2012 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 31, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: I notice in the gallery today a firefighter from my community, Norm MacLeod, who is the shop steward, I think, for the local union in our fire department. Could the House please make Norm welcome and thank him for all of the great work he does in our community.

Orders of the Day

Hon. I. Chong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we are debating the Ministry of Advanced Education budget estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to take my place to continue my representation on Bill 22. When we adjourned yesterday, I had spent some time talking about the misplaced notion that this is somehow a fair and balanced mediation that we're seeing, which has been incorporated in Bill 22. At that point, as I'd said, the challenges with it are not only the fact that it restricts to non-monetary items….

[D. Black in the chair.]

Even setting that aside, the reality is it has essentially said that what will be mediated here are the concession demands of the employer, while the whole list of items that the teachers have put on the table that are not monetary in nature are, in fact, not part of this discussion and have not been allowed to be part of this discussion. I enunciated that list yesterday when we went ahead.

[1005]

There's also, of course, the problem that mediators tend — if you're an effective mediator — to function best when they're selected through some kind of mutual agreement. But we know that in this instance the mediator will be selected by the government regardless of the view of the teachers as to the appropriateness of the individual, whoever that may be, when that decision comes.

What I'd like to take my last bit of time here today to talk about, one of the key issues…. I want to talk about the issues that ended up in front of the Supreme Court that led to the aspect of this legislation that deals primarily with questions of class size and composition.

As you will know, the government in 2002 passed legislation that was challenged by the teachers in the Supreme Court. The teachers were successful in having this legislation deemed essentially unconstitutional because of the nature in which it was adopted, without consultation with the teachers and without respect for the tenets of collective bargaining.

What we saw there were restrictions that were put on the ability of teachers to have the right to bargain class size and composition and matters related to that. So the courts ordered the government, within one year, to come back and to sit down with the teachers and to find some common ground that would allow a resolution of this to come forward. We know, of course, that timeline is coming to a close.

Instead of actually resolving the matter…. The government's failure to resolve the matter — and some people would say the government's failure of good faith to resolve the matter — leaves us in the situation that we are in today where the government essentially, in some aspects, is bringing back the exact legislation that the courts overturned — the exact wording in the legislation that the courts overturned.

I'd like to just quote a couple of pieces. First of all, what the judge, Justice Griffin, said in ruling against the government on this matter:

"The government consulted fully with the employers before passing the legislation, over at least a seven- or eight-month period…. Internal government documents indicate that at least some government officials expected that the teachers union would be very opposed to the legislation. The government has not offered any explanation as to why…it could not also have consulted with the B.C. Teachers Federation about the intended legislation.

"By passing this legislation without so much as consulting with BCTF, the government did not preserve the essential underpinnings of collective bargaining, namely good-faith negotiation and consultation."

So we have where we have gotten to today with this matter. We have a situation now where what the government is doing is very much similar to what occurred then. I would note, and I would like again just to quote a little bit more from an opinion piece that we saw in the Vancouver Sun today, prepared by Joel Bakan, who teaches in the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia. Just to quote a couple of his observations in a pretty strongly worded opinion piece that he advanced today questioning the government and the decisions that the government has made in Bill 22 and the constitutionality of, in fact, what has been done here.

Professor Bakan says in his piece today:

"In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government had violated the Canadian Charter by imposing legislative restrictions on the rights of health workers to bargain collectively. In April 2011 the British Columbia Supreme Court followed that
[ Page 9782 ]
decision to rule that legislation concerning teachers was unconstitutional and thereby invalid because it prohibited bargaining on class size, class composition and the ratios of teachers to students.

"It is those very same restrictions that the government now seeks to reinstate with Bill 22 — a disturbing disregard for such a recent judicial declaration that they are constitutionally invalid."

[1010]

That is a remarkable thing here. This government knows full well that what they have incorporated in Bill 22 is very likely going to end up before the courts again and will very possibly, depending on a judicial decision, end up being dealt with in the same way that the previous legislation was dealt with by the courts.

But those of us who would think that this is nothing but a cynical move on the part of this government…. It's a desperate effort to get over this hump at this point in time rather than to deal with the real and substantive issues.

Professor Bakan went on to say in the piece:

"Governments are obliged to govern according to law. That is what distinguishes democracies from tyrannies. As a fundamental democratic principle, the rule of law is seriously jeopardized when governments play fast and loose with constitutional and international laws, as this government is now doing with Bill 22."

That's what the legal profession is saying about what this government has done.

It's very concerning that in fact that is the direction that we would see the government taking. I don't doubt for a minute that the comments that were made by Professor Bakan here…. I don't doubt for a minute that those comments and those assessments of the legal parameters of what Bill 22 does are probably pretty close to some of the advice that this government has got from its own advisers.

But I don't think it really matters, because I don't think that this is about good government. I don't think this is about good legislation. I don't think this is about trying to find some room here to reach an agreement that's acceptable. This is about trying to get around this problem.

In this case, it's to get around the problem that the courts found the actions and conduct of this government unconstitutional. That's what the B.C. Supreme Court decided and that the government has not done the work to resolve that question in any way, shape or form.

Instead, what the government does is come back and bring in Bill 22, which in fact incorporates language that the courts threw out. It comes back and says: "Class size. We're going to take a pass on that. You can talk about it in a year." It says: "Students with special needs in classes. We're going to take a pass on the law as it exists today in terms of how many children you can have in a class."

In terms of the ability to discuss class size and composition…. Well, all of those things that the previous minister had talked about when the former minister…. In 2006, when the government introduced the Education (Learning Enhancement) Statutes Amendment Act, the former Education Minister, now the Attorney General, came and talked about how the government and schools would be consulting with teachers on the makeup of classrooms.

Well, here we are ripping up exactly that same clause and saying: "We're not talking to teachers anymore. That's not important. We don't have to talk to teachers because we have a legislative hammer."

That's the story of a government that just uses the crude implements that are available to it instead of trying to find solutions that work for British Columbians. That's very problematic.

So you have a situation where the government, in fact, has removed many of those pieces, has told the teachers that they have no room to talk on these matters. Now, we'll see how the teachers respond to this in regard as to whether they go back to court or not. That will be a decision that the teachers will make, presumably at some time in the future.

But it's unfortunate that we're needing to debate the future of our kids' education and the role that teachers will play in our children's education in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That's not the place where that discussion should be happening.

It should be happening with educators and with parents and with trustees and with ministry officials, and it should be happening in a way where people are trying to find common cause to resolve these matters. But that is not what's occurring today, and instead, we have the government moving forward to bring this particular piece of legislation in.

[1015]

As this moves forward, what do we hear? I know that I have received literally hundreds and hundreds of e-mails and letters, as well as phone calls, from constituents — some of them teachers, many of them not teachers, many of them parents. They have contacted me with their concern about what's occurring here.

What I'd like to do is just read some pieces from a couple of my constituents. I chose here not to select pieces that were written by teachers but rather pieces that were written by parents of children in my constituency who have concern about how Bill 22 is playing out and about how this whole matter is being addressed.

This is a quote from Mr. Gregor and Ms. Ficart around their children. They are constituents in my constituency, and they write a fairly long letter, but I'll just quote one clause out of this letter. This is a letter, I would note, that has been addressed to the Premier.

"The future of our children is not yours to sacrifice in the name of balanced budgets or for the political expediency of winning back the fraying right wing of your party. We demand that your government sit down with teachers in good faith, respect the ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court and engage in meaningful negotiations and work together to do what's best for all the children of the province."

That's good advice. It's good advice from my constituents. It's good advice that, if there was any sense on that side of this chamber, the government would be paying attention to.
[ Page 9783 ]

Ms. Brown, who is a parent in my constituency, says she's writing on behalf of her family, which includes two school-aged children. They are "outraged at the treatment that teachers in the province are receiving and, by extension, my children." She goes on to say:

"My family asks this government to reconsider your position towards teachers and their labour action. Do not pass Bill 22. Bargain in good faith. Let teachers decide on class size. Allow experienced teachers to keep their seniority. Treat my children and their teachers with the respect, dignity and rights they deserve."

That's what Ms. Brown has to say as the parent of two school-aged children in my constituency.

The last letter I'll read is not a long letter. I'll read this one in its entirety. It's from Ms. Zanker, who is a parent in my constituency.

"I am a Vancouver-Hastings citizen and a working mother of a school-aged child who attends Franklin elementary school in East Vancouver. I urge you to withdraw your proposed Bill 22 that would legislate a contract on teachers. This legislation is provocative and will not motivate a successful resolution to this dispute.

"There is a dispute because there is a real difference of understanding between the two parties about what is needed to improve K-to-12 education and invest in teachers' ability to deliver a high-quality education that all families want for their children and our province needs for its future.

"I am supportive of my son's teacher, who has gone above and beyond to teach a classroom of diverse and energetic young learners. She is not the exception but the rule. I don't know what it is like to work in the Legislature, but managing a classroom of children while imparting key foundational learnings is not something that just anyone can do.

"I urge you to withdraw Bill 22 and respect teachers' collective voice through their union by mediating, not legislating, your way through this dispute."

As I'd said, I have a very long list of these letters. While I certainly received many, many letters from teachers, I received just as many letters from parents who are speaking for their children.

The comments that I've read into Hansard today from these three particular parents I would say probably are the most common kinds of themes that I've got in the correspondence that I've received — parent after parent talking about what they want for their children and their aspirations for their children, parent after parent asking this government to step back from Bill 22, to get back to the table, to mediate in a more authentic way than Bill 22 offers, to begin to have a discussion, to try to find a solution here, to try to deal with the critical aspects of this legislation and of what we're facing.

[1020]

We have a situation where the government has seriously, I believe, damaged our situation going forward. We have a circumstance where if Bill 22 passes, which…. Clearly, that is totally and entirely within the government's purview to do that. I assume, at some point here in the coming days, that will occur.

What will happen, when Bill 22 passes, is we will take a situation that we all know is already challenged at the best of times, in terms of the relationship of government to our teachers and the relationship of government to education, to parents — if, as I suspect, the parents that I quoted today from my constituency, who I believe are more the norm in terms of parents across this province in their views…. You've created a situation where the divide becomes even greater between the government and between educators and parents on these questions of how best do we move forward with our children in K-to-12.

That's the situation that is being created here. It is one where trust and respect on both sides are just falling by the wayside. And trust and respect are falling by the wayside because of the way the government has chosen to move forward by putting Bill 22 on the table, has chosen to move forward by exacerbating this divide and by deciding to use the big stick when other avenues would have been much, much preferable.

If there's one thing that we know and one thing we can expect, it's that bringing back that trust and respect is what we need. That means bringing back confidence that we can work together. We are not seeing that in Bill 22. Because of that… Among other reasons, that's why Bill 22 does not deserve the support of this Legislature and does not deserve the support of the members of the Legislature.

I would hope that over the next couple of days maybe, the Premier — who was the catalyst for this in 2002 — and the Education Minister, the cabinet and the back bench will make the decision to step back. I don't believe that will occur, but I hope it will occur.

Should that happen, and should we get back to some thoughtfulness around this issue, I believe we can find a solution. I believe that we can move forward, but it will only happen if the government is prepared to step up and do that. Bill 22 tells us very clearly that is not the government's intention.

R. Hawes: Gee, where to start here? I think I'll start by just suggesting that the member for Vancouver-Hastings passed what I presume is his legal advice — he's not a lawyer; I'm not a lawyer, but the government has lawyers, certainly — when he says that we're going back to court and he's got opinions that we might lose and all of this stuff.

Frankly, I just don't think that has a place in this debate at all. I don't think this is a courtroom. I don't think this is a place for us to discuss what's going to happen or might happen or all of these hypotheticals.

I think if we just look at the judgment that was handed down, it said that negotiation needs to take place, but the union doesn't just automatically get what it's asking for. The government has a right, after due negotiation, to impose what it feels must be imposed on behalf of the taxpayers.

What I really want to talk about here are a couple of things. First, some of the information that's out there, that's being passed, I really have some difficulty with. I think it's not true.
[ Page 9784 ]

One of them would be…. I heard this morning the head of the B.C. Teachers Federation on television saying that the government has taken this hard-line position where there will be zero increases, zero movement, no money for classrooms, etc. Frankly, that's just not true.

In fact, the net zero says — and the government has implored the union, actually: "Let's work together and find some savings, and then we can put those savings into some wage increase, but we need to work cooperatively."

[1025]

I mean, 130 other unions have done this and the BCTF to date has refused to. We've been a year now, and we can't get past that part of it. We can't get to a discussion about classrooms or classroom conditions. The government wants to get there. They want to sit down and discuss those issues, but we're stuck with the net zero. The BCTF has refused to engage on other issues. Frankly, I just think that's wrong of them, but it hasn't been without precedent.

Governments for 25 years have been passing legislation to legislate the contracts for the BCTF because they've been very difficult to deal with. That goes for the NDP government, the Social Credit government and the current government. One real contract negotiated by the employer over all of that period of time, the only one, was 1996, I think. The one that the NDP talk about, actually, was a contract worked out in the Premier's office and bypassed the employer.

I want to speak about a couple things. Well, first I want to talk about e-mails. I've heard a lot about the e-mails people are getting. I get a lot of e-mails. I'm sure all of us do. Most of the e-mails that I get from teachers say: "We get the net zero mandate. We're not interested in talking about wages. We want to talk about classrooms and conditions for kids." That's what the teachers are saying.

I agree with them. I think that's what we should be talking about. That's what we want to talk about, and that's what the mediator actually has put in place to do in the cooling-off period — to get to talking about some of these classroom conditions. But we haven't been able to get there with the B.C. Teachers Federation.

Now, what teachers are telling me, numbers of teachers…. I have a number of friends that are teachers, and when we speak they're afraid to speak on the record because there's often some retribution from the union. There are a lot of teachers out there that are afraid of their union. I know that's true. I have talked to many of them, and they've told me about that.

What they're telling me is that the union is not representing their position. The union is pushing the wage issue hard, and they don't want that. They want to talk about classrooms. Frankly, I don't think that the union are the people who represent the kids out there. The union represents the teachers, but it's someone else that represents the kids. It's parents. It's administrators. It's teachers themselves, not the union structure. So there's this confusion when you talk about the union that somehow you're talking about all teachers. I don't happen to believe that.

Some of the things that are out there that I think are being misrepresented are, among other things, class size. I want to talk about what happens when you have a hard cap, which is what the union wants. If you go over this…. You cannot go over this amount in a classroom.

Well, I'm going to talk about a small community, a rural community in my riding, where there was a small elementary school quite a ways outside of Mission. When there was a hard cap in place, there was one child too many in one grade — one child. The inflexibility that existed said that either you have to split into two classes, which would be about half the cap size — even though there was no room in the school for another classroom, and the cost of that is pretty prohibitive — or you have to bus that child, that extra child, for quite a ways.

Unfortunately, the only school bus that's going into Mission was taking high school students. So we get this young child from an elementary school who is forced to get on the school bus every day, and in this case split up from a sibling. The family had one child in the elementary school and another elementary school–aged child bussed into Mission. That's a terrible situation. That's what a hard cap does. It creates inflexibility.

Now, who in their right mind thinks…? I'd love to address the question to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who was a high school principal. When the decision of these things is left to principals and administrators…. If there's going to be a child over the limit or two children over the limit, and the decision is going to be made by a principal along with discussion with the teachers….

Does the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who was a principal, have that little respect for the principals of this province, who themselves have been teachers? Does he think that they have somehow lost their care about class sizes, and they don't care how many they pile in the class?

[1030]

Or the school board trustees we elect to represent us. Do you think that they somehow lose everything and say: "Let's just load those classrooms up"? That's what the BCTF is saying is going to happen, and it's just nonsense. It's fearmongering. The people who run the system, who are responsible for making sure the classrooms operate properly, are actually the school board trustees, the administration, the principals. It's not the union that makes those decisions or has that responsibility.

Yet they're out there cloaked in it as though it is their responsibility when in fact what they're really talking about is: "Let's have more union members." That's what their responsibility is — to grow their union and to protect teachers, not kids.

I have huge respect for teachers, and I understand the
[ Page 9785 ]
troubles in the classroom. I know how hard they work, but at the same time it's just a little much when you start hearing the senior people from the BCTF speaking the way they do — that it's all about kids. It's not, for them, all about kids. That's not their mandate.

I want to talk about seniority. Bill 22 says seniority stays in place. It's been said we're stripping that. In fact, I've heard people from the B.C. Teachers Federation say that what can happen now is that teachers could be turned away because of race, sexual orientation, age, all of these discriminatory things. That's just nonsense.

What we're saying is that seniority should apply, but the skill set required for the opening should also apply. So the teacher with the most seniority and the skills for that particular classroom…. That's what should prevail, not just simply seniority.

Let me give a personal example. My granddaughter is in kindergarten. She loved going to kindergarten. In fact, she used to ask: "Why can't I go on Saturday?" She loved it.

Her teacher, who's a wonderful person, had a medical problem and had to have an operation. She's gone for the year, and so a new teacher had to come into the kindergarten class. It happened to be someone who had taught grade 6 for many, many years and, for whatever reason, had moved on to a part-time position but was looking for a full-time teaching spot and, because of seniority, wound up in this classroom — my granddaughter's classroom.

This is someone who has never taught kindergarten. Actually, there's a different skill set required to teach kindergarten kids than grade 6 kids.

What's going on right now in that classroom is that there are two speakers set up in the room. For the most part, this teacher teaches sitting at the desk using a microphone. If there's talking or whatever in the classroom, the kids stand in the corner. Or in my granddaughter's case: "You're too chatty; you have to go sit over there between those boys." Now, actually, she cries when she goes to kindergarten and clings to her mother and begs her mother to stay with her in the classroom.

Teachers who haven't got the skill set can really do damage to kids. That's why it's really important — in my view, anyway — to make sure that the teachers who are teaching and take positions based on seniority have actually got the skill set to do the job with the classroom that they're going to go to. It just makes sense. What parent out there would say: "I don't care about the skill set; I just care about seniority. I don't care if that teacher is not suited to teach my child or that classroom"?

One of my sons, when he was in high school…. I remember going to a parent-teacher introduction day they had at the school the very first day. The parents all moved around the school as though they were students. It was kind of a neat thing. He was in a business class, and the teacher said: "I've never taught business before. I don't know anything about this class. My intent is to read a chapter ahead of the kids." Every parent in that room looked at each other going: "Are you kidding?" That's just craziness.

I think there are many parents out there — and I know many — who have run into teachers who are great people and who probably have wonderful skill sets for what they're trained to do but, unfortunately, have been put into a place that they didn't have the skill set for, and they turned out to be less than adequate teachers for the kids. Maybe not even the teacher's fault, but that hurts kids.

[1035]

My goodness, what we're here to do — and what Bill 22 and what every single person in this Legislature wants — is the best thing for kids.

I've been listening to this debate, and it's all about how the government wants to destroy kids. That's just nonsense. Every one of us cares about kids — every one of us. I have seven grandchildren in the school system. I care about every one of those kids and every kid that's in their classrooms. I want nothing but the best for those kids.

That's why I want us to get to where we are talking about the things that matter. That's classroom composition. But if we're not able to do it because we're forced to talk just to the union, and they have a different agenda, how do we get there?

So this bill says: "Let's have a cooling-off period. Let's put in a mediator." And yes, the mediator is told: "We're not going to talk about wages. We'll talk about these other issues. We'll talk about the learning fund and the disposition of the funds and the allocation of the funds. We'll talk about classroom resources, but we're not talking about wages."

To me that makes sense. We have a zero mandate. It has been accepted by 130 other unions. We're not going to move away from that. The union knows that.

The last item I want to touch on is the fines — the fines that are imposed in this legislation, that I've heard say are so draconian and take away the right to strike. They're actually fines for an illegal strike. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I kind of think that teachers should set an example. I kind of think MLAs should too. I kind of think that illegal activity by teachers isn't something that should be condoned. When they're out on the sidewalk striking illegally and involving kids in that and actually taking kids out of school, I just think that's a little wrong.

Having fines for doing an illegal act — I don't see a problem with it, and I don't understand why anyone else would either. Nobody has taken away the right to a legal strike — nobody. Frankly, I think it's just a little much when we talk about having fines like that and say that they're draconian when they're for an illegal activity.

So I do support Bill 22, particularly because of the cooling-off period, particularly because it invites the kind of discussion that should have been taking place for the last year.

I would challenge the BCTF to sit down and begin
[ Page 9786 ]
real negotiation on classroom size and start representing the teachers as you're supposed to. I know that what the teachers I talk to want are just the same things we want. That's better classrooms, better conditions for our kids.

As we go on in this debate, I hope those on the other side will stop the over-the-top stuff about 50 people in a classroom and all of these other things and talk about what really makes a difference for our kids.

S. Hammell: I rise to take my place regarding the debate on Bill 22, which I think is rather cynically titled the Education Improvement Act. I will be opposing this legislation for a variety of reasons.

I'm going to speak in sort of three sections. First, I want to talk about the things that I think that are actually wrong in this legislation. To do that, I'll just do some description.

This legislation extends the collective agreement, the previous collective agreement, to cover the mediation period, which is a cooling-off period which has been designated until August 31, 2012. The goal is to reach a negotiated settlement by the beginning of the summer. If there is no settlement, then the mediator will issue a report on June 30 with non-binding recommendations.

[1040]

It's rather odd that there would be this whole dance around a mediation, because the terms of reference of the mediator are quite limited. They are restricted to looking at the non-monetary issues and specifically to the issues raised at the table by the employer. The BCTF, or the union, has also brought forward issues that could have been sent to mediation but they were not included in the scope of the reference.

The mediator also requires that the mediation result in no net increase in costs. So the role of the mediator is rather peculiar, because it need not have been put in legislation. The terms of reference, by putting it in legislation, do restrict and limit the role of the mediator. I have to assume that that is why the reference to the mediator was put in the legislation, because there is a process for mediation outside of this legislation. The Labour Relations Board could have appointed a mediator to deal with the issues without this legislation.

The legislation also establishes quite strong fines for contravening the cooling-off period, which are actually unprecedented, even though the previous member made reference to the fact that they were there because they were to be a strong deterrent.

But where I want to focus much of my discussion is around class size and composition, because I think that's at the heart of the matter for the teachers that are so passionately opposed to this bill.

Before I begin that section, I just want to declare my particular interest and sort of set it in a context of my personal experience. I am a teacher, my younger sister was a teacher, and my mother was a teacher. So we have very strong experience with the teaching profession. Just to spend a moment around my mother, she went to university late in life, and when I was in first-year university, she was in second. We were both learning. We were both at the faculty of education at UBC, and we quite enjoyed each other when we were both out there learning to be educators.

I've also taught in a variety of places — not as many, I'm sure, as lots of people have. I have taught in Courtenay, Montreal, Delta and Surrey. I've also played a variety of roles or taken on a variety of roles in teaching. In Courtenay I taught grade three and four in very, very large classes. The classes were above 40 and really demanded a certain kind of teaching because of that class size. It was very much more regimented. Although we were trying to do some individualized teaching, it was largely restricted to the form of the textbooks or the workbooks that were given. We tried to manoeuvre so that there was individual teaching, but the class size was clearly a strong deterrent.

In Montreal I taught physical education. Just as a matter of course for the previous speaker, I taught between grades 1 and 11 and had fun moving across that span. I had a great deal of fun with the young kids but also had a great deal of fun with the older kids, and I think, actually, that I managed that span with credibility. I was, the first half of the year, in an elementary school and the second half of the year in a high school.

[1045]

Through all this, I realized, first starting in Courtenay and then in Montreal…. Then I moved to Delta and then to Surrey. In that course of over 15 years of teaching in the school system, I had a very strong realization that the heart of any great teaching is class size and composition.

Let me try to explain that to the House. In the grade 7 class that I remember most vividly, I had a child — a young man in that class — who was reading at grade 3.4, which meant grade 3 and four months. In that same class I had a young aboriginal woman who was reading at the grade 13 level, which in essence was first-year university.

So in this grade 7 class I had the span of a grade 3 reader to a first-year university reader. And I suggest to the members of the House that critical to meeting the needs of those kids with that kind of span, which is typical, demands that you have small class sizes. You cannot do that with a class of over 30, with a number of very special needs students inside that classroom.

It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that the classrooms function at the very best level they can for the students that are in them.

It doesn't matter whether you're teaching reading or math or a soccer game out in the yard, the fields, you have to meet the individual differences that kids present, or you are not doing them justice. Nobody in their right mind would think that if you've gathered a random group of grade 3 kids and put them out on the soccer field, they
[ Page 9787 ]
would all play soccer identically. Well, they won't. There will be a wide range of differences. The teacher, then, has to create the circumstances and create the conditions that meet those needs.

I think that the move to raise class sizes or move class sizes from grade 4, over 30 — allow them to just move — is not responsible, because I don't think that there's anything more important than setting the stage for an effective, successful classroom. I don't think that there's anything more effective than really taking a look at class size.

One of the needs of children is for the teacher to build a relationship that allows the teacher then to understand what that child needs. Let me just take time to…. Not only am I going to speak on my personal experience, but I do want to add to this discussion some of the letters that I have received from teachers around my area.

The previous member did suggest that there's some kind of disconnect between the classroom teacher and the people that represent the classroom teacher. My experience is quite the contrary. I think that the people representing the teachers are very clear about what they are representing, because the letters that I received over and over again from the teachers in my district have the same themes. The teachers are very, very, very concerned about class size and composition.

[1050]

Hon. Speaker, I'll read you one, just to sort of set the tone. This teacher says to me:

"I'm a full-time grade 6 teacher at an inner-city school. We do the best we can with limited resources available to us. We have a large student population but only a part-time counsellor. My school desperately needs a full-time counsellor. In fact, in reality we need two.

"I have very needy students. This year, one of them was rushed to emergency at the local hospital because she was suicidal. She had a plan to kill herself, and I had no idea. I just had the feeling that there was something wrong. If the school counsellor had not been there that day and I had not pushed my student to go see her, I shudder to think of what could have happened. I cried myself to sleep that night thinking about her.

"What if that had been a day when the counsellor wasn't supposed to be at our school? What am I supposed to tell my students, who I can see hurting so much and desperately need someone to talk to? Do I tell them to put their problem on hold till next Monday or Tuesday when they might get a chance to see a counsellor?

"Of course, I am there to listen to them. However, I am not qualified to help them work through such problems. In fact, I'm very afraid I might say the wrong thing, which could make the problem worse.

"Over the last year I've had four students who needed desperately to see the counsellor. The woman who is our counsellor works very hard, but she has to triage those students she is able to see. It is just simply not fair."

I think that knowing what…. A teacher has to build a relationship with those students to understand what their needs are — what makes their world, what puts them in a place in their world so that they can learn well and can take the lessons of the class and they can feel good about themselves — to see how they are participating well in the classroom.

Hon. Speaker, can you imagine going back to that class that I talked about — the student that read at the grade 3.4 level and the young woman that was reading at the grade 13 level? What if I had been unable to try to meet those differences because of just the overwhelming nature of the classroom? Well, there's no way that all of those kids should be reading from the same material. They need to have work material that meets their needs so they can learn from wherever they are.

We used to have a test in our classroom, when we called it the five-finger test. If you read some material — you read a book, or you read some essay — and you were reading and you got to the end of the page and there were five words you could not read, you in fact then could not understand what you had just read. I mean, that is a time-tested method so that kids could understand and teachers could understand where the children were.

If you teach all those kids the same because you're just overwhelmed by the number of kids in your classroom and the special needs children that you're also trying to meet, you end up missing everybody. You miss the kids that are struggling because the material is too hard. You miss the kids who are talented or particularly gifted. You miss those kids, the kids that are excelling, because they're bored, and to quote a teacher I talked to this morning: "You miss the kids in the middle because you're so busy trying to deal with the rest of the issues that are in the classroom."

We've got to be able to turn when…. We have to be able to understand that raising class sizes and adding complexity in terms of composition is not going in the right direction.

Many of us have been subjected to class sizes that are just horrific. The ones that I remember the most, besides the ones that I taught that were huge…. That was a number of years ago, and I hope we're not going back there, but we are going in that direction.

[1055]

I remember being in classrooms in first-year university where you had huge numbers of students in great lecture halls, and you just felt like something that was just there for some other reason. You managed to hang on and listen to a lecture. One class was smaller, and I think you tried to make sense of the whole process. There was this one small class that they recognized that they needed because you have to get to know your students somewhat. I think that the experience most of us have had with huge class sizes is not particularly positive.

I'd like to read another letter that sort of underscores this concept, and it is again from a teacher. She says:

"As a teacher-counsellor I'm very concerned about the ratio of students to specialized teachers, including integration teachers, speech pathologists, school counsellors and school psychologists. Once children enter the school system, responsibility for testing, assessment and treatment of a variety of developmental, intellectual, language and emotional issues transfers from the medical community to the school.
[ Page 9788 ]

"Many students and families go without proper treatment for a variety of issues because specialized teachers are required to take on an unrealistic number of students and schools. For example, in 2001 the ratio of students to school counsellors was 360 to 1, whereas today the ratios can be as high as over 1,200 to 1."

We cannot meet the needs of kids if we can't get to the kids and give them assistance around their special needs.

There's another one, a letter from a teacher that I would just like to touch on. It says:

"I'm concerned about Bill 22 because it will eliminate specialist ratios, and there will be larger classrooms with more special needs students. There must" — and this teacher says there must — "be a way that government can meet teachers halfway and mediate so that our children are given the education they deserve. Right now teachers are having difficulty carrying out individual education plans."

There's another one, and I've just been overwhelmed by the number of letters I have had. This teacher says:

"As a teacher, I'm very concerned about the removal of ELL staffing-ratio language back to the early '90s. Back in the early '90s ELL teachers were staffed at a ratio of 41 to 2 FTEs. Then in the late '90s it eroded to 78 FTEs. ELL youth are the most at risk — and some other learning disabilities like autism, Asperger, vision- or hearing-impaired or dyslexia in a class of 24 to 30 new, beginning ELL students.

"These students, with additional learning needs, struggle and fall behind their peers. With no limit to staffing, there will be larger ELL-enrolling classes and no in-class support for them within the regular curriculum. How do we, then, meet their needs and help them to be successful and to be equal, strong, future citizens?"

To me, it is one thing to have a disagreement and another thing to abandon negotiations and force a collective agreement onto teachers and, in particular, a collective agreement that does not take into consideration the key components of a classroom, which are the size of the classroom and the composition of the classroom.

[1100]

There are also many, many complaints from teachers about the deteriorating conditions within the classrooms themselves and with the supporting staff around those classrooms. I know a number of teachers who echo the class-size portion of my concern, but there are also a great number of teachers who are just basically concerned about the eroding conditions within the classroom.

Because I have a particular passion for the strength and the role that the teacher-librarian plays, I'm going to just quote from this teacher-librarian who I know personally and who has done just, I think, an extraordinary job in her career as a teacher. She said to me, and she sent me a letter…. I won't be able to read out the whole letter, because it's quite long and involved. But I'm going to take excerpts of it that I think particularly pertain to the conditions that have deteriorated over the last number of years.

She says:

"I have been a teacher-librarian for 35 years and do my job with love and passion. I arrive to work at 7:15 a.m., over an hour and 20 minutes before school starts, and usually do not leave the school until 3:45 or 45 minutes after school is out. This does not include the work I do at home in the evenings and on weekends. Over the years I have spent thousands of dollars of my own money on school supplies and prizes and other things that motivate the kids. I have provided service to the students by sponsoring clubs and supporting other school activities, and I do all of this without extra pay because I love my job.

"As a teacher-librarian I can say that the ability to provide resources for students and teachers has been affected by budget cuts over the years. When I started teaching in 1977, my library was given $17 per student. Today in 2012 we get $10 per student, and considering that back in 1977 a paperback book was worth 75 cents and now it is worth $12.99, libraries in this province are falling further and further behind. The outdated and tattered books that are in many school libraries are a disgrace.

"From 2001 to 2002 library specialist teachers have dropped from 921.8 to 644.7, a drop of 277.1 teacher-librarians. Many schools" — and I know this not only from this librarian, but from my sister, who has just left the profession — "now do not even have a trained librarian. Others have their library open for only a few hours a week."

It is really difficult to understand the logic of that direction in terms of education. The heart of a classroom is teaching children how to read. Part of the way children read is by having books that entertain them, excite them, answer their questions, and provide them with the pictures and knowledge that they need. I know we're in a new era where there is technology, and we can go on computers and find all the things we need. But I don't think we have lost the love of books yet, nor do we need to see kids not being introduced to that love, where they can pack that book around. It can get tattered and torn, and they can feel that's part of their world.

[1105]

I know that I have many other letters from teachers, I have to say, largely focused on the class size and composition — but not only on the class size and composition, but the affront that the teachers feel. They feel that they have not been respected. They feel that they are in a position where they're not being listened to. They feel that themselves and the work they do is not valued. They feel that their kids, the kids that they care for, are not receiving the support and the attention they deserve.

Teachers know better than all of us what the future citizens look like through their classrooms. They know that they need to be there. They need to make sure that every child meets as well as possible their potential. They don't do it for themselves, but they do it for our future — our future.

We all in this chamber, I know, go back to this saying that there is nothing more important than our kids, that our future depends on us giving them the very best start and schooling that we can possibly do. It's in our best interest.

We know that kids that are well-grounded, kids that get a strong education, kids that are supported through the times that they're troubled, kids that have not only a strong family but a strong education surrounding them do better. When they do better in the classroom, they do better as citizens. They participate and support and contribute to the society we all live in, in a much strong-
[ Page 9789 ]
er sense.

So I have risen to oppose this bill. I think that the process is wrong. I think that the respect teachers have been afforded is not high enough. I think that the shocking suggestion that, from grade 4 to grade 12, class size and composition doesn't matter is just the wrong direction the education system should go in. My position is that I will oppose this bill.

R. Howard: It is my pleasure to take my place this morning and speak in support of Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. I'd also like to voice my support and appreciation to the Minister of Education, because I observed that his calm demeanour and steady hand serves this issue well.

I think first I'd like to say that I do take some exception to what I hear as the opposition's tireless attempts to portray this as some kind of a plot that is disrespectful to teachers. I think that is just nonsense.

I have been in awe of good teachers for most of my life. I think that they are in an amazing position to have high impact on our children, on our families. They are in a really chosen career that lets them add tremendous value to our families and our society.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The teachers that I had…. In preparation for speaking this morning, I was just reflecting on my grade school teachers. Ms. Windrom and Jordan and Rob and Harper and Holman — I still remember them vividly and fondly and with respect and admiration.

I believe that this Bill 22 is very much right-minded. It's the right thing to do for our province and our families at this time. However, I do hear some typical kind of opposition-created confusion on this bill. I will attempt to set out for my constituency how I see this bill and the issues contained therein.

[1110]

What is Bill 22 and why are we finding it necessary to introduce this legislation? Bill 22, to my view, has three principal objectives. I will say that it's a piece of legislation that does require, does demand careful reading.

As I said, three main objectives: first, to provide some stability and certainty for students and their families; second, to appoint a mediator and implement our net zero mandate; third, to implement measures which collectively serve as government's response to last year's Supreme Court decision.

Those include a new $165 million learning improvement fund. It includes restoring class size and related matters to the scope of collective bargaining. That's an important point. It sets the stage for more effective consultations between teachers and administration on class organization matters, and it provides for additional compensation for teachers when class size exceeds 30 students.

So that is, essentially, what the three key points…. Now to the why. First, at least in my mind, is the cooling-off period. After 78 or more face-to-face meetings, there is no progress to report, and emotions are escalating, with rising concern for the well-being of the students. We've all started to hear stories which indicate students were at increasing risk, stories which told of students failing classes. They or their families had no advance warning that there was a fail coming — no chance to remediate, no communication between principals, administrators, teachers and students.

I can't say that all schools suffer from this, but I know it is true for some, at least, and we cannot let even a few children fall between the cracks. Unfortunately, there is a rich history of labour difficulty with the BCTF and government. Over the past 20 years there has only been one successfully negotiated contract, and that was with this government — one in 20 years. So you can see why, I think, after 78 meetings, no progress and a history of negotiating with very limited progress, that is why we are where we are. Seven months have passed with the union strike action.

I think we need to inject some stability into the system and stop or at least curtail the damage being done to students and the uncertainty caused to family. I think a cooling-off period will do just that.

On the net zero mandate. First, I think it's responsible to acknowledge that 130 agreements have been signed which include net zero provisions. In these challenging global economic times, it is well-known — and the fact that we are going to balance our budget in 2013-14 — we need to be diligent and prudent in our approach. So net zero was the mandate, and that should be no surprise to anyone given that there are already 130 agreements signed with net zero provisions.

Just a word on the net zero. While it does hold the line on overall spending, the use of the word "net" means that if efficiencies can be found, the dollars found could be used for salary increases. I see that as an attempt to inject some creativity into the process. It does, however, hold the overall spending to a zero increase.

There's a huge gap on this issue between the parties — a $2 billion gap created by the union's demands for 2.06 billion new dollars over three years. These include leave provisions, at $118 million; preparation time, at $711 million; benefits, $295 million; salary, at $765 million; and a salary grid reduction of $169 million. So the total cost of the current teachers union proposal is over $2 billion, over three years.

[1115]

To put that in context, the government currently spends $2.9 billion, annually, on compensation for K-to-12 teachers. I would also note that these demands come on the heels of a 16 percent pay increase they received in their last contract at a time when most other public sec-
[ Page 9790 ]
tor unions only received an 8 percent lift.

On class size. I do hear what I believe is misinformation on the class-size contents in this bill. The act allows for grades 4-to-12 class size to exceed 30 students, but only if the principal considers the learning conditions appropriate and the superintendent approves this decision. In cases where class size does not exceed 30 students, school districts must provide additional compensation to the teacher proportionate to the added workload. So a measured, considered approach on class size, caps and compensation.

On the mediator. If there is no agreement, the mediator will issue a report by June 30, 2012, with non-binding recommendations. So again, a measured, balanced approach.

Just to close, I think a cooling-off period is a good thing, given all considered, removing the uncertainty for students and their families. Also, as I have said, I think the net zero provisions should come as no surprise to anybody, given that there are 130 agreements that have already been signed. So I am supportive of the approach outlined in this bill, and I thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker.

B. Routley: It is indeed an honour to rise in this House and to talk about teachers and the impact that this legislation is going to have on B.C.'s teachers. Not only will this mean-spirited Liberal approach to our most valuable resource hurt teachers; it's going to hurt children and the classroom experience for the coming years, because you can't create this kind of labour turmoil, you just can't attack the very underpinnings of what teachers believe in, and then expect all will be well.

I hear the other side say that, oh, they care so much about teachers. But this bill is without question an absolute attack on teachers and classrooms in British Columbia.

I want to give you some perspective on my own experience. This may come as a surprise to some of the folks in this Legislature, but back in the 1980s I ran for school trustee in the little community of Lake Cowichan. I was elected twice as a school trustee in the community of Lake Cowichan.

I remember well that one of my campaign planks…. I was a guy from a sawmill then, and I said: "What do I know about being a school trustee?" But I was urged by folks within the Duncan and district labour council. They actually said: "We need more working people to get involved in communities and what's going on in community politics."

So I decided to run as a school trustee, and one of those planks was that I would commit as a school trustee to supporting teachers. My public commitment was: "I will work with teachers to get the tools and supports they need in order for them to provide our children with a high-quality public school education."

All of the children of British Columbia benefit from the educational skills of our teachers. A lot of us have been proud of the public school education. I want to say that back when I was a trustee, one of the stories that I told was influenced by my grandmother on my mother's side. My grandmother Isabel Howey was a school teacher. I still remember the conversation I had with her back when I was a teenager.

[1120]

When I asked her how she liked being a teacher, I remember she smiled. In fact, she was beaming. She really came to life and was quite animated as she explained how she loved so much teaching children. It was something she had dreamed about from being a young woman. She dreamed about being a teacher someday — that one day she would have the opportunity and that she had lived her dream.

At the time I was talking to her, she was talking about the wonderful and exciting experiences. But I saw the happiness on her face change when she explained that there were these folks from town who had never been teachers and had never taught children — if you can imagine this — who were trying to tell her how to do her job. I could see the distress that that put on my grandmother. I was still a teenager, and I don't think I really understood what she meant until much later. I certainly didn't understand it, I don't think, until I became a school trustee in the early '80s and saw then the labour dysfunction.

I represented the school district. My first set of bargaining was actually representing the school district on the employers side. We negotiated with CUPE and with the teachers. My goal was always to make sure that there was fairness, that the principles that we worked from were based on principles of how to be fair, how to treat the teachers with the kind of dignity that I would want if I was a teacher.

That's what I see missing on the other side of this House. I don't see people having the same kind of treatment or understanding the dignity that they should be giving to people who have committed their lives to teaching our children. This is not just a job, being a teacher. This is a passion for so many teachers. They love to be in the classroom, and they love to challenge children to grow and to learn. That's a wonderful thing — a wonderful thing.

Yet this government is trying to somehow snuff the life out of the compassion that these teachers feel for children by mistreating them and showing an absolute lack of passion and concern for those teachers in the classroom. This Liberal government has gone out of its way not only to tell teachers how they will teach, but now they've shown total disrespect to teachers by stripping negotiated collective agreement conditions with Liberal legislation, which has been proven to be not just unfair to teachers but illegal by the Supreme Court.

Last year the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled
[ Page 9791 ]
in favour of the B.C. Teachers Federation, saying the government's imposition of Bills 27 and 28 back in 2002 — under the then Education Minister, who is now the Premier of the province — was unconstitutional.

Now, if you ever wanted evidence about the unfairness of how this government intends to treat teachers, what more evidence could you ask for than the highest court in the province of British Columbia saying that the actions of this government were unconstitutional. Unconstitutional. It's absolutely scandalous and shameful, and they know it is.

Four years earlier the B.C. government had its hand slapped by the Supreme Court of Canada when it ruled that Bill 29, also introduced by this government in 2002, violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by removing key bargaining rights from unionized health care workers in the province.

Let's camp there. We've seen this government, over and over again, with an attitude towards working people of disrespecting their rights, of shredding contracts. I might add that they did this after promising they wouldn't do that. They would not shred the contracts of teachers. That was the promise over and over. Oh, and they cared so much.

[1125]

They even say today: "We care so much about education." You can't say you care about education, and then clearly you put a billion dollars in smart meters.

I've been on the Select Standing Committee on Finance, and I toured all over the province in 2009, 2010, 2011. Nobody asked for smart meters. Not a single person in the province of British Columbia said…. Suddenly it arrived. Note to file: this government has decided that they're going to spend — blow — a billion dollars on smart meters. They're shredding pamphlets and giving executives million-dollar salaries.

Imagine giving benefits to people. Under CLBC, they were actually promoting some kind of bonus scheme for people to hurt the folks most challenged in the province of British Columbia. Imagine bonusing people to hurt those folks that most need your support.

If you are a government, and if you can't support the people that are least able to defend themselves, hon. Speaker…. It is absolutely scandalous how they treat the poor, the underprivileged, and certainly, how they are treating folks here and children.

I can speak from real authority on the issue of special needs. I heard the minister in this House. It was unbelievable to hear the Minister of Education in this House stand up and say: "We need to have individualized education." Yeah, right. You can't even fund the special needs programs you've got right now.

I have a grandson. He talked about…. It's some kind of discrimination if you have to brand somebody as maybe being autistic or having ADHD or whatever else.

Well, here are the facts. My grandson Gabriel. I still remember, he was three years old, and I was laying under the swing set trying to get eye contact — okay? We knew there was something wrong with him when he was one. We could tell when he was two. We could tell. He was a wonderful, sweet little boy, but we knew there was something wrong with his communication skills. He wouldn't look you in the eye, at three years old. I'm laying under the swing trying to get eye contact with my grandson.

I went with my daughter and her husband to see the child psychiatrist. She came out, first of all, in tears because the child psychiatrist had told her to wait a few more years. Everything that I had been reading said we've got to have this dealt with right away.

I asked to speak to the child psychologist. I went in. I often say I dealt with 52 different companies. I was in negotiations all the time, by the way — negotiations all the time. But the most important set of negotiations I ever did in my lifetime was to go in there and deal with what was going on here.

Fortunately, this psychiatrist said: "Your grandson has autism." You would think that that would be a hurtful thing. My daughter was in tears of joy, because our grandson was finally going to get the help that he needed.

Special needs kids — don't tell me that it's some kind of big problem. The minister could walk down the hall and talk to any of his other ministries. Maybe they'd inform him that: "Oh, by the way, it just so happens that it's based on…." He calls it a form of discrimination. It is based on what that child is assessed at — what kind of funding is available for a program.

So who are we kidding? We know that what the real underlying story in this bill and in their actions…. When they talk about individualized training, they want to take the pot full of money, and there's going to be nothing there to help kids with special needs. It's not there now. It's not good enough.

I know I've had to go and talk to the principal about my own special needs grandson, a few years ago, about issues — finding him not getting enough of the help that should be there.

[1130]

I've got to say that the teachers are not wrong. When they're saying there is a need for special needs…. You know, I'd like to see…. In fact, I'd challenge all of you Liberals over there to go into the classroom. I'd like to see one of you. I'll go with you, if you want, because I've dealt with kids with autism. But I want one of you to go over and take the challenge. You go in and run a classroom with more than three autistic children in it. You just try it, and tell me how wonderful it is and how it's so easy.

You don't know what you're talking about. You've never walked a mile in their shoes, and it is absolutely unacceptable, the way this government is treating teachers and certainly our special needs kids. I mean, who knows about this problem? When they're talking about needs in the classroom, they're not talking about it as some bar-
[ Page 9792 ]
gaining thing that's worth buckets full of money for them. We're talking about help for teachers.

I still remember the select standing committee in Kelowna, and I heard a mom and her own mother…. The grandmother and mother were there before the committee, and the mother started to cry. She said that all she wanted was the speech therapy and the help. She was on too many waiting lists, and all she wanted was the help so she could hear her child one day say: "I love you, Mommy."

You know what? I went through that. My own wife and my daughter said the same thing: "All we want is to hear the words 'I love you, Mommy.'" My grandson got the speech therapy, and I'm thankful for that — only for a year. But thankfully, it was good enough. He only got it for a year, and then all of a sudden it's not available anymore. But at the end of the day, it was enough to give him the help he needed, and that has to be the biggest challenge for our teachers.

I've been into classrooms where kids…. Imagine if you've got one that bites or is in any way violent. That's a real problem. I had people in my office, where their child was thrown out of the class because of an issue. These are very difficult circumstances for teachers, which they are trying to address. Really, at the end of the day, that's what it's all about — trying to help those kids.

I want to go on about the fact that the minister was very disingenuous in the idea that we needed individualized training. We know there's no money to back that up. I want to emphasize that point. If you were truly going to have an individualized plan for children in the province of British Columbia, you would have to put some money behind that — not just flowery words and a whole bunch of claptrap that we end up hearing at the end of the day. Some real action.

At the end of the day, even a bipartisan committee looked at recommendations, and we talked about what could be done to help children. One of those recommendations is that we need to improve resourcing to address delays for early intervention therapy and autism services in order to facilitate transition of children with special needs into K-to-12. That's a bipartisan committee that understands we've got issues with autism, and it is a growing problem in British Columbia.

Imagine you're a teacher trying to deal with all of these issues, and the government turns its back on you and basically says that somehow you've got to do more with less. That's all there is to it. If you look at government as an employer, I have to say you are the worst employer in the history of British Columbia. As a guy that represented workers most of my life, I want to pass on to you something from the workers — that is, we think you are the rottenest bunch of employers in the history of British Columbia.

[1135]

You contrast that again with a million dollars for ferry executives, bonuses for, of course, themselves and executives, big wage increases — the worst track record in the history of British Columbia, without question. Even workers' rights to get help when they are injured on the job…. It is related to this bill at the end of the day.

This bill is about taking away rights of workers. This is compounded, layer after layer, by a government that even cuts workers' benefits to safety, to when they reach retirement age. They return millions of dollars to their corporate backroom pals.

There's no problem with this government cutting taxes for big corporations. In fact, they stand up in this House and say: "We've done hundreds of them." They've done hundreds of them, and they're proud of it. Then I hear another member across the aisle say: "But the corporations seem to be sitting on piles of cash, and they just don't seem to be investing."

Well, that was a bright plan. Let's give them billions of dollars back, no connection whatsoever to jobs in British Columbia, and then stand there and say: "Well, our pockets are empty, and it's the best we can do."

This Liberal government created the economic situation that this province finds itself in, and they created the whole attitude — the labour relations attitude. They're responsible. They created the situation that's out on the street. It's this government who planned and designed every step of the way.

I've dealt with the employers. I've dealt with good employers. You know what free collective bargaining with a good employer is about? It's where they sit down and share your interests. They listen to your problems. Did we get everything we wanted? No, never. Did we ever start high and expect to go a little lower? Oh well, that's bargaining.

You think the teachers came in, and they started with a high number. These guys can't even figure it out. They start out, and they only have one theme. You know who's the big zero here? It's the folks on that side of the House. There's where zero comes into it.

At the end of the day, the people of British Columbia and especially the folks that are trying to be hoodwinked into some kind of families first…. Ask somebody with autism what they think about this government and their attitude — and teachers and their whole treatment.

The teachers should have a theme. They got a net zero, and that's going to be: nobody is going to vote for a Liberal in the next election. That should be the net zero plan for teachers. I'll tell you, it's unbelievable, the track record this government has in chopping.

Chopping government employees and teachers is kind of a sport to them, something they did back in 2002. Public sector workers called it Black Thursday — as it's remembered — because back on Black Thursday 11,700 B.C. jobs were cut — public sector jobs.

I remember back in the early days that I was dealing with employers. They wanted to contract out all our work.
[ Page 9793 ]
Guess what this government does. They like contracting out people's jobs. And how does it work out for them? Do you think those contractors are going to lose money? No.

Part of the problem we've got in British Columbia is that we're growing huge amounts of debt, contractual commitments debt — billions of dollars. It's happening under this government's watchful eye. They claim they're some careful managers of money. You just take a look at how the debt obligations have risen under this government.

You think about this track record of losses in the Supreme Court of Canada for free collective bargaining rights. They do not understand it, I'm sorry to say. They do not get what free collective bargaining is all about. Like so many other speakers have said, it is about having respect and dignity for the other side.

Does one side get everything they want? If they would have gone to mediation, like so many other parties were calling for…. I've been through mediation and arbitration, and I didn't like it. I used to say to the workers: "As soon as you go to mediation or arbitration, you've got no rights anymore because that one person is going to listen to both sides. You are both going to come in with your best suit on and present your best case, kind of like going to court or something, and that arbitrator chooses."

[1140]

The government could have opened their books and told a sad story about how things are so bad and this and that. "We've given so much away to our corporate pals that things don't look so good here, so we need a little help." The arbitrator could listen to that sad story, and he could listen to the folks, the teachers. They could listen to what's happening in the classroom. They could understand and have some compassion, caring and concern for what needs to happen for students. But no, that's not what we've got.

This Liberal government has sent this teachers bargaining impasse…. They could have sent it to an arbitrator or a mediator, but now they're bragging: "Oh, it's a mediator with instructions." A mediator with instructions. By the way, it still adds up to a mediator with instructions. It's nothing from nothing means nothing, by the way. And we have another little surprise for you. We are going to talk about all the working conditions too. There are rules around that. If you step out of line….

You know what they have in mind for teachers? Talk about goon tactics. If I was the rottenest government in the history of British Columbia, I'm not sure I could think up something as draconian as saying: "Well, if you're an employee, which is a teacher" — the teacher that this side professes to care so much about — "you could end up with a fine of $475 a day for any offence." Talk about mean-spirited and heavy-handed.

That's what this has got at the end of the day. They have a special fine for the teachers. They call them the teachers union. You know, they don't understand unions. They say that somehow the BCTF has misled these teachers.

I used to represent workers, and I understood that when I had 3,000 members I had 3,000 bosses. It was democratic. They decided the rules, and all I was, was the voice to go in there and represent them. I did the best I could. Sometimes I had the thankless job of coming home with crumbs from the table and trying to tell the fellows that this is the full meal deal. You had these great expectations, but here's what's reality.

For a government to decide to bring the hammer down…. You set the conditions for this three-day strike. I mean, they went off to the Labour Board. For the folks at home, I want you to know that the government saves $11 million a day. They save $11 million a day every day that the teachers are out.

Do you think they want to be out there? Again, I know from experience that no worker ever enjoys…. They don't say: "We've got nothing else to do today. Let's hit the bricks." No, that's not what happens. It's very frustrating.

They are looking at those children. Most of those teachers love those children. The last thing they want to be doing is not be in the classroom. It pains them. It breaks their hearts to have to walk away from a commitment, something that they've gone to school and trained for and put their heart and their love into. Then this government just pushes them — pushes and pushes until they've pushed them over the edge at the end of the day. Then they've got a special $1.3 million fine if you are the BCTF. If you're an officer — $2,500. There's the draconian…. There's the big club, eh? You fellows are real proud. You go over there and build the biggest club you can, and take away their rights.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

B. Routley: Hon. Speaker, I know I have to address the Chair. I get just a tad bit emotional sometimes — a tad bit. Something like this, you know…. It's okay.

At the end of the day, this Liberal government has chosen to use their law-making power — their law-making power at the end of the day — to pick up a big club and use these harsh measures to impose these huge fines and penalties. It's really quite scandalous.

[1145]

I'm not the only one that thinks that. I am really glad. I want to mention the fine school district 79 that I'm fortunate enough to represent in the Cowichan Valley. Here are just a few words from the chairman of the board of education of school district 79 to the Minister of Education: "The board of education in Cowichan wishes to register its strongest possible opposition to a legislated conclusion to the negotiations between the BCTF and school boards. We also urge the minister to secure the assistance of a mutually agreed-upon" — mutually agreed — "mediator, in order to bring about a settlement of the dispute."
[ Page 9794 ]

Now, there is a practical solution by a group that is thinking about fairness for teachers. That's the kind of thing we ought to be doing. They go on: "Equivalence of position is a crucial characteristic in the relationship between the employer and the worker."

I couldn't agree more. There's a balance. This government talks about balance. There's no balance here, you can be sure. This is the heavy hand of a group that sat in the back rooms and planned this strategy from day one, I would suggest. I don't believe they were planning on bargaining in good faith from day one, not on your life. That's the way they've acted. And if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. That's what's going on here with this government. It's mean-spirited all the way.

In closing, it goes on here on the equivalence of position: "When the employer can simply refuse to bargain effectively, in full knowledge that they can impose a contract at a time of their choosing, then no equality and, therefore, no justice." No justice, hon. Speaker. That's what we've got here — a government that has no interest in justice and fairness for our teachers and for children of British Columbia.

P. Pimm: I'd love to take my opportunity to discuss Bill 22 as well. It's always great to follow my compadre from across the way at Cowichan Valley there. It's very emotional, and it's nice to see that he carries that emotion on his sleeve. Sometimes I feel like I'm being chastised just for watching him. I'm not quite sure where that goes.

Certainly, I can't say that I agree with him on his issue about delivering no fines, that we should be letting these folks do illegal actions and not have any repercussions. Next thing, we'll be hearing that he'll want people to be driving impaired and not have any fines for that as well, I'm sure.

Anyhow, maybe there is some common ground that we can talk about a little bit. I think one thing we do all agree on, on both sides of this House, is that the teachers out there are very important. They're all liked by their students, by the parents, and they're respected. They're respected on both sides of this House, and I have to say that up front.

Unfortunately, Bill 22 is not all about the teachers. Unfortunately, it's about a bargaining unit called BCTF, and BCTF does not share that same respect that teachers share. I'm going to say that up front. The BCTF really doesn't care which government of the day is in power. They treat each party the same. Over the past 30 years there have been a couple of agreements that were actually negotiated. It really doesn't matter to them who's in power.

It's not a B.C. Liberal or B.C. NDP decision. It's about BCTF fighting with whoever is in there to get whatever they can get. Unfortunately, this time around we're the lucky group that gets to deal with this particular situation and this contract. I think our Education Minister has done a fantastic job in setting out what is going to happen in the next little bit of time in the direction that we're going to go.

What is Bill 22, and what does it do? Well, hon. Speaker, Bill 22 does the following. It provides certainty for our students and parents by suspending teachers' strike action, by setting a cooling-off period and by imposing financial consequences for illegal strike action.

[1150]

But it also does more than that. The bill also appoints a mediator to facilitate bargaining, with the goal of reaching a mediated settlement with a net zero mandate. This mediator is going to have until the end of June to submit his non-binding report and his recommendations to the minister.

Bill 22 also injects $165 million into the learning improvement fund to address the classroom size and composition. That's going to allow for more student aides in the classrooms to help alleviate that situation there.

Bill 22 also allows for extra compensation for teachers if the classroom size exceeds 30 students. It gives the principals and the superintendents the flexibility to deal with the additional one or two students, or whatever they may have to, to make classrooms work properly.

Let's be clear. Bill 22 does deal with class sizes. Grades K-to-3 remain exactly the same as they were and cannot be exceeded. Those numbers are 22 students for kindergartens and 24 students for grades 1 to 3. For grades 4 to 12, there is a new class maximum of 30 students. There was no maximum before, so this is addressing that issue to some degree.

For grades 4 to 12, classes may exceed 30 students, but only if the principal considers the learning conditions are appropriate and the superintendent approves the action and the decision. If that situation does happen, the teacher is going to be entitled to additional compensation — additional prep time, professional development funding or possibly even a combination of all those things. So certainly some adequate precautions put in there as well.

What's happened so far, during the first year of these negotiations? Well, we've had 78 face-to-face bargaining sessions. We've had seven months of job action. We've seen next to no movement during these negotiations, and we haven't had one report card issued to any of our students. I have to tell you, that's what I hear in my office on a daily basis since this has started.

My parents do want to see those report cards, and that is what we're going to get them. We're going to get them so that every kid is going to see a report card in the near future. Our children and families are the only ones suffering the consequences, and we can't allow this to drag on much longer.
[ Page 9795 ]

Another point that must be stated very clearly is the fact that during these tough economic times, we don't have the additional revenue to add $2 billion to our bottom line of taxpayer money to pay for the BCTF union demands.

Another thing, another important fact is that we did settle with the BCTF to also top up another 130 union contracts that have already been negotiated under the net zero mandate. That would add another billion dollars to the bottom line. So that's just $3 billion on a budget that's already stretched to the max.

What are they looking for this time — $2 billion over three years? To put that into perspective for the average person, that's…. As the member from Richmond stated, $2.9 billion is what we pay — a total number — now. They want to double that over the next three years. I think that is pushing it a little bit too far.

I want to touch on a few more facts. Some things that we hear and some things that I have a bit of trouble with just don't seem to jive.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The claim is that there are 700 fewer special needs teachers. The fact is that there are 2,100 additional special needs teaching assistants in B.C. classrooms over the years. They claim that they are the ninth best paid in Canada. Actually, B.C. teachers' salaries plus benefits are basically the fourth best in Canada.

Hon. Speaker, I see that we have a new Speaker in the chair, so I'll try to wrap this up, noting the hour.

Even though the opposition won't say what they'd do with this agreement, it's pretty clear to me, and to us on this side, that they'd increase the average man's taxes to give the union its demands. That is just something that we're not prepared to do. So I'll be voting in favour of Bill 22.

[1155]

P. Pimm moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Hayer in the chair.

The committee met at 10:18 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,971,938,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's with great pleasure that I rise to present the 2012-13 spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. But before I begin, I'd like to introduce my deputy minister, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, to my right. I also have, behind me, Joe Thompson, the acting ADM for decision support and accountability; and Deborah Rasnick, our CFO.

I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of the dedicated faculty and administrators who plan and deliver post-secondary programs throughout our province so that students are able to pursue their educational and career goals.

I've had the privilege of working with many administrators from our post-secondary institutions over the last year, and I've been very impressed by their commitment to learning, their commitment to their students and colleagues and their commitment to B.C.'s post-secondary system.

We believe that every student is unique and that they deserve every opportunity to meet their personal education goals by providing them with choices about where and what they study and by making education affordable and accessible with financial aid packages to suit their needs.

We are backing our commitment to help students get their education. Since 2001 we've invested over $23.7 billion in post-secondary education, including $2.7 billion for student financial aid. For 2012-13 we are investing nearly $1.9 billion, including a year-over-year increase of more than $9 million for health and other priority seats. This is along with the more than $460 million in capital investments over the next three years directed to facility rehabilitation, renewal and expansion to support B.C.'s skilled-workforce needs of tomorrow.

[1020]

These investments will continue to build on the work
[ Page 9796 ]
we've done since 2001, with more than $2 billion invested for 1,000 capital projects across the province, including $164 million in capital projects for trades training.

Thirty-nine of those 1,000 capital projects are part of the knowledge infrastructure program, where we committed over $258 million to improve post-secondary facilities. In fact, about one-third of the KIP projects either improved or expanded trades-training facilities, resulting in increased capacity for student enrolment.

These are new and improved buildings — facilities we've built to help students now and generations from now. Investing in post-secondary education is and will continue to be a priority for our government, maximizing the significant resources that taxpayers invest in our students and supporting their learning.

High among our priorities is ensuring that aboriginal learners have access to post-secondary education and training. We are working with our aboriginal and post-secondary partners to build on the results of what we've already achieved, making good progress towards ensuring aboriginal learners' success.

B.C. is known around the world for the quality education we offer, and we've been enormously successful in attracting international students. Our new international education strategy will help attract even more students and investment to B.C. International students contribute greatly to our economy and just as significantly to the intercultural diversity of our campuses and communities.

Education is and will continue to be the key to British Columbia's success in a knowledge-based global economy, where about three-quarters of all jobs in the future will require some form of post-secondary education. That means we need to work now to produce the best educated and best trained — and we are, through Budget 2012. We must continue supporting students and the education institutions that develop them — and we are, through Budget 2012.

To support B.C.'s jobs plan, we will continue investing in our young people and support them as they invest in themselves. It's clear that we must continue to work together as a system to bring benefits to students and taxpayers, and we will do that.

I know you have ideas on how we can achieve our goals and how we can pay for them. Mr. Chair, I would be happy to receive comments, remarks and questions from the members of the Legislature.

M. Mungall: I'd like to first thank the minister for providing the opportunity to do this budget estimates debate today. I want to extend a thank-you to all of her staff. I know that they do work very hard for the people of British Columbia and for the minister in advancing post-secondary education in this province.

I also want to send a special thank-you to the people who work on our side of the House on this file. That would be our researcher, Derrick Harder. We also have an intern right now, as does the government side in their caucus. Our intern who has been working on this file, his name is Ian.

We also have a wonderful communication staff. Jennifer McWilliam has been working with me for the past year. She recently moved on to another file. We have Jennifer Jones now on the file. Both women have done exceptional work in our communications department.

I want to say thank you to legislative assistant Susan Farmer and my constituency assistant Laurie Langille — both of whom have spent countless hours organizing meetings and tours throughout the entire province in the post-secondary sector — and also to my constituency assistant Della McLeod, who answers the phones and takes many phone calls from students and their families from all over the province.

Every single one of us — on both sides of the House, no doubt — and all of the people who I have just mentioned have an incredible passion for post-secondary education and view it as something that's integral in our economy and in our society. Indeed, there is no doubt about it that post-secondary education is what's necessary for the jobs of tomorrow. There are countless studies that show that.

The final tally is that 80 percent of jobs in the next few years are going to require some level of post-secondary education, and that shows that B.C. is moving quickly into the knowledge economy.

With that, due to our late start this morning, I will sum it up there and just move right into some questions. I'm going to first focus on questions that are general to ministry expenditures.

I'll just start with asking if the ministry has recently, in the past year, hired any consultants and what the value of those contracts is and what those consultants were for.

[1025]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The answer to your question is yes. The dollar value is $1.237 million. Let me just explain here. That actually includes internal and external consultants, so $600,000 of that is actually an internal organization, B.C. Stats, that we use for our student survey.

M. Mungall: So we just heard the minister say that there were internal and external consultants and talked about the stats. I'm just wondering if there is any specifically for public relations as well.

[1030]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With respect to STOB 60, which is the general consulting service of the $1.237 million, those are for advisory services and analysis. So the answer to your question is no. There aren't any expenditures for public relations for STOB 60. But if you look in STOB 67, that's where you will see public relations expenditures categorized. As of the end of January 2012 there have
[ Page 9797 ]
been no expenditures.

M. Mungall: So my understanding is that this is for informational advertising, according to what it says at the beginning. It's called STOB 67. It's informational advertising and publications. So then, I'm just wondering: what exactly are the consultants doing in terms of this type of advertising? Is it for any specific type of program that the Minister of Advanced Education is putting forward?

There's a totally different line item that's for statutory advertising. So maybe if I could just get some clarity on what kind of advertising and what kind of public relations work is being done.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite asked what types of advertising we plan to do. We will be rolling out an aboriginal post-secondary education strategy, as well as an international education strategy. The types of advertising will be in support of those strategies.

[1035]

M. Mungall: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm just moving on to the staffing complement for the ministry. I'm just wondering if there have been any salary increases for political staff.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My ministry's office staff has been flat, and there have been no increases in salaries.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if there has been any increase in staff within the ministry.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Can I just ask the member opposite for clarification? Do you mean in my minister's office or in the ministry staff?

M. Mungall: Both, actually.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There has been no change in either the minister's office or the ministry staff.

M. Mungall: On that note, then, just wondering how many FTE staff hours were dedicated to meeting with lobbyists in the last year, and which lobbyists did the minister meet with?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With the indulgence of the member opposite, could we get back to the member opposite with those answers? We could take the time to figure that all out, but I think that wouldn't be a good use of the time we have right now. So I will get back to the member opposite later in our estimates with that answer.

M. Mungall: That's no problem. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[1040]

Then, just moving on, I just want to go back for a second to the minister saying that there are no staff changes. I just want to be clear because sometimes I know, even myself, I can get confused. So when there are no staff changes, I'm talking about not just…. I guess I'm looking also at the managerial staff — so not just the front-line staff but at all levels, managerial and front line.

I'm wondering if there are any increases there. I'll let you answer that, and then I'll come back.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There have been staff changes, of course, through attrition and other reasons, but there has been no change in the overall number of FTEs in the ministry.

M. Mungall: No changes in the overall FTEs, but no changes in terms of number of staff at the senior management level? I wasn't looking necessarily for FTEs.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have three ADMs right now. This time last year we had two ADMs, so that would be considered a change. But the overall complement, number, in the senior management team has stayed the same.

M. Mungall: With the new position for an ADM, now there are three ADMs. Obviously, someone was either promoted or newly appointed. I mean, there is a change, and it is an increase in staff. I'm not sure how the minister concludes that it's not an increase when we've gone from two positions to three — two ADMs to three ADMs. So at least, someone is promoted or newly appointed.

[1045]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Maybe I just need to clear up the responses. My initial response to the member opposite was that there had been no staff changes to the entire complement, the ministry staff complement. At the senior management level there has been an additional ADM added to it, but overall, there has been no change to the complement of staff in the ministry.

M. Mungall: Then is there still just 260 staff in the ministry? That's the number I received last year when I met with the DM at the time. If there has been no change, then I would anticipate it would still be at 260.

Clearly, also, a new ADM position shows that there is some type of reorganization going on within the ministry. My earlier question around that was: is someone newly appointed, or were they promoted into this position?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'll just correct the member opposite. There are actually 262 FTEs for the Ministry of Advanced Education, not 260. Two of those FTEs are actually funded by JTI, though.

In response to her last question: yes, the ADM position was newly hired.
[ Page 9798 ]

M. Mungall: I'm wondering. With the reorganization of the ministry and adding another ADM and, I'm guessing — I'm sorry if I don't know the correct term, but I'm going to call it a department for now — another department…. I don't understand how the ministry can do that type of reorganization without increasing its staff complement in terms of extra staff for a new ADM. Of course, that would require equivalent in terms of increased salaries or so on, or salary changes and benefits changes. So I'm just wondering what the cost is, then, to staff the new ADM and the cost of this reorganization.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The number of FTEs that can be accommodated within a ministry's budget depends on many factors, including attrition; retirements — all those issues; staffing lag, so the time between hirings; and of course the staff mix that changes throughout the year, especially when you have 260 people. And what we're also doing is we're looking at redeploying our existing staff to meet and address ministry priorities.

[1050]

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about Vancouver Island University, which has campuses adjacent to my constituency, both right across the street from the border of my constituency in Nanaimo and just south of my border in Duncan.

VIU has been dealing with budget shortfalls for the past several years and has been forced to make millions in cuts. The cuts are estimated to have amounted to $40 million over…. Actually, the cuts that they're facing now, due to the 1 percent cutback in the budget, would amount to $40 million over the next three years.

The ministry's policies up until this point led to the longest strike in B.C.'s post-secondary history this past year. Can the minister assure the students and faculty of VIU that they will be able to adequately meet their operational demands?

[1055]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd just like to set the record straight. There actually has been an increase, a substantial increase, in the annual operating grants to Vancouver Island University. Since 2001 there's been an almost 39 percent increase in the grants that taxpayers have provided to Vancouver Island University. With respect to the university and their mandate and how they run the organization, I'll just remind the member opposite that universities are autonomous bodies, and they manage their financial affairs without the interference of government.

D. Routley: Well, this is a bit Orwellian. It's a bit like public education K-to-12 funding; less is more. The ministers in both ministries will say, "More is being spent than ever," and disregard all the downloaded costs that have been imposed on these institutions and the inflation of those costs.

I would ask the minister, as I've asked the Education Minister, to manage my daughter's allowance. She could increase her allowance by double, from $25 a week to $50 a week. Then when all the increased heating costs, the increased costs of her teacher's salary, the increased costs of accounting demands imposed by the provincial government are placed on her, she can come back to me and say: "Well, Dad, I don't have money for this." I'll simply send her to the minister, who can tell her: "You have more funding than you've ever had before."

It really doesn't make sense to simply say, "Well, there's a whole bunch more money been put in," without taking a look at what costs have been imposed. The imposed restructuring of the community colleges into universities was not adequately funded, and they have been struggling ever since with that burden. From 2001 to 2012 the increase in funding amounts to, approximately, a little bit more than 3 percent per year, so even if you take away inflation, at best the universities are gaining 1 percent per year.

When I talk to the management, the faculty, the students and their students union at Vancouver Island University, they all tell me the same thing — that cuts are needing to be made to meet these increased costs because the increase in funding is not keeping up to those costs. So these cuts are actually from families, because families are being forced to take on increased burden in order to upgrade their training and upgrade their ability to participate in the economy and to make themselves the citizens that they'd like to be.

This is not something that we can just simply say: "We're providing more money, so there's no problem here." Well, there is a problem. At VIU there is a reduced volume of courses offered in each program area, particularly in high-demand areas that are required for completion of numerous programs, such as English and science.

The university is not in a position to offer more courses, more availability, even though they have wait-lists. This is because they don't have the funding to do so. So it would do the province and Vancouver Island University and this discussion a lot of good for us to dispense with the message box around more money without considering these additional costs.

The facts are clear. Vancouver Island University is having to cut program availability and not offer programs to students that are lined up waiting to take those courses. So it would help for the minister just to recognize those facts and to address how she is going to meet that demand.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm not sure there was a question there. If I could ask the member opposite to repeat the question.

D. Routley: The question is if we can dispense with:
[ Page 9799 ]
"We've put more money in. Yes, there's more money." Dispense with that, because there are increased costs. The fact is the university is having to cut program availability, course availability, across the spectrum of what it offers. Particularly where there are wait-lists, this is unfortunate because there are students waiting to take the courses. The university isn't in a position to increase the course availability because they just don't have the funds, but the demand is there.

[1100]

What I'm asking the minister is if we can…. Yeah, okay, more funding — I've heard that, but there are more costs. The end net result is a deficit. The deficit has been met by cutting program availability. There is demand for those programs. How is the minister going to help meet that demand?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In response to the member opposite, let me repeat: the operating grants have actually increased by 39 percent since 2001. If you translate that into dollars, it's $36.4 million in 2001 and $50.8 million in 2011-2012.

In addition to that, since 2003 the number of funded student spaces actually has increased by 592 seats. But I think the underlying stat that I'd like to reinforce with the member opposite is that despite that, the utilization rate for Vancouver Island University has been for the last several years actually less than 90 percent.

D. Routley: Well, I won't belabour that, because the same answer will keep coming back. But the same question will always be offered in response to the same answer, and that is: how can less be more? How can more be less?

What we're refusing to grapple with here is the outcome. The outcome is fewer courses available to more students. We have wait-lists, and we're not able to meet them. Anyway, I think it's not helpful for us to belabour that point.

I'd like to ask the minister about the licensed practical nursing programs. The College of Licensed Practical Nurses determined that the B.C. program, the one-year certificate program, was not adequate in order to maintain accreditation. They recommended — and, in fact, demanded — that in order to maintain accreditation, the program be increased and doubled to a two-year diploma program.

When the colleges and universities went to the ministry to seek funding for this increase, this doubling of the one-year certificate to a two-year diploma program, I'm told that the government said no to new funds.

Then the government essentially said: "Well, okay. Why don't you call it a new program? Then you can escape the cap on inflation for tuitions. If you call it a new program, you can charge whatever tuition you want."

[1105]

As a result, the colleges are charging anywhere from 70 to 100 percent more per credit for a licensed practical nurse program than for a registered nurse program. Can the minister confirm that that's a correct portrayal of what's occurred?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There were two questions from the member opposite. So I'll deal with the first one. It did talk about whether there are more courses and more students and what the actual outcomes are and how we measure them.

[1110]

One way of measuring them is the number of credentials that are awarded. Just in the last year, from '09-10 to '10-11, there was an increase of 74 more credentials awarded just in that one year at Vancouver Island University. So that's an outcome that we measure.

The other outcome we measure is student satisfaction rates. Vancouver Island University actually had quite a high satisfaction rate two years ago; 95.2 percent of the baccalaureate graduates were satisfied with their education. That increased last year to 97.3 percent. That's another important outcome that we measure as well.

The member opposite also talked about a change of LPN programming. This new program for LPNs has been changed significantly. In fact, over three-quarters of the program has changed since the original program that was offered years ago.

There has been a new redesign of the program, and in fact, new core competencies are required for the entrants to the program. The expectation for the skills that LPNs now need to deliver our quality health care in our hospitals and communities has increased quite a bit as well. For that reason, the program has been considerably, significantly redesigned.

D. Routley: For the thousands upon thousands of people spellbound at home watching this, I'll explain that we in the opposition who are asking questions have to jump up right away and ask the next question, or the Chair will call for a vote on this section of the budget and we can no longer ask questions.

On the other side, to explain the five-minute gap in the answer to the question that won't show up in the written Hansard, but will if those thousands upon thousands of people are watching now, is attributable to the fact that the minister has four of the most excellent public servants in British Columbia sitting with her.

Upon being asked a question, the minister then consults with those public servants. They provide the minister with the brilliance — not that she's lacking any of that herself — and the ability to answer the question specifically on the topic that we've asked and therefore stay within the government's framing of the issue and not be an affront to the democratic process by actually answering some of the questions that are asked. So thank you to the minister and to the people who are supporting her.
[ Page 9800 ]

It's interesting, though, that the minister says: "We measure these things, and we measure outcomes. The measurement of outcome would be 74 more credentials." Having spoken to all the stakeholders, even for me, that is difficult to put into context. So I imagine, for the thousands upon thousands of spellbound British Columbians watching this, it would be even more difficult to contextualize that answer.

The satisfaction rate refers to their education. Yes, they're satisfied with their education. The part that they're less satisfied with is their debt and the cost of that education. Their debt average, being $27,000 per student, is the highest west of the Maritimes. With the highest levels of cost of living, those same students and families are struggling with ever-increasing burdens.

That's really embedded in the licensed practical nursing question in that, yes, the program has been restructured. By being defined as a new program, it has escaped the capping of inflation per credit.

While the program has been restructured, I assume that the per-credit value of the certificate or diploma hasn't very much changed. You're still having to accumulate a certain number of credits over a certain amount of time, and those credits, broken down, have a cost. It appears that the per-credit cost of the new licensed practical nursing course is anywhere from 70 to 100 percent more than the per-credit cost of the previous licensed practical nursing certificate program.

[1115]

If you're not capping these credits to tuition, if you're allowing this redefinition of the course to escape the per-credit capping to inflation, how do you define what is a new program? Is it like evicting someone painting and saying: "You've renovated, so you can escape rent controls"?

So unless there's a significant change…. This is an expansion of the program, but it's still the same outcome, essentially. They still are licensed practical nurses. They still make the same amount of money as they would have before. Often these are older students or students from families that are struggling. Over a fairly short period of time, they can get this training and then advance their lives. Again, families are being impacted by increased costs.

Can the minister please explain how she can justify a 70- to 100-percent increase in the per-credit cost of becoming a licensed practical nurse?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would like to reiterate the comment that the member opposite made with respect to our excellent public servants. They are very hard-working, and I have nothing but good things to say about them.

[1120]

But back to the question at hand. I'll reiterate what I did mention. There were significant changes made to the nursing program, and for good reason. The public expectation for increasing the standards of care in our health care system continually increases. I'm actually told that 78 percent of the program is new.

We have a tuition limit policy, and it only allows institutions to increase the tuition for a program that is substantially new. Perhaps to let the member opposite know, we actually very rarely approve program tuition increases. In fact, we have said no more often than not.

With respect to this particular nursing program, we are not out of line nationally. This program, in terms of its cost to other jurisdictions, is completely in line.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the Ministry of Advanced Education staff that the minister has brought in to answer questions. I have specific questions about Northwest Community College.

By way of introduction, Northwest Community College services communities in my constituency, Stikine; and also in Skeena to the west; in the North Coast constituency further west; and also to the east, to Nechako Lakes constituency. It serves a catchment area that is half of the size of France, just to give an idea of the size of the catchment area, with 72,000 people in the catchment area. A third of the people in the catchment area are of First Nations descent, which is the largest percentage population of any community college in the province as far as overall population demographics.

My question, first off, to the minister is: what is the government base grant for Northwest Community College for 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the three years covered in this budget? What is the annual capital allowance for each of those years contained within that government base grant?

[1125]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: For Northwest Community College the base grant for 2012-13 is $17.574 million. That's been held steady from last year's base grant. What we haven't done is allocate the base grant for any of our institutions for 2013-14 or for '14-15 — the out-years — until we actually work together with our sector to realize the administrative efficiencies that we'll be looking for.

With respect to the annual capital allowance, $214,497 has been allocated to Northwest Community College. Any further funding in the out-years will be based on the facility condition index that we will actually have completed shortly. That will guide us on where our capital should be allocated within the system.

I'll just remind the member opposite that in the next three years we have allocated $462 million in capital. Of that, over $260 million will be for routine maintenance, in addition, then, to the annual capital allowance that we have provided for our institutions.

[1130]

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer — held steady
[ Page 9801 ]
from last year on the government base grants. From what the colleges have heard, the government has indicated that there will be no budget increases in that grant for 2012-13 and '13-14 and possibly a reduction in the year following that.

In order to calculate the government base grant, you must have considered inflationary costs facing Northwest Community College. What did you calculate for utility costs; negotiated salary increases, including step increases built into positions; and other operating costs that have inflation pressures?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: What the ministry does is we provide block funding to institutions, and we actually give the institutions the autonomy to allocate the resources as they see appropriate.

I'll just remind the member opposite that since 2001 we've increased the annual operating grant to Northwest Community College by over 25 percent. Since 2003 they've increased the FTEs by 110. Regrettably, their utilization rate is still rather low. It's just over 77 percent.

D. Donaldson: The government has calculated, in its own calculations over the next three years, an inflation rate of 2 to 2.5 percent per year. Compounded, this would be a 9 percent increase in costs over the three-year budget period.

[1135]

When the minister talks about block funding and flatlining the budget, then obviously this means at least a 9 percent decrease. I would propose that in rural colleges such as Northwest Community College, which maintains a number of facilities in a catchment area, as I said, half the size of France, these inflationary costs are even greater. It's a northern college. From a heating and electricity point of view alone, B.C. Hydro rates are going up far ahead of the 2 percent that the government calculates when looking at the overall inflationary average.

So what I would say is that the college is being asked to do more with less. My question, then, goes to the ability of colleges in the north, and Northwest Community College particularly, in an area that has a high unemployment rate but has great potential opportunities based on the necessary skills training that must go on to make sure that we meet local people for having those opportunities….

The annual capital allowance for Northwest Community College, as pointed out by Dave O'Leary, one of the vice-presidents, has decreased 74 percent. It's down from $827,000 a year to, as the minister points out, $214,419.

Part of training people is ensuring that they are trained on equipment that's maintained and up to date. This is what some of the annual capital allowance does.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines points out that a risk they face is the need to train and retrain a workforce to keep pace with innovation and new technologies. I question how this ministry is helping other ministries and local people and local colleges meet their goals when they're basically cutting the amount of resources that are available to colleges for training.

So my question would be to the minister. Again, Vice-President Dave O'Leary pointed out, in a presentation to the Select Standing Committee on Finance in the fall, that the college has an award-winning School of Exploration and Mining operated out of the Smithers campus. In fact it's a camp situation north of Smithers — walled tents. I've visited numerous times up there. It's an amazing facility. It's meant to mimic a camp setting that the students would encounter upon graduation. Very good success rate for employment coming out of that program, and the trouble is they don't have any core funding.

What the college has proposed is…. They've been very successful in finding partnerships with industry and others to provide the programming, but they were proposing and asking the province to provide core funding in the order of $500,000 annually for five years. This is, again, an epicentre of potential mining jobs in the province.

So my question to the minister is: what was their response to the request for $500,000 in core funding for such a successful and award-winning program — School of Exploration and Mining? And is that $500,000 core funding request reflected in an increase or at least some kind of provincial contribution within this upcoming budget year?

[1140]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am aware of the mining exploration program that is offered at the Smithers campus. I understand it's actually quite successful. It's been a great partnership between the federal government and industry.

There isn't any core funding that is provided by the province. I'm not aware of the $500,000 request, but we can follow that up with the member opposite later. The province did provide one-time startup money for the mining exploration program of about $2 million. That was provided over two years a few years ago, in recognition that this is an exceptional program.

We are also aware of the skilled workers that the north requires, or the province of B.C. requires, and what we're doing is really focusing on how we can actually work together with the different institutions, the post-secondary institutions, as well as industry, government, the community, chambers of commerce in the area.

We have a couple of regional workforce tables in the north that are underway right now to determine what exactly those workforce needs will be. I'm pleased to say that as we receive that feedback from the workforce tables, we will look at reallocating the funding that is required for post-secondary education in the north so that we can
[ Page 9802 ]
align the need for specific skilled workers and the jobs there that are available.

R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I'll just ask one question before we get back to this set of estimates this afternoon.

I wanted to talk about an institution that's in my constituency, Camosun College — a college that has 100 percent utilization rates, as the minister knows, and has static funding in this budget. That is causing a number of difficulties and problems within the institution.

[1145]

The minister will also know that last year the college had to make some very regrettable decisions and deeply cut some areas in the programs that are offered, including learning skills, the programs of applied communications, tourism and dental hygiene. It was last year that some of those programs and some of the options that the college is able to provide were, unfortunately, lost. In this budget there are going to be some extreme difficulties again for the college.

I wonder if the minister could share exchanges with the institution about how they are going to respond to this budget. The budget has been in existence long enough now that surely she has heard from leading administrators at Camosun College and other institutions about what the situation they're facing is. The boards of governors are meeting. The boards of directors are meeting at these institutions. A lot of things are on the table that are unfortunate.

The programs I mentioned that were cut last year…. Some have a virtually 100 percent job placement rate. Train the students, they go into jobs, they pay taxes, and they are able to build a life for themselves. Even despite that, because they have to manage costs that are unrealistic and budgets that are unrealistic and budgets that haven't been done in adequate consultation with college leaders, this is what they're looking at again.

If the minister could share what some of things are that we can expect Camosun will announce imminently — program offerings that may be reduced or eliminated entirely next year.

[1150]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Noting the hour, I will keep my answer as short as I can. But out of respect to the member opposite, first of all, I will say that actually Camosun College does very well. They've got a very high utilization rate — 101 percent, I noticed. Having gone to Camosun College on a tour — actually, a couple of tours now — I am a huge fan. The member opposite is fortunate to have an institution as reactive and responsive to industry and community needs as Camosun College.

What we expect, though, of all our institutions, not only Camosun, is that they will be innovative, will be creative. They have been asked and tasked with maximizing the huge investment that taxpayers already make in post-secondary education.

Some of the programs that the member opposite mentioned that were not available last year…. My understanding is that because a lot of the programs regrettably were not full, they decided to — I think quite smartly — deliver these programs in alternate years. Many of the programs still exist, but they're being delivered in alternate years so that they can maximize the enrolment of the programs without actually having to eliminate the program in its entirety.

The annual operating grant for Camosun College has increased since 2001 by over 37 percent. There are now, since 2003, 673 more student spaces at Camosun College. As the member opposite recognized, their utilization rate is very good. It sits at 101 percent.

We've also seen a huge investment in capital projects at Camosun College — over $42 million since 2001. That's in investment made by both the federal and provincial governments. From this provincial government there's been over $15 million in investments since 2001. I think it's important to list what they are, because it does speak to Camosun's ability to align resources and programs to meet the needs of the community.

So $1.85 million from Advanced Education to renovate and provide upgrades to various buildings, both at the Interurban Campus and their Lansdowne Campus; over $2 million to build the learning commons on both campuses; a further $6 million towards the construction of the new Pacific Sport Institute; as well as $176,971 for a diesel engine–driven welder and related equipment for Camosun's welding program — that's actually a part of the ministry's overall $8.75 million investment for new trades-training equipment; as well as a $2.6 million investment for the college's energy efficiency retrofit program at the Interurban Campus, which will realize savings in the future as well.

Mr. Chair, noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada