Hansard -- Friday, October 7, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 4 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Committee of the Whole House		739
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Horgan

Report and Third Reading of Bills		745
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12)

Royal Assent to Bills		746
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12)

Hon. M. de Jong: On this new day in the life of the Legislature, I call committee stage debate on Bill 12.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; S. Hawkins in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just before we begin, I might introduce to members of the House members of senior staff at the ministry: Mr. Rick Connolly, and if people are not familiar with him, they certainly are with his work; and Annette Wall from the ministry.

J. Horgan: I see a challenge ahead of us, Madam Chair, but I'm sure that the table officers will assist you in seeing me spring to my feet, with a dance in my step, a twinkle in my eye and a song in my heart as I put the questions to the Minister of Labour and his staff on Bill 12.

On section 1, the act describes and defines some entities. In particular, I'd like to focus on the employers association. Could the minister tell us who the employer is?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to try and ensure that I provide the member in the House with as accurate as possible answers.

The section is a definition section. In that section, "employers' association" is a defined term. I'm not sure my answer to that question would be the same as my answer to who the employer is. I'm not sure how that question relates to section 1. That is not to be troublesome, but I want to make sure I provide an accurate answer.

J. Horgan: Let's just go with that, then. Who is the employers association? What is the employers association?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first part of the answer is as set out in the section. "Employers' association" is defined as the B.C. Public School Employers Association, often referred to as BCPSEA. Then I think the second part of the question was: who is that, and who comprises that organization? I am reminded that that is an entity created by the Public Education Labour Relations Act, which establishes BCPSEA as the accredited employer's bargaining agent for all 60 public school boards in the province.

J. Horgan: What I'm getting at is that there's some confusion in the public minds about who the employer is with respect to educators in British Columbia. Now, we can get to that at subsequent sections, but what I'd like to know with respect to the definitions in section 1 is: who comprises this entity? Who are they? What's the gender balance? Is there a geographic representation? I understand there are provincial appointees to that body. Maybe we'll just start with that. Who does the province appoint to the BCPSEA?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise that the province appoints — when I say the province, I mean the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia — four members to the BCPSEA entity.

J. Horgan: At this moment in time — today, which I think is now Friday, no longer Thursday — who are those four members?

Hon. M. de Jong: The four appointees to BCPSEA include two representatives from the Ministry of Education, Peter Owen and Keith Miller, and two officials from the public sector employers association, Bob de Faye and Scott McCannell.

J. Horgan: Over the course of the 18 months, where there's been an impasse in these negotiations which has led us to be at committee stage on Bill 12 — which, in the explanatory notes, allegedly settles the dispute — how many different individuals have represented the provincial interest at the BCPSEA?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry for the delay. I'm advised that Messrs. Owen and Miller have been longtime members of the body and that in terms of the 18 months the member refers to in his question, there is a belief that there may have been a change. But we'd have to verify that. I certainly don't know. The officials here are trying to verify whether the change they're thinking about took place within the 18 months that the member has referred to.

J. Horgan: I guess what I'm probing at here, minister, is that there hasn't been continuity from the province in terms of the individuals. But has there been continuity in terms of the mandate of those four individuals? Are they directed by the ministers they report to, or are they directed by another entity? What role and function do they play with the other trustees? Are

they voting members? Do they bring messages from the Crown, or are they just there to report back?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question. I think it is also fair to say that the individuals who are representatives or who derive from the Ministry of Education and the public sector employers association would be there. The four of them are part of the group of — I'm trying to recall — about 15 who sit on the board. They would bring the views and reflect the mandates of the departments of government that they represent.

J. Horgan: With respect to the two that are not…. I'm reluctant to name one of them because I know him. I know him well, and I think very highly of him. Of the two that don't report to the Minister of Education, do the other two report to the Minister of Finance?

J. Horgan: As we go through other clauses, there's a reference to the Minister of Finance. I'm wondering…. We'll get to that point. As I read the definitions of the act, section 1, the parties are the B.C. Teachers Federation and the employers association. It could be, based on the comments the minister has made, that the parties are also, in fact, the Ministry and the Minister of Education and the Ministry and Minister of Finance. Am I correct or not?

J. Horgan: We have heard that the minister made a comment during second reading debate that the parties couldn't agree on a cup of coffee. Could the minister tell us who advised him of that? Was it the representatives from the Ministry of Education or the representatives from the Ministry of Finance?

J. Horgan: That does draw into question other conclusions that have been reached at second reading debate. If the representatives of the Crown and the government of the executive council and the government of British Columbia are not advising the Crown and the government of British Columbia of what's going on at the meetings with respect to coffee or tea or other breakfast or lunch items, then what are they advising the government of?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that none of the four individuals who are appointees from government to BCPSEA actually participate in the negotiations or at the actual bargaining table.

J. Horgan: If the government representatives are not participating at the table, then where does the mandate for the BCPSEA come from directly? How is it issued, who is it issued by, and who is it issued to?

Hon. M. de Jong: The question relating to the development of the mandate by BCPSEA…. I can offer the member this synopsis. It is best to think about it in terms of a three-part — not really a three-stage, but a three-part — process involving consultations between BCPSEA, the school boards and the school trustees that are elected in districts across the province. That's one part of it — what is on their minds, and what are the issues of concern to them? There are then a series of consultations with the Ministry of Education focusing specifically on policy-related issues that are of import to the ministry. Finally, there's PSEC for the financial component of the mandate. My understanding, then, is that BCPSEA develops an overall mandate on the basis of the information they have derived, essentially, from those three sources.

J. Horgan: I'm pretty clear on the role of the elected trustees and their functions in this process.

What I'm getting at…. If you'll indulge me, I'll try and give you a glimpse of my psyche here again. The public is challenged by this, and it's complex. You've made it clear that there are multiple parts to it, so one would need some time and some thought to figure out just how the structure works. The public seems to understand that the government of B.C. is the employer.

This act lays out the employers association as the employer. PSEC and other entities are responsible for that. Is there some way that perhaps the minister would take a moment and explain to the public how it is that this body with appointees from the province — elected representatives from trustees — is serving the interests of the Crown?

Again, forgive me, because the hour is not so late, but if you just got into Friday, it could be late. How do I explain to my constituents and how do my colleagues explain to their constituents how it is that the government says one day — outside of this place and sometimes in this place — that they don't want to seize the opportunity and involve themselves in the negotiation…? Yet as we get to subsequent clauses, we'll find that the Minister of Finance is intimately involved in this — a senior representative of the executive council, the keeper of the public purse. We find that the Ministry of Education, setting policy on issues like class size and class composition, is involved.

When I go back to my constituents and say that the government is imposing their views with respect to class size and class composition and the wage mandate with respect to zero-and-zero, they say: "Well, that's

the government — right?" I say that no, actually, it's not the government. It's BCPSEA, which is some hybrid entity that has government representatives that report to members of executive council. It has elected school board trustees who, while taking their direction from government, are the majority on the board. I'm confused by that. I'm certain that people in my community are.

If the minister would take advice and perhaps inform the House just how all of that means that you're really not responsible and that someone else is. The mandate is derived from exactly where? I'm still not clear on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to try. I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy any more success here than perhaps others have enjoyed since 1992, when a previous government established this process by which these negotiations take place and mandates are developed.

I'm sure the member will have other questions that flow from this. But in a general way, I think he points to a very vexing problem that has contributed to some of the root problems. That is that there is a division. If we think back to the evolution of these processes — not just over the last ten or 15 but over the last 50 years — there's a situation where school boards were created and vested with a certain authority by this Legislature and were the employer. But they were also something else in those days. They were also essentially responsible for raising the funds necessary to fulfil their obligations. Of course, that has undergone some significant changes over the years.

The dilemma that we and others have come across is a situation in which the employer of record is a school board and then a BCPSEA organization, and yet the funding agent is the provincial government. So there is this tension and this link that exist whereby an employer charged with negotiating a contract and fulfilling the terms of that contract has to take very serious account of funds that it has little control over the flow of.

As the funding agent, the provincial government of the day has a very significant role. If you look at the recent history of this, much of the tension that has characterized these negotiations is attributable to that division or that divide, in my view at least.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. It is somewhat helpful, but I'm still, regrettably, perplexed at how the BCPSEA derived its mandate of zero-zero-and-something-else-after-that.

How did that come about? Who told them that? Did they arrive at that conclusion on their own based on what inputs? And were those inputs from one of the ministers responsible, or did it in fact come from the Premier's office?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a fair question. I'm reminded and advised that they derived that in precisely the same way they have derived it over the last 13 years since this model was established. That is, when they conducted their consultations with PSEC, we were told what the funding would be calculated on the basis of. In this case, it was the zero-zero mandate.

I don't think there's a lot of vagueness about that. They would have been told, as they have been in past manifestations of this, what the government of the day, via its financial arm in PSEC, was prepared to fund.

J. Horgan: So then when we get to the definitions of parties, it means the BCTF, which is the bargaining agent for the employees — the teachers in this instance — and the employers association. We go back up, and that is the BCPSEA, which is comprised of elected representatives and observers, participants, representatives of the provincial government and, in particular, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education. Are there staff resources for this body, and who funds them?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are staff resources, and I am advised it is funded through PSEC in the same way that the other employers associations are.

J. Horgan: In terms of staff resources, what's the complement — how many? What's their expertise? And do they participate in the bargaining on behalf of the elected representatives, or are they note-takers advising on beverages and so on?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that…. We haven't defined in specific terms what we mean by "staff support," but I'm going to try and offer this information. In terms of professional staffing support, it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 to 20 individuals — folks with perhaps some labour-negotiating backgrounds, actuarial abilities. And I'm told it is very common for people to be seconded in from school boards who have experience of the sort that would be helpful through this process.

J. Horgan: Thank you for that, hon. minister. I think we're making some progress here. I'm clearer. I have just a couple more questions on this section.

So PSEC or government sets the mandate in terms of wages — the fundamental component of the negotiation. BCPSEA is told what that mandate is, in terms of what they're able to negotiate, and the Ministry of Education sets policy through the School Act with respect to working conditions. What exactly is the responsibility of this secretariat, these seconded individuals, and the organization, in fact, if the mandate is set by the Minister of Finance and the policies are set by the Minister of Education? What is the function of BCPSEA if they're not able to bargain those issues? If they don't set their own mandate, what are they doing?

The member neglected, of course, to refer to the third group that actually comprise the majority of the board, which are the locally elected school trustees. They, obviously, bring a perspective. I don't, however, deny the significance of…. Oh, I'm told the number I referred to between 15 and 20 is actually 19 staff. So whilst one mustn't diminish the significance of the contribution made by locally elected school trustees, it is certainly true that when PSEC, or the financial arm of government, says, "Here is the funding allocation," that plays a major role in determining the development of the overall mandate for the negotiators.

That is not to say, however, as we saw in other examples with other employers associations, that there is not still some room, albeit limited room, within those particular mandates to develop some other ideas and alternatives to a variety of issues.

J. Horgan: As we look at the definitions, we have defined the representative of the teachers. We have defined the association that's made up of the groups and individuals that we've just discussed, and they make up the parties. But I'm curious in terms of definitions. As we read through the act, we find the Minister of Finance. I guess we don't need to define who the Minister of Finance is or what the Minister of Finance does. Is that why it's not in that section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am trying to remember back to the rules around the canons of construction for statutes, and I cannot in all honesty recall whether or not the Minister of Finance is specifically defined in B.C. statutes in something like the Interpretation Act.

Suffice to say that it is generally accepted that it refers to a member of the executive council who is responsible for the Finance Ministry.

J. Horgan: As we get to section 2, I have some difficulty with some language right off the top inasmuch as the title of the section says "Constitution of teachers' collective agreement." Yet teachers weren't party to this agreement beyond being named in the act. They weren't here collectively. They didn't agree. So how could that be the heading for the section?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have benefited from some four or five — depending on how we count them — days of debate, and I think it is abundantly clear to all that this agreement is provided for statutorily. It is not one that was arrived at through the free collective bargaining process. Nonetheless, the convention in terms of, again, the drafting of these pieces of legislation is to refer to it as such.

J. Horgan: I could suggest other language, like the "imposed agreement" act or the "brought down without consultation" act. I'm just curious on the agreement, but I do understand. I know the minister recognizes that I might be having a bit of sport at this late or early hour in the day, but I think it's important. As we go through the clauses of this bill — for those who are watching and those in the House who are learning for the first time what we do with legislation as it comes forward — it's incumbent upon members to look at language. Language is precise.

The Speaker chastised many of us for straying from the intent of amendments during second reading debate. I'm wondering why we didn't use precision when we described what we're actually doing here.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am ultimately beholden in such matters to the advice and expertise of legislative drafters to ensure a degree of parallelism with the previous statutes that we have talked about in the course of this lengthy debate and for the sake of consistency with the other occasions when the intervention of this Legislature was necessary. That is the language that I am advised is applicable here.

J. Horgan: Certainly, I know the legislative drafters have been busy with back-to-work legislation over the mandate of this government, so I'm sure they're developing an expertise at this point. I know we've already let that go by, but maybe we should have put a definition for collective agreements in this instance, because it doesn't seem to fit any definition of collective agreement that any of us on this side of the House has any expertise or understanding of.

Perhaps the minister — while we're in this section, and we don't have the benefit of a definition in section 1 — could tell us what, in his mind, constitutes a collective agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sadly, as I think I mentioned to the member earlier in the debate, the expertise that the hon. member refers to around the development of this terminology is one that the drafts people have had many occasions to develop and enhance — in 1998 the imposed Public Education Collective Agreement Act, in 2000 the Public Education Support Staff Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

The member has, during the course of the second reading debate and again now, effectively and skilfully, I think, made his point that this is not a collective agreement of the sort that we generally consider or want to see emerge from a freely negotiated process. It is an imposed agreement, imposed by this Legislature. I must rely upon the tenets and canons of construction that are used and that tell me that that is the terminology applicable here.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for acknowledging it. It will save me some time and this House some time in probing that question any further.

Certainly, the International Labour Organization shares our view that nothing could be further from a

collective agreement than the process or the results that have been forthcoming in this sector over the past number of years. I thank the member for his being candid on that, and we can take it as given, then, that we're not talking about collective bargaining in any recognizable fashion or that people on this side of the House — and I'm certain that some on that side, as the member says — recognize. So that's fine.

Moving on, then, to section 2(2): "Subject to the limits set out in section 27 of the School Act, the parties may vary, by agreement, the collective agreement constituted under subsection (1) of this section."

I've got the School Act here, and I'm looking at section 27, "Terms and conditions of teachers' employment and restricted scope of bargaining." Am I and those of us on this side of the House to understand that by passage of this section, we are confirming the government's view that class size and class composition are not workplace issues that merit discussion between the parties?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are actually two parts to this subsection that are of significance. The first is that its inclusion signifies the ability the parties have to actually vary the terms of the agreement that this piece of legislation creates. That's the first part of the section. It also, in so doing, confirms that the provisions of section 27 of the act remain in place, and any amendments or changes that the parties purport to negotiate pursuant to subsection (2) must not be inconsistent with those statutory provisions.

J. Horgan: If I understand it, then, when I look at the provisions that were added to the School Act by government and at the act that we're discussing right now, if school district 62 or school district 79 came to an understanding with the BCTF, educators, parents and all of the people that we want to be participating in these questions on ratios with respect to teacher-librarians or special needs assistance…. If they were inconsistent with the language in this act, would they then be illegal?

J. Horgan: So the minister is telling the House that if trustees in my constituency come up with ratios that will improve outcomes for students and agree to it, this act makes that illegal?

Hon. M. de Jong: My apologies for the delay. There is certainly nothing to restrict — in the example, I think, that the hon. member provided — that school board to which he referred from developing, in consultation with its employees association, some protocols around class size that would go beyond the maximums established in the legislation. There's nothing I'm aware of that would preclude that from occurring.

J. Horgan: So then the BCPSEA does have a role, after all, in terms of class size and class composition inconsistent with the ratios set out in the School Act. If they reduced that number, you're saying that's okay? If they can come to an agreement whereby the numbers set out in this act are diminished, that's fine?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm afraid I may have misunderstood the original question. I thought the original question related to the ability of a school board — and that was the answer — as opposed to the involvement or abilities of BCPSEA. If I misunderstood the question, I may have given an inaccurate answer.

J. Horgan: So should I go back to the minister's first answer? I'll make it specific to a school board again. If the Sooke school board can reach agreement to increase the number of teacher-librarians in the district, contrary to section 27 of the School Act, that's not illegal?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is certainly nothing I'm aware of to preclude that school board from embedding in policy, which is a result of discussion with its employees or employees association, the kinds of improvements — I think the member is referring to them as improvements — that I believe his question contemplates.

J. Horgan: That's correct. But if those agreements between parties were codified with respect to a collective agreement, then we're talking something different altogether.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. I think the difficulty I'm having is getting my head around the notion of agreements at the school board level, insofar as we now have a system since 1992 where the bargaining agent is BCPSEA.

J. Horgan: Let me try again. I appreciate, again, the hour. We're getting on a bit here. With local bargaining, within the context of provincial bargaining, if the school district and the association in that district came to an agreement with respect to ratios that were inconsistent with those found in the School Act, could that district bring that to BCPSEA, and would BCPSEA accept that as an agreement bargained outside of the parameters of this bill and the School Act?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. I think I get the point, and I think the answer that I should have given is to confirm that that individual board can't sign a separate collective agreement, if that's the term we're using. They can't sign a separate collective agreement that would relate to these provisions or any other.

J. Horgan: I'll take that from the minister, and we can move on. I'll assume, then, that ideology and the imposition of the initial contract and the changes to the School Act trump local school boards, which the Minister of Education has said repeatedly are masters of

their domain who are in a better position, certainly, than we are in this House to make determinations about class size and resources in schools. They cannot do so under this act, and what we have in section 27 prevails over local decision-making, local issues.

I'll just move on with that to subsection (3). The Minister of Finance there again jumps out at me: "Despite subsection (2), a provision of the collective agreement constituted under subsection (1) that creates an obligation for the government must not be varied unless the Minister of Finance approves the variation."

So we're on to a similar issue now, but it's with respect to compensation. We've discovered from subsection (2) that local autonomy doesn't exist with respect to bargaining conditions, and now we learn in subsection (3) that it doesn't exist with respect to bargaining wages. Am I to understand that this section precludes local decisions with respect to wages and compensation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The provision has, again, two significant elements to it. Like the previous subsection, it contemplates the possibility of a midcontract modification so that the parties could sit down and look at ways that they could alter or improve the agreement.

What it safeguards against is a midcontract modification that would create cost obligations for the government. I am told that language similar to this…. I don't use this as a way of trying to truncate the discussion, but as we go forward, the member may wish to know that similar language was incorporated in 1993 in Bill 31, Educational Programs Continuation Act; in 1996, in Bill 21, Education and Health and Collective Bargaining Assistance Act; Bill 39, 1998, Public Education Collective Agreement Act; and then in five pieces of legislation — the Vancouver transit employees, nurses and paramedics, professionals, and health support workers acts — since 2001. The member likely will have more questions about this, but it is designed to protect against the parties, in exercising their right to a midcontract modification, using that as a mechanism by which to create additional cost implications for the provincial Crown.

J. Horgan: So the Minister of Finance is not a party to the agreement in the definitions section, but yet the Minister of Finance has veto over any deliberations that could take place with respect to compensation between the parties. I'm just curious why, then. Perhaps this is the issue that the minister's been trying to get at all week long, and we have too. The Minister of Finance is the ultimate arbiter on where executive council and Treasury Board decide to spend money. It's clear by having that office named in this legislation that if you can't get it through cabinet, it isn't going to happen.

So without a mandate to negotiate wages, without a mandate to negotiate key working conditions important to student outcomes like class size and class composition, why wouldn't we have just — instead of going through Bill 12 as it's written now — had a section that said the party was the Minister of Finance because this hasn't been collectively bargained?

There is no agreement. We can take "agreement" out. We can take "collective" out. Why don't we just say that this act says that the Minister of Finance will not provide any further funding for education with respect to teacher compensation and that the Minister of Education, who is a party through staff at BCPSEA, dictates that the School Act is paramount and working conditions are not a negotiable item with respect to B.C. teachers in this province?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the more I listen to him, the more I am convinced that this member may have a life as a legislative draftsperson after politics.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member who asks whether that is a compliment is a lawyer and, therefore, will know that it is not. I hesitate to say this in her presence, but the Finance Minister is a pretty powerful person in government.

The point that the member again has made, which I think has frustrated many people over the years but is a point worth making, is this. It is that the funding for these agreements that we negotiate, that the employers councils negotiate and that school trustees participate in via, in this case, BCPSEA comes from the provincial government. Actually, it comes from taxpayers. It is channelled through the provincial government, and there again lies that disconnect. It is a disconnect that has frustrated people now for some time — this notion that you are negotiating with one group, and yet it is another entity that ultimately controls a big part of what that negotiating mandate will be, which is the financial component to it.

Within government, I know the member knows, the Finance Ministry and the Treasury Board are the agencies ultimately responsible for establishing…. In government we use these big terms like fiscal mandates and whatnot. They actually decide how much we're going to spend and where, and that has repercussions for any agency that is ultimately involved in the dispensation of those moneys.

J. Horgan: That's why this act is so off base. The minister can vary mandates. The minister has every opportunity to vary mandates. We varied the tax provisions in this province by providing $500 million to corporations just last week. We varied the tax act so that we could give some of the money in the treasury back to large corporations in British Columbia.

The minister could have varied the fiscal mandate when that individual took the position of Minister of Finance. I'm not quite clear how, in committee, I direct the attention to the individual position.

The Minister of Finance can vary the mandate of BCPSEA by providing resources to provide wage in-

creases for educators in British Columbia. That is something that can happen today. It could have happened before this bill. It should have happened before this bill. That's why we're here today. She chose not to vary the mandate with respect to working people and educators in this province. She chose to vary the mandate with respect to the taxation provisions that allow large corporations to have significant returns without even asking for it.

Similarly, this act precludes local school boards, local teaching associations and the BCPSEA from reaching agreement on issues with respect to class size and class composition, the two fundamental issues that we've been talking about for the past dozens and dozens of hours in this place.

In conclusion, that is why we on this side have worked so diligently and so hard to represent the people who are not being represented by those on that side of the House. That's why this is an odious piece of legislation, and that's why I'll be voting against this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 12, Teachers' Collective Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time on the following division and passed:

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the House will go into recess now awaiting the Administrator for royal assent.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: Wishing all members and British Columbians a happy and safe Thanksgiving Day weekend, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 17, at 10 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Campbell	Taylor
Bond	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Krueger	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 26

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


	YEAS — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Campbell	Taylor
Bond	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	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


	YEAS — 42

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	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 — 26

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