question, but I'm actually…. How much of that is available for us? That's my question, and then I'll sit down.

Hon. I. Chong: I have to say I remember my days in opposition, and I remember sitting over there wondering what was going on, on this side of the room as well. It's a fair question, but a lot of information is prepared as a result of requests that I make, so it might not be of interest to you. It's a learning curve that we all have. When I was in opposition I used to walk in here with big binders myself because I had prepared all my own research information. You will be there one day, too, with all the binders, I'm sure.

What is available are those documents that are in the public domain. We are able to provide them. Obviously, for reasons of policy, while things are being worked on, those are certainly not available to the member. Wherever we're able to share information, I make the offer that we can. Whenever there's more information that the member wishes, again the offer to have staff go over things with you is certainly there too. What we are able to provide, we certainly do. Sometimes we actually are just taking the budget book and the briefings, or the blue books and estimates, and just taking a page and expanding it a little bit more. It's really not as scary as it may look on this side of the room.

N. Macdonald: In terms of local government, the estimates for 2004-2005…. It's a significantly different figure than for 2005-2006. Maybe just a quick explanation for the change? Then, from that, the next question I would ask is about the difference in the subsequent years. So to save time, maybe you could just run through why the difference in operating expenses.

Hon. I. Chong: Without getting into too many specifics, perhaps I could generally explain the changes in the estimates found from year to year. A large part of the increase from '04-05 to '05-06 pertains to traffic fine revenue-sharing. Where it was introduced in '04-05, it was at the tail end. In '05-06 the full year of what those dollars mean will come into that cycle. I believe that with the traffic fine revenue-sharing announced in September '04, we had the balance of the year to go. Then in '05-06, '06-07, etc., the full year is incorporated into those years.

In addition, I know the member is familiar with the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program, the federal government program with the one-third, one-third, one-third share that we have in…. Those, while over five years, are not always equally distributed year to year. It depends on the number of claims that come in. The program itself will certainly be fully allocated and used, as we keep hearing, but that is spread out over a number of years.

Those are the two primary reasons why you may see changes. I want to reiterate that the local government grants the local municipalities receive have not changed. They continue to receive their annual amounts. What does change — as I say, whenever we have opportunities to have infrastructure grant programs and, of course, depending on how people access that and how soon they take advantage of it — will depend on how that shows up in the expenditure of the dollars here in the budget.

N. Macdonald: How much of the budget, then, is federal dollars? How much of the money we're talking about here would come from a federal source?

Hon. I. Chong: There are no federal dollars in our budget. This would be our share of the grant. Of the $800 million Canada–B.C. infrastructure program, our one-third of $267 million, I think, or thereabouts, if it's spread out over the five years in different proportions and not evenly…. That's what's included in the budget. A lot of times when a new program comes in, people are just getting their applications. Then it ramps up in the second, third or fourth year as people realize it's going to be allocated out, and as the program is running out, fewer dollars are allocated for the tail end of the years.

N. Macdonald: Perhaps you could explain, as well, the ministry capital expenditures. They are from $40,000 up to $800,000, so if you could explain that as well. That's in the third phase on page eight.

Hon. I. Chong: I should probably clarify. Maybe it's a bit confusing. The local government dollars allocated for the ministry capital expenditures are not to local governments. These are the ministry local government branch, which is requiring some upgrades. Primarily, it is to bring our systems up to date.

There is a new project to streamline the collection of tax rate information from local governments, to provide electronic support for access and reporting. There is development of an application to support the management and reporting of grant applications, including the Canada infrastructure program. As can be appreciated with the various grant programs that are out there, especially when you're partnering with the federal government, the need to evaluate and provide information on a timely basis sometimes hinges on whether the federal government wishes to extend the program. We're finding, as well, that with more and

more opportunities like this for grants, we are needing to upgrade the system — I wouldn't say it has been neglected, but it has unfortunately not had a substantial upgrade in a while — to be able to put that forward and streamline a number of things.

At times a lot has to do with data collection, with bringing in information and allowing for timely information. I know that even in local government when I was there…. I can appreciate that citizens come in and expect information fairly quickly. They don't understand why they can't receive it with the push of a button. They think everybody is computerized, but even with computerization, you sometimes need to change your system, to upgrade it and make it more efficient and that. This primarily relates to that.

N. Macdonald: Just one or two more questions, then another member has questions for a few minutes.

With that, so I understand: it's $40,000 and then $800,000. Is it to buy equipment? If it is, does that mean you're spending that sum each year? It's not really a one-time purchase of something capital. So are you buying a service from a particular set of individuals, or are you buying equipment? Where is this sum being spent?

Hon. I. Chong: These are, as I say, improvements to our technical support, our database systems. At times they can be brought in and phased in over the three years. For accounting treatment, they are to be capitalized, as opposed to being written off as an operating expense, and that's why they're showing up there. Not everybody understands those terms — capitalizing, amortization. I just thought I would, hopefully, not confuse you. That's the reason for that.

Once those have been taken care of, and if there wasn't a need to upgrade again, because there isn't a program we enter into with the federal government that requires us to have a new system, then it's likely these will be sustainable in the longer term.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, minister, for a few moments of your time. I want to say at the outset that as I look across, I see two of the most capable public servants I ever had the pleasure of working with. You're very fortunate to have them on either side of you today, and I wanted to acknowledge that for them and also for you.

I have a number of questions, and I'm not certain I'll be able to get at them all in the time I have available. I have to be in another place. As you know, and I know your deputy knows, Malahat–Juan de Fuca is one of the more challenging provincial constituencies with respect to municipal issues, with the CRD and the one director representing Otter Point, Shirley, Port Renfrew and up to the Malahat. Similarly, there are issues around annexation in the Duncan area with respect to the Cowichan Valley regional district. Also, the municipalities of Langford, Highlands, Metchosin — I have them all, hon. minister.

I know it's going to be a challenge for me over the next four years to work with you and your staff to manage the growth that's taken place in the region I represent and also the aspirations of those communities, so I don't want to get too much into the question of amalgamation and so on today. There'll be plenty of time for that as we move toward November.

I did make a commitment during the election campaign to a group of citizens in Otter Point and Shirley with respect to the results of a referendum held in February this year. There was an extraordinarily high turnout; 50-plus percent turned out to vote overwhelmingly against joining with the district of Sooke. Those citizens were particularly concerned about the Kemp Lake watershed.

I want to ask a question, and I'm hopeful that the staff here will be able to answer this. The policy of your ministry, as I understand it, is to avoid as much as possible dividing a watershed between districts. Is that the case?

Hon. I. Chong: I welcome the member's participation in these estimates debates. If he is worried about not being able to put all his questions because of his other commitment and if he would like to put them in writing to my staff, we will get the answers to him.

I acknowledge the fact that he has a number of municipalities and a number of areas to represent. Growing up in this area, I know all too well the differences of opinions and attitudes in each of the municipalities.

I think it's fair to say that what our ministry attempts to do is facilitate wherever there are requirements or requests for boundary extensions, for annexation. We as a ministry are not there to impose a system that's not going to work for the citizens, particularly for citizens who come out and in very large numbers express their views on what should happen.

We also try not to break up an improvement district, but sometimes there are challenges in place, and geographic boundaries sometimes do play into this. What we will try to do and continue to do is work with those districts, with those areas, to find the most appropriate measures where we can accommodate the least amount of disruption.

It is not the intention of the ministry, as I say, to go in and suggest a solution without having the consultation of citizens as to what they want to do. There will, at times, be challenges, maybe not so much in this area but in other parts of the province where there are requests that areas want. We have geographic boundaries we have to work around or through to see how that can work.

I'll just expand a little bit on the particular situation, because it is a complicated one. I may have my facts wrong, but as I understand the chronology in Otter Point, Sooke and East Sooke as well…. I wanted to

leave East Sooke out of this at the moment, because there are different issues there.

When there was an annexation with respect to the Silver Spray development, a determination was made that Silver Spray, although not connected in any way by land to the district of Sooke…. An argument was made and accepted, I assume, by the ministry that there was contiguity, if that's a word.

They argued that there was a connection between the Silver Spray properties and the district of Sooke via water. That tended to put the cat amongst the pigeons in my community and in the communities of Otter Point and Shirley. After that decision was made on the East Sooke side of the equation, there was confusion as to whether or not, if you can get into a boat and travel to Sooke, you can therefore be part of the district.

With respect to Otter Point–Shirley, it's much more clear-cut. There are four properties that have applied to the district of Sooke to join with that district. There was a successful counterpetition, and there will be a referendum in November on whether or not that will take place.

Of course, we'll leave the people to decide on that question, but it's the people of Sooke that will be deciding that question, not the people of Otter Point and Shirley. What they did in February is vote 80 percent — and I look around the room — 80 percent. Imagine that. That's an extraordinarily high number, and I think that's the voice of the people in the community saying: "We don't want to go down that road." The reason they don't is because two-thirds of the people in Otter Point get their drinking water from the Kemp Lake watershed. The proposal that was before the district of Sooke and that will go to the people of Sooke for referendum will cut that watershed in half. The people outside of Sooke, not interested in joining Sooke, could have their water compromised by an association with another regional entity.

I know it's a long story, and my colleagues are being patient with me, as you are too, but people in the community are quite concerned about this. They feel, having exercised their democratic rights to vote on the question in February and having it revisited, that they're not having an opportunity to speak to it.

That's part one. I'll put the second question just so I won't have to stand up again, and your staff can ruminate on it.

It's the question of a governance study for the area. What happened during the referendum in February was that the residents said they didn't want to join Sooke, but that was the only question on the ballot. There were no other questions about it. Would you prefer to be a separate, stand-alone municipality? Is the improvement district where you want to be? Do you want to be something else?

I know they've appealed to your staff. Can I mention staff? I guess I can. Gary Paget met with the group. They had a very productive meeting, but they're still not certain about where the government plans to go with their community. If you had any insights on whether a governance study would be possible, if there are funds available in this year's budget, would there possibly be funds available in February? And if that's the case, how can this group of citizens — a large and active group of citizens — access your department further, beyond the initial meetings they've had with Mr. Paget, to look at the governance study?

So, two parts: the watershed question — a separate community is going to be making decisions about drinking water in another community, potentially affecting drinking water in another community; and then, the governance study.

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize. I wanted to make sure I had as much information as possible for the member.

In regard to the property owners wanting to belong to Sooke, I'm sure the member knows it is important that we respect the wishes of those who want to join a municipality. At the same time, if a municipality has issues, it also has to have an opportunity to decide, by referendum, if it wants people to join it. We want this sort of union to work. That's why referendums and alternative processes are available.

The concern he raises about the watershed would certainly be one for those who don't wish to be part of Sooke. What can happen, in fact, is that Sooke does have the power to protect the watershed through its zoning land use authority, and I would certainly look to them to have them understand what is taking place. Should they be annexing and should these four properties join them, they have to take a look at the new boundary that's created, then use their authority through zoning land use to protect those other interests not involved with Sooke. Again, we would be happy to help explain that or work with them to make sure the residents feel this is a possibility, if there's confusion on that. Certainly, we could provide that information.

The other issue on the governance study is a bit more complicated. The ministry does have dollars available for any area that is wishing to annex, to incorporate, but we also have to look at these requests — that there is a reasonable expectation of success, as opposed to somebody who says: "Why don't we access these dollars and see if it works?"

If there is a reasonable expectation that this is going to move ahead but a planning grant is then necessary, we will absolutely want to be there to help provide that, but before I say, "Yes, we'll help with the governance study," we have to have some indication that there will be success. Otherwise, we could have people constantly coming and asking for a study, knowing there may not be a success rate there.

We're here to help facilitate. We want to respect the wishes of the citizens. Hopefully, that's helpful to the member.

Hon. I. Chong: The issue of the feasibility of a grant being provided will be based on the probability of success. That will be derived from a number of things: whether there is community support…. Generally, community support is based on a referendum. Unfortunately, when the referendum was posed in February, it had one question on it and didn't allow for a second question.

The other area that is looked upon, as well, is financial sustainability. While people may wish to incorporate, if there isn't the financial sustainability because of the tax base or what is going to have that community grow, those are also areas we have to take a look at. I was just conferring with my staff to find out, because I understand the dilemma that's being faced here: you get the grant to go forward, but you don't know if you can go forward because you don't know if the grant is there.

What can happen in this particular case — and I'm not going to suggest it happens in every case, but because the member has raised it — is that if there was a group and a meeting and if a community wanted to get together, we could certainly have staff come out and meet and talk about what may or may not take place. Maybe they can gauge some community support in that sense to see whether we can take it the next step further. Certainly, we want to find ways to be helpful in that.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister very much for her comments and her help. I know that in my interactions over the past four months as a newly elected MLA, her staff have been very helpful in my community on this one issue.

I know I'll bid farewell for today, but I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about the other very important issues. The residents of East Sooke are as concerned as the folks in Otter Point, but I raise the Otter Point-Shirley questions today because this is a highly motivated group of individuals. There are 3,600 people living in this district, and they have aspirations. I'm pleased that if they can demonstrate a probability of success, they'll have cooperation from this minister and this government.

The questions around the northern portion of Malahat–Juan de Fuca will have to wait for another day, but I know you're going to be open to discussing those. Thank you very much for your time.

C. Wyse: My understanding, hon. minister, is that your area is responsible for water and sanitary sewer grants underneath the infrastructure program, and I have a series of questions around that, if I may.

I would be interested to know how many communities received their water grant applications for this year, the sums of money for each one of the projects and the communities that received them. I'll leave that question with you and how you decide to proceed with answering it.

Hon. I. Chong: I acknowledge the member for Cariboo South. On the questions the member is raising, I want to confirm, first of all, they're regarding the B.C. community water improvement program versus the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. Can I first get clarification from him on that?

Hon. I. Chong: Then I'll begin with the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. This program saw over 300 community projects approved, and the provincial and federal governments' contribution was $537 million toward a total project value of $800 million over the last four years. These are for communities throughout the province. I don't have a listing here with me, but if the member is keenly interested, we may be able to provide that to him.

To date 316 applications have been received. Requests for two-thirds funding total $454 million, so the total capital cost of the 316 proposed projects currently is $681 million. It's an $800 million pot and $681 million worth of projects, with two-thirds coming from provincial and local governments at $454 million.

Applications are still trickling in. Although the program itself is completely subscribed, it's just that the applications are still being processed, and the balance of it will certainly be entirely placed out.

The other program the member has interest in is the B.C. community water improvement program. During UBCM I met with many communities who expressed an interest in knowing where these were, and I thank the member for also attending with his local community and being at the meeting. This, again, is a $120 million program, of which provincial government is providing $80 million worth.

To date, $17.8 million has been allocated for 21 projects. I have a list of those, and we could probably release that to the member, if he's interested. I won't read them all, because there are quite a few.

I think what's important to note is that during UBCM, with the over 50 meetings I had, this was perhaps the top issue that everyone wanted to find out about. What I've had to say, and I'll repeat again for the benefit of those who may be reviewing Hansard subsequently, is that it was a very popular program, and many applications came in. In fact, we were certainly oversubscribed.

I have made a commitment that the balance of the approved projects will be announced by the end of this year, of this calendar year as opposed to fiscal year. The program was introduced in February, and by December this will all be announced. That's a pretty good time frame, considering grant applications sometimes

Some have asked why they couldn't find out sooner. Because of the popularity of the program, we needed to have the opportunity at UBCM for municipal councils and regional districts to share with us any information we may have been missing on this. We say that the ranking and the scoring of the projects depended highly on two criteria — that is, on environmental concerns and on public health concerns.

In sending in the applications, some people may have listed it but not ranked it nearly as high. I wanted to give an opportunity, a sort of last-minute pitch to those communities I met with, to say that if you have any more information, please send it to me this week when we're back in session so that staff can put it all together and ensure that if we need to bring those forward and have a second look at them, we can.

As I say, some people put their applications in and didn't identify that public health or environment was a huge…. In other cases, we found out that the system had, before UBCM, begun to fail and showed signs of stress. That was all good new information.

So I was glad I had the opportunity at UBCM to allow the members to canvass where we were and also to ask them to provide more information. If we can announce these any sooner before the end of the year, we certainly will. Some have said it's critical that the project be approved by a certain time, due to the construction and the hardness of the ground, of course, where it's colder. It's not like Victoria where construction, I'm proud to say, occurs all year-round. In those circumstances we're going to try to take a look at them, as well, and we will advance them as quickly as possible. We don't want to leave any municipality out in the cold, in that sense, by not having had the opportunity to send us additional information.

C. Wyse: I'm glad the hon. minister reminded me of the courtesy she extended to me at the UBCM, and I do wish to acknowledge that I was very appreciative on behalf of the various local governments I was with. I extend our appreciation not only of your kindness but your professionalism in going about answering the questions.

I appreciate very much your response, and I try to listen very closely, but I may not have quite heard everything accurately. I believe I heard from you that the last set of programs…. I would be provided with the list of projects. But I believe I heard the word "may", which to me is the possibility of receiving the list with regards to the 300-odd projects. I just want to have some clarity on whether I will actually receive it.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, I will have both lists available, the Canada–B.C. as well as the B.C. community water improvement program, for the member.

C. Wyse: I don't want to drag this out, and I should have possibly put the same questions around the sewer, because I just asked about the water. Now, did your answer include both the water and sewer projects?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, the B.C. community water improvement program does include projects that looked at water and sewer. Some people applied for some sewers and applied for water, so when the member receives the list, he'll see which projects have been approved. He'll also see the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program and, again, which projects were approved.

C. Wyse: Without having the list in front of me…. Besides the name of the community that was successful — whether it's an area and so on — will it also include the sums of money, the actual project? What information is actually contained on those lists? If I could have the headlines, that will tell me whether I need to ask any more questions.

Hon. I. Chong: I hope the member will excuse me if I haven't got his particular community lists or if I've got the wrong one, but I'll go based on this. For example, I know 100 Mile House received a project, and the project title will be listed as the Bridge Creek water quality fisheries enhancement. The eligible cost, $997,000, of which $664,700 was the B.C. community water improvement program contribution. On the region that it applies to, it says the Cariboo, and the other one is Williams Lake. That might be his colleague's. The project for the local government is there. The title overall is storm water management project.

Again, the eligible cost in the B.C. community water improvement program dollars…. The region is Cariboo, so I apologize if we haven't got Cariboo North and South, but they do try to list it. We are trying to take a look at every project and not look at any specific region, but really, it's the merits of the projects that are critical here.

While I indicated at UBCM that I know all these projects are important, some are dealing with population growth. They just don't rank as high as those that deal with environmental or public health concerns and priorities. Those had the highest ranking.

C. Wyse: If you could help me once more, I believe I heard you tell me that not all the funds have been awarded. Would you mind refreshing for me how many more funds are left to be awarded? At the same time if you could also provide for me the approximate number of applications that you have in consideration for the unexpended funds…? Please ensure that I'm also accurate, because I believe you said you were going to try and have your decision made by the end of this calendar year, which I would understand to be the end of December.

Hon. I. Chong: I should clarify, in case in my previous answer to the member I might have rolled in the Canada–B.C. infrastructure with the B.C. community water improvement program in my response. I will just make that clarification now.

The B.C. community water improvement program; the $120 million worth of projects, of which the province is providing $80 million…. We have been able to allocate about $17.8 million of that to 21 projects, which leaves about $62.2 million left to be distributed for the balance. We received 316 applications for that, and those 316 applications, if we were to fund the entire amount, would be well in excess of $681 million. So, as you can see, the popularity of the program was 5 or 6 to 1, but that's to be expected. All infrastructure programs are always popular because municipalities certainly see it as a good way to partner and share in the cost of improving it for their citizens.

I hope that's helpful. Yes, December 31 is the date that is sort of the final date. We are absolutely trying to move it a lot quicker, as I've indicated to the member. But because I had given assurance at UBCM to all the municipalities and local governments that met with me…. I said they could have this week to go back to their administrator, check their applications and see if there was any possibility of any new information coming to us and to have it in to us this week. Then I'll give my staff more time next week to take a look at anything we may have missed, any verbal communication they provided to us at UBCM, so that we're in a position to make those announcements as quickly as possible and to have that out so everybody can start on their projects.

C. Wyse: I appreciate your clarity. You've helped me remove some of my confusion.

If I am repeating the question again, I'm going to have to do that. Could I then return to the federal-provincial infrastructure program? In essence, I would ask the same question. The questions are: how much had been awarded from that project? How many applicants? How many funds have not been awarded, if any? How many applicants are in that particular source? In essence, the same series of questions for the other fund. I would also ask that when you give your answer, you clarify whether that's applying to the provincial portion or the combined provincial-federal. I'd just like to know, in your answer, what the actual funds are and how much they represent.

Hon. I. Chong: For the Canada–British Columbia Infrastructure Works program, the $800 million was over a term of about four years for infrastructure programs or projects, and 300 projects were approved. The federal and the provincial share was $537 million, and of course the municipalities — the other one-third — is $263 million.

As I say, I will provide the member with a list, and he will again see the variety and the diversity of all the programs that are there. I think, then, that should provide that. I don't have the total, my staff advise me, of all the applications that were received; 300 were approved. If we could extrapolate that to the same popularity as the B.C. community water improvement program, 5 to 1, then it's pretty clear that there were almost 2,000 applications that likely would have come in for that.

C. Wyse: In my confusion, I've lost track. Are there any unexpended funds in this program that have not been allocated yet? If the answer is yes, then I would like to know when they would be granted.

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, the answer has to be no. It has all been expended or allocated. The approvals are there. A project may not have been started, simply because of timing of construction, but the approvals have been made. That's why the $537 million worth and the other $263 million for municipalities would total up the $800 million project value. I should say that we are continuing to work, as was announced at UBCM, with the federal government to secure yet another infrastructure program.

Here in British Columbia we've been able to make sure that we get our fair share of dollars. The new-deal-for-cities dollars, of course, will allow for communities to look at projects for cleaner water, cleaner air, for transportation — things of that nature. As I indicated at UBCM, these are not matching dollars. These will be permitted to local governments as long as they apply to them. I did have booklets at UBCM that I handed out, and I encouraged the municipal administrators to take them with them, so I hope they do. But all that information is probably available through UBCM, as well, and on their website. If not, we can certainly see if we can provide you with a copy so that areas that you represent are clear about how to make application to those dollars as well.

B. Simpson: The hon. member and I are just as confused sometimes as well. So are our constituents.

As you can well imagine, I have a question to kick us off. I'm wondering how many postcards you've gotten to date.

Hon. I. Chong: I did see a number of postcards that have come into my office here at the Legislature. I don't know the numbers. I have asked staff, though, to ensure that everybody, as long as their writing is legible, receives an acknowledgment that I've received it. I want them to know that I have received them. But I can't give a number. I haven't counted, but I passed by her desk the other day, and I saw perhaps about a half a dozen anyway. Maybe she was still logging them all in. But the postcards are coming in.

The Quesnel slide. We had the discussion at UBCM. I know the city council members were very apprecia-

tive of that discussion and the Premier's attention to it, and I know it's too soon to sort of pursue what has been done as a consequence. I want to talk about slides in general, because it is a generalized issue. I'm wondering if the minister has given any thought to maybe changing the way that communities are supported to deal with these issues.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member, as well, for his participation in that meeting where the Premier met with all the concerned members from his community on that. We certainly know the challenges that are being faced there, and it's one of the reasons we want to work cross-government, where we can, to find a solution.

We've already started that discussion with the provincial emergency program and the Ministry of Transportation so that we have in mind some consultation, some dialogue, as to what can take place. It's not, I guess, an occurrence that happens throughout the province. I know in certain areas it may. We do need to work cross-government to have in place a plan that may be able to deal with these more efficiently or more effectively, as quickly as possible, so that the citizens are not put through the kinds of anxiety that, clearly, they are.

At this point we are working with the other agency and the other ministry to find out what expertise they have in their ministries and how we can develop some sort of strategy to deal with land instability.

B. Simpson: I guess my struggle is…. Prince George, I know, is dealing with the situation. Williams Lake is dealing with the situation. Whistler's got something that's looming. It seems to me that land stability issues seem to be an issue. The difficulty these communities have is that there isn't the direct support.

In the case we have in Quesnel, for example, we have to now wait for a peer review because it wasn't involved with the ministry people, which then delays it further out. It strikes me as if there is a land stability issue that is occurring in parts of the province. Particularly if you look down in the lower mainland, as we start going up the hillsides, this is an issue that could be growing on the horizon. I'm curious if the ministry is actually going to start looking at bringing the expertise to bear so that we don't have duplicate processes, peer reviews or things that get in the way of the communities getting action on this and that slow down the delay process.

The second question is: will we be able to have a program to deal with these things, rather than trying to fit it into some other program that exists?

So, two questions there. One is: will cities have the ability to get access to expertise so we don't have to go through peer review? The second is: will there be some kind of program that we can get direct aid to these things, rather than having to fit it into pre-existing programs that don't really fit?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I think the comments he makes are fair. It would be great to have access to expertise. To be quite frank, we do not have the capacity currently, within the ministries that are involved, to have that expertise. It certainly would be an area that we'd need to seek out and find if there are people out there who have that expertise.

As you can appreciate, with the study that was done for Quesnel and the peer review that's taking place, there are differences of opinion. It is about the engineering and the geotechnical factors. I'm not an engineer; I'm just an accountant. I don't know about those kinds of details. What I can say, though, is: work is underway. I think, as a result of the work, when it is completed, we will see where we could build capacity. We will see where we may need to fill those spots in terms of expertise. So I say it is certainly a fair comment that he raises.

As we evolve in this process and the work continues, we will very likely find out what we can do to have that. The last thing that you'd want, though, is to have to build the capacity and have a branch available and then rarely use the people, because they, too, will get to feel underemployed and underutilized.

The second question he raises, about a new program — again, that's an interesting idea. I'm not averse to the idea of seeing how that might work out. Again, it would require some work to find out what we would be talking about. As the member has pointed out, a number of areas and looming issues, he thinks, are out there. We would certainly have to find out if that, in fact, can be confirmed and whether we need to have something in place. I think we would all agree in the Legislature that to be proactive is much better than to be reactive, but it does take some work to make sure that we can identify those areas and see what we can do to develop them. So I appreciate his bringing those two very valid points to the debate.

B. Simpson: Just so that I don't get labelled again as another Chicken Little, I wasn't suggesting there was a looming crisis.

B. Simpson: I was just suggesting that as you look at urban sprawl, it seems to be going up. Therefore, an environmental scan of where growth is occurring and what the implications are may then lead to, as you've already indicated, the possibility of a gap needing to be filled. So I appreciate those responses.

I'd like to shift tack a little bit here to seniors. It's an area that is of concern in the community I live in, Quesnel. The issue is for seniors advocacy. Our seniors advocacy group in Quesnel really operates on a shoestring. I think they provide a terrific service, because they help seniors to find all of the different programs that are available to them. I know the group that works in Quesnel barely makes it from month to month, yet they deliver a very viable and important service. So I'm

curious: under the new directions that the ministry is going and the new mandate in the throne speech and budget speech around seniors work, is there going to be more support to seniors advocacy groups in our communities?

Hon. I. Chong: I think it's no surprise to everyone, the fact that British Columbia has a very fast-growing aging population. With 13 percent of the population now classified as seniors, 65 and over, in about 24 or 25 years we're going to see it rise to 23 percent — one in four. As I look around the room, I don't know which one of us four will be there, but certainly we're seeing that to be a concern for all of us. How we plan for that is critically important.

As a result, the member may be aware of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues that was established or announced in April and has just recently been established in terms of who will be serving on that council. That was announced this Monday. Dr. Patricia Baird, who is the chair of this particular council, will be having a forum or a dialogue in Vancouver, where she will be bringing in experts who want to talk about aging and seniors issues. Then she will be taking the council around the province — I'm not sure which locations; that is up to her and her council to decide — to be able to reach the public in their communities, in the rural and remote and the urban centres, finding out what are important issues for seniors.

We tend to have a preconceived notion that seniors are only concerned about two main things, and those are health and housing. While those are important, we're hearing that seniors are concerned about other things, such as mandatory retirement, such as transportation — when you consider that seniors need mobility to ensure that they're not isolated. Many seniors that I've met, after having lost their partner and who are still independent and want to remain in their home, suffered or quickly went downhill because of the social isolation they experienced. So we need to make sure that we can address those issues.

Are those all the issues that are going to be addressed? I doubt it. Are there going to be new areas that we hadn't even thought of? I hope so. The council, therefore, will be able to provide us with some ideas of what they've heard and then provide us with recommendations so that this government can start to plan for an aging population.

What we do have currently available to support our seniors are a number of things. We do have a toll-free Health and Seniors Information Line that was launched this February. That actually has a real person at the end of that line. Seniors who I know have said they hate navigating through the "press one, press two and then hit this number sign"; they find it very disturbing. When it was launched, I was personally there with a senior. We tried it, and we got a real, live voice at the other end, and that was very helpful.

We also provide a seniors guide to seniors, because many who are wanting to be independent and may not use the resources of a seniors group want to be able to quickly go through a quick guide to find out information they may otherwise not have known about. We produce that guide.

We continue to take a look at ways of providing information to seniors. We encourage them, as well, to become more computer-literate, because that is the new wave. Some don't want to, and I understand that, but we have encouraged it. I've seen more and more seniors going to their public libraries and accessing computers and therefore seeing what government services and programs are available.

At the end of the day, we are certainly mindful that…. We all have seniors on our minds. Each and every one of us has a senior in our family. I have many in mine. We want to be able to address the issues that are important to them, as far-reaching as they may be. We will look to the recommendations that come to us as well.

Just a final note on the seniors guide before I sit down. These booklets have been very popular. We do make them available to all MLAs. In fact, if you do not have these in your office, we're prepared to send you out a number of them. We start off with 25, and very shortly you find you need another 25, so we could send…. We don't want to send them out and have them sitting there not used, because I've found that other regions in the province — when we were in the throes of having a new edition made, an updated version — had them sitting in some offices and not being utilized, and other people were seriously searching for them.

I've said this as I've travelled around the province: "Go to your MLA office, wherever that is. He or she should have copies of this." Seniors are very, very grateful to have that book. So if any members don't have them, please let us know. We'll make sure you get a good supply for your offices.

B. Simpson: Thanks for those answers. I'd like to explore it a little bit more, but I'm getting kicked in the shins here, and I do have one more area to cover.

It won't come as a surprise, this next area, but in your service plan you have, under "Challenges and Opportunities Facing British Columbians," of course, the mountain pine beetle issue. The statement in the plan is: "The ministry will work with resource ministries and other social ministries to mitigate the socio-economic impacts of these challenges on communities." I'm curious what the nature of that work might be — the more specific, the better, for me.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for raising this very important issue. Sometimes here on the Island and in the lower mainland we forget what is happening around the province, and the mountain pine beetle certainly is devastating a lot of communities. Our government has developed an action plan to help mitigate the impacts of this epidemic.

What this ministry is involved in is working cross-government to be of assistance to our local communi-

ties and local governments, where I have responsibility. It's not strictly a forestry industry…. I mean, the forest industry, of course, is impacted. But the towns, the people who live in the towns and the local governments which have to make decisions need to have a representative or a person that they want at the table. That, therefore, is me, working through the Ministry of Community Services with other ministries and other agencies across government as well as a number of communities.

It means our ministry is part of a cross-government deputy ministers' committee to talk about whatever measures are brought in. We can all bring to the table how things might affect that community. While it may affect economic issues in one, we may say: "Well, then we've got social things to think about."

We may have local government concerns that need to be addressed. This will allow us to collaborate and more effectively ensure that the dollars being allocated or resources being put forward to help a community are more effective.

It is about working cross-government. It is about finding ways to support economic diversification. It is about ensuring that our local governments know that they're part of the stakeholders when it comes to this impact on their community.

S. Fraser: To the minister, thank you. The handbook on seniors has been of use to my constituency. We have one of the highest populations of seniors per capita in Canada in my riding, so it has been of use.

Just out of consideration for your staff: I'm going to be changing gears here. The local government tsunami preparedness program — just a couple of questions on that, if I may. Alberni-Qualicum is my constituency. It incorporates the west coast of Vancouver Island and central Vancouver Island. There was a resolution put forward by the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district that was endorsed at the UBCM. It was regarding getting aid in preparedness for a potential tsunami disaster. As you know, Alberni had an experience in the '60s with a tsunami. And there have been a number of warnings on the west coast too — the Tofino, Ucluelet, Bamfield area — whenever there's an earthquake. You probably hear the tremor in my voice. Excuse me.

The program is available for…. Is it $20,000 for high risk and $10,000 for medium risk? Is that correct, minister?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member for Alberni-Qualicum: I'm glad that the seniors handbooks have been of use to him.

With regards to the emergency preparedness dollars, a million dollars was provided in 2004 to UBCM and another million and a half just this past year. So there was $2.5 million provided to UBCM which the communities can access to provide….

I apologize. I can't confirm whether it's $20,000 or $10,000, because it is a program that…. While UBCM is administering it, the dollars have been made available through the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. If the member wants more information on that, he may be able to speak with the Solicitor General when he has his estimates or, more quickly, can just contact UBCM, which may be able to provide that information to him.

S. Fraser: I don't know whether you can answer this, then. The amount that was made available — was there a basis for that based on what was needed by the communities? Or is that a question I should be directing elsewhere? Was it a sum that was available in the budget, or was it reflective of some plan for protection and preparedness?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, the question would be better directed to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I think it would be fair to say that we wanted, as a result of the tsunami that occurred in Southeast Asia, to be able to look at our own needs in our province. When the dollars were initially provided, it may well have been: "Let's at least start addressing the problem." Then another additional $1½ million was provided. It would have to be needs-based.

UBCM is administering a number of programs. I think they might also be in a position to understand which communities are coming forward for some assistance in planning. For more detailed information, the Solicitor General would probably be best to offer up that information.

N. Macdonald: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Ilich
Chong	Christensen	Les
Richmond	Bell	Bennett
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Hawkins	Krueger
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 32

S. Simpson	Evans	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Brar	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Ralston
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy


	YEAS — 27

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Brar
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Dix	Bains
Robertson	Ralston	Krog
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy

	NAYS — 43

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Hawkins
Krueger	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad


	YEAS — 43

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell
Taylor	Bond	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Hawkins
Krueger	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 27

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Brar
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Dix	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Ralston
Krog	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Conroy