2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 31, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. I. Chong: This morning I call in the little House, the Douglas Fir Room, budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

L. Popham: This morning I continue debate on Bill 22. I was able to speak for about 15 minutes last night, and I'll continue with my 15 minutes this morning.

[1005]

[D. Black in the chair.]

The interesting thing about the way that this debate is going is that the government side of the House is failing to stand up and to speak for their full 30 minutes. I think that is a very disrespectful way of doing business in this chamber. I think it actually reflects how dysfunctional the government side of the House is at this point.

The fact that this bill is creating so much distress in British Columbia, and the fact that the government is failing to stand up, make me question whether they believe in this legislation that they're pushing through. They're ramming it through. Instead of negotiating, they're ramming through a bill that will only make the situation in public education worse.

The government seems determined to provoke a confrontation, to create drama where it can push around a union, and using students as pawns. It's one of the saddest situations I've seen since I was elected in 2009.

One of my fundamental objections to Bill 22 is that it attacks the rights of teachers to negotiate class composition and class size.

I'm a parent with a child in the school system, and I understand completely what this means. I've seen it, for the last eight years in the public education system, when there are too many students in each class. What it means is that the teachers are pushed to their limits, and the students are the ones who will suffer because they aren't getting the individual attention that they deserve.

The teachers are doing the best job they can with the resources they have, but the resources aren't there, and that's because the B.C. Liberals do not believe in public education the way that the New Democrats do on this side of the House. We believe in it. We believe that public education is the right of every kid in British Columbia. The B.C. Liberals believe that it's not. It's just something that they're going to maintain so that we can say we have a public school system, but they're eroding it year after year after year.

I say that as an MLA for Saanich South, but I also say that as a parent. My son still has years to go in the public school system. I support public education. It's the choice I've made for my son. But I can see what the B.C. Liberal government has done to public education, and it's not a pretty sight.

The words of the Leader of the Opposition were very good yesterday as he stood and gave his full 30 minutes — a full 30 minutes — on how passionate he is about public education. He says:

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

"That's why members of the NDP caucus, that's why our MLAs" — on this side of the House — "are standing up in this debate."

Those are the words from the Leader of the Official Opposition. Those are wise words. We have yet to hear words from the Premier of British Columbia on this bill — yet to hear words. The Premier has not stood in this House for 30 minutes to defend the Premier's actions. I think it's unacceptable, and it's enraging parents across the province.

If the Premier feels so strongly that this is a way of improving education in British Columbia, where is the Premier? Where is the Premier? Why has she not stood in this House over the last three days? I'm waiting for the Premier to stand up in the House and explain it. I would like to hear her explanation of how this is improving education, because we on this side of the House do not believe it is improving it at all.

I have had numerous letters from my constituents. I've had letters from parents. I've had letters from grandparents. I've had letters from teachers, and I have had letters from students. I know that the MLAs on the other side of the House are getting the same feedback that I'm getting.

As far as I'm concerned, the government MLAs are not representing their constituents, the privilege that was given to them by the people of British Columbia, and they are ignoring their constituents because they are following a Premier who is the enemy of public education, in my mind.

I know that there are members on the other side of the House that believe in public education. I challenge you to stand up and say so in this House.

[1010]

I have a letter from a teacher who is a teacher in a high school in Saanich South. He wrote this letter, and this letter has actually gone onto YouTube, and it's gone viral because it reflects what so many people are thinking. I would like to take the opportunity to read this letter from a teacher at Claremont Secondary School.

"I would like to thank the Minister of Education. My wife and I just had an excellent discussion with our daughters about power and the importance of checks and balances in society. My kids are 12 and ten. They were very confused about why the government was allowed to make rules, such as fining teachers $475 a day or $2,500 a day for going on strike.

"We explained that our government is elected to make decisions on our behalf and that we trust that they will make good and considered decisions. 'But what if we don't agree with their decisions?' my kids wondered. We explained that there is time to debate these decisions before they are made and that everybody is allowed to write letters or protest if they disagree.

"We explained that the media is meant to also provide some balance by asking difficult and challenging questions. 'But they're saying that if you protest their decision, they will fine you,' they replied. We had no answer. 'Why do they hate teachers?' one of them asked. I still had no answer.

"I could have been a lawyer. I scored in the 98th percentile of the LSAT and was accepted to Queen's Law School and offered a scholarship to a law school in the northeastern U.S. I chose, instead, to defer my decision and be a tutor and a coach, TOC at my old high school for a couple of years. This was a private boarding school in Ontario.

"I loved it. I loved being able to explain concepts in math to kids and see the lights go on. I loved sharing my passion for math, for soccer, for hockey, for philosophy, for poetry and for musical theatre with kids. I never considered going back to law after those two years.

"After completing my teacher training at UVic, I did my practicum in Saanich. I hadn't realized until then what a sheltered teaching existence I had at the boarding school, with well-to-do kids brought up with every advantage, the type of kids to whom the Minister of Education recently referred to as the smart kids, I believe.

"In the public school system in Saanich I learned humility. I learned how to be a better teacher, how to teach the whole child and not just the mind. I taught classes that not only had some of the Minister of Education's advantaged smart kids but other kids who were equally smart and capable, if not more, but who faced challenges the other kids didn't: broken homes, poverty issues, learning disabilities, to name a few. These classes were challenging because the kids' needs were so varied. Some kids could be turned on by ideas alone, and some kids needed to be convinced of the value of learning. To place education in context, some just needed breakfast.

"Yet at the time I started teaching in Saanich, I considered myself fortunate because we had a locally arranged agreement about how many kids could be in a secondary English class. I taught English at the time. The number was 27 unless you had a student who had an acknowledged special need, such as dyslexia or visual impairment, for example, that would require a significant amount of adjustment to practise or extra preparation. For each of these students, the number would drop by one. If there were six special needs students in your English 11 class, the maximum number of kids would be 21.

"Trust me. This would still be a challenging class in terms of composition, but the system worked. It was so important to teachers, my older colleagues told me, that teachers took less salary improvements at the time in order to secure these contract provisions.

"Silly me for thinking that contracts were something sacrosanct in Canadian law. When I first started my continuing contract at Claremont Secondary in year 2000, we had an enrolment not very different from our enrolment today. When I started at Claremont, it was not unusual for the more challenging classes, such as essentials of math 10 or communications 11, to have 12 to 15 students, because that's what those kids needed to be successful.

[1015]

"When I started at Claremont, there were two librarians, one for every 550 kids. When I started at Claremont, there was a staff of 85 to 90, with plenty of teachers in the building to comfortably take on all the extracurricular activities that make schools, as the Saanich motto goes, 'great places to learn and safe places to be.'

"Today at Claremont, a class with less than 23 to 24 students does not run. This legislation before you will only make that number increase, I assure you, and it's not what the kids need. Today at Claremont there is a three-quarter time librarian, which translates to one librarian for every 1,475 kids. Today at Claremont there is a staff of 65 to 70. This group, which now numbers 20 fewer than when I started 12 years ago, has been attempting to keep up all the things that make our school great — outstanding academics including extracurricular offerings such as the dozens of math contests I sponsor and organize every year, an incredible sports program, an enviable fine arts program, and numerous volunteer organizations that enrich our school community and the community at large.

"So far we have managed, but we have had to take up the slack now for too long. We are at the breaking point. I promise you this legislation already threatens to push us over the edge.

"Surely, this government is not deaf to teachers from around the province, who are saying 'enough.' Enough. We have devoted our lives to a profession that we knew all along would not make us rich, but we did it because we believed it would help the kids and it was worth it. Enough, because we believed in it so much that we traded even the most meagre raises, time and time again, in order to gain better classroom conditions for our students. Enough. We tried our absolute best to play within the rules when government after government stripped away those conditions that we bought with our own salaries, even when the Supreme Court ruled that those government actions were illegal.

"Enough. We have tried to hold our heads high when we are vilified to the press as lazy and greedy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Enough. We have devoted countless hours to volleyball, to musical theatre, to poetry, to charity, to rugby, to yearbook clubs, to student councils, to tutoring before school from 7 a.m. and tutoring after school from 6 p.m. or longer, to tutoring kids by e-mail on the weekends, and to our own professional development whether that occurs on pro-D-day or on our own time.

"Yes, Minister of Education, we actually do professional development. In short, we have devoted countless hours to children and families of this province, and the thanks we get is one more slap in the face by the Legislature.

"Now, I'm not so out of touch that I don't realize as a teacher at the top of the scale, I'm fairly comfortable. Sure, it irks me that all of you folks in the Legislature have received pay raises in the last ten years beyond what I would have received, pay raises that you are allowed to vote for yourselves. Not that I would dare suggest that you don't deserve it. I don't envy your job in the least. But even despite this glaring double standard, I would have accepted no raise if it were that alone.

"It is not the extending of the current contract in this legislation that has me upset. I am insulted. I am insulted that you have the temerity to suggest that this legislation represents mediation in any true sense of the word."

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time has expired. Thank you very much.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to address Bill 22.
[ Page 9921 ]
Today, of course, is International Women's Day. Before I enter into my remarks, I would like to acknowledge the women in this House, the women in Hansard, the women who are watching at home and the women of our province for the great work they do, for building a better province for all of us — and, of course, to thank them for their fight for equality for everybody.

We still have a ways to go, and I think we men have a great responsibility to work with our sisters to bring that about. So it's somewhat fitting, I think, that I address this legislation on International Women's Day since so many of my teachers have been women — and great women too — who have inspired me and taught me much.

[1020]

My grandfather and my grandmother were teachers. I never got to know my grandmother, but from what my parents told me, from what my father told me, she was a woman who believed very much in education. She would take the kids out to the local libraries wherever they were as they travelled all around the prairies to small communities as teachers. That love of reading, that love of education, is something that my father passed down to me and, indeed, my mother did as well. It's something that was supported by my teachers.

My life was changed by teachers. I think of Mrs. Harwood, Mr. Galloway, Ms. Wilson, Mme. Patenaude, Ms. Palavacinni, Ms. Yang, Mr. McKay, P.J., Ms. Wallace, Mr. Kinnear, Mr. Harpanvick — on and on and on. A number of them are still teaching today. They inspired a love of learning. They put in the extra time — after school, before school, on the weekends, taking us out on trips to different parts of the province on their own time because they loved education. They knew that education is important for our future, just as important as it is for today.

They loved us kids. They loved our ability to learn, our excitement, our curiosity and the desire to do better. They put in their time because they knew it was the right thing to do. They weren't doing it because it would make them rich. They were doing it because they knew it would make our society rich. So I thank them for that.

Indeed, I would not be in this House today were it not for my teachers. I include my parents as teachers, as well, because they gave me a belief that I could do anything — that despite bullying, despite some pretty tough days in school, that it was worth continuing on and that, indeed, my voice was worth sharing and that my ideas were worth sharing. So I thank them for that.

Why are we here today? Why are we addressing this legislation today? We're here because of a relationship that broke down at the start of 2002, with the introductions of Bills 28 and 29 by the current Premier when she was then Minister of Education — bills that stripped contracts, that made it so class size and composition were no longer things that teachers could bargain. Their working conditions were no longer things that they had the ability to influence in any great form.

I saw a sign the other day at a big rally on the lawn of the Legislature which said: "My kids' learning conditions are my teachers' working conditions." I thought that was very appropriate. I know some on the other side of the House have suggested it doesn't matter how big the classes are, that if the teacher is great, then the kids will learn.

Well, there are plenty of great teachers who do the best they can with very big classes in this province — classes that break class-size and compensation laws that the Liberals claim they brought into place to keep class sizes in check, even though there are over 1,000 classrooms that have been breaking those laws. They claim: "Oh, it will all be fine. They can just teach."

They do their best. Our teachers do, do their best. But when you have kids in a big room where they're sitting on desks, sitting on tables, without the appropriate materials to learn, without the appropriate environment to learn, it's hard. It's very hard.

Sometimes kids need an extra bit of attention, as I know I did at times — as I know many in this House probably did at times. But because class sizes were smaller, teachers were able to give that extra hand. Because there were educational assistants, they were able to give that extra hand. Because there were teacher-librarians, they were able to give that extra hand. That made it so that we all could learn and we could learn better.

We're here because there's a poisonous relationship between the Premier and our educators, our teachers. I think that's very unfortunate, because our teachers should be able to rely on our Premier to stand up for them. Our Premier should be setting a good example of respecting our educators, respecting our teachers, and being able to say that education is the number one thing that we should be looking at, the number one thing we should be caring for. Without education, we have no future.

[1025]

I'd like to share some words that I have learned from teachers, which I think reflect on this bill and, indeed, on this government's approach to not only this legislation but many other pieces of legislation. The first word I'll use is a word that I used the other day in estimates debate. A number of members looked confused. They didn't quite know what the word was. I think they hadn't had the benefit of some of the teachers that I had. It's a word that I love, because it's bizarre.

The word is "obfuscation," and it means "to make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand; to render indistinct or dim, darken," as in "the fog obfuscated the shore." It's the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous and harder to interpret.

I think that word reflects very much what this government has tried to do with this legislation. When you hear the Premier saying, "Oh, I gave the teachers what they wanted," and when you see the teachers on the doorstep
[ Page 9922 ]
of this Legislature saying very clearly that the Premier doesn't know what she's talking about, there's some obfuscation going on.

When parents see that, when indeed our students see that the government is saying one thing but doing something completely different, when they go on the airwaves and say, "Oh, it's the NDP; the NDP is trying to cause this strike; they're trying to make it hard on students," when indeed it's the Liberal government that brought in this legislation and that poisoned the well with the teachers, in this case, that's obfuscation. When they claim that class size and composition don't really matter — "It's okay; everything is fine; there's really not an issue with overcrowded classrooms" — that's obfuscation.

Another word I learned from a teacher is "distraction — the act or an instance of distracting or the state of being distracted; something that serves as a diversion or entertainment; an interruption, an obstacle to concentration," and, finally, "mental turmoil or madness." Well, some have suggested that this legislation and indeed this work action by our teachers and how the government has responded are, in part, to distract or to create distraction from this Liberal government's economic mess, from their governing mess, from their HST mess, from their environmental mess and from their lack of vision.

Create distraction through a strike with the unions, and somehow the Liberals will be able to put their humpty dumpty back together again and regain the support of British Columbians, as if for some reason, British Columbians don't like teachers.

There seems to be a bit of an element of distraction in how the Liberals are attaching this legislation, how they've created this legislation, how they talk about this legislation. "Look over here. Meanwhile, over on the other side we're doing things that you don't know about and that if you did know about, you probably wouldn't like" — trying to cynically change the channel from Liberal failures as they approach by-elections, as they approach the general election.

Now, some good words that I've learned from teachers. "Negotiation — a discussion set up or intended to produce a settlement or agreement; the act or process of negotiating." That's what we want. That's what teachers want. That's what students want. That's what parents want — real negotiation.

What does that require? People sitting down in a mutually respectful environment, being upfront about the difficulties and working with each other to succeed. Not one side coming to the table and saying: "Here you go. We're stripping your contract. We don't believe in this. We don't like this about you, and we don't like that about you." And then the other side going, "Um, well, here, we'll change some of our demands, and we'll try to do some things here," and then not moving forward.

That's not negotiation. A negotiation is not something that is really all that effective when it's done through the media. I know the government likes to go through the media, in part so that they can obfuscate and distract, but that's not negotiation. That's grandstanding — something this government has become well known for and, in particular, the Premier.

"Mediation — the act of mediating, intervention, the state of being mediated, an attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party." That's something that we on the opposition side have been calling for. That's something that the teachers came through and called for. That's something the Vancouver school board called for. That's something that indeed school trustees from all across this province have called for, and indeed the public called for that very strongly too.

[1030]

Real mediation, not a distracted mediation, not a false mediation but real mediation. When you bring in a law like this, a bill like this, which just puts back into law something that the Supreme Court ruled out of law and unconstitutional, that's not mediation. That's might is right. That's my way is the highway. That's not mediation.

Meanwhile, our kids and our teachers are stuck in the middle — again, because of obfuscation, distraction, no mediation, no real negotiation. The Liberals believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

We should remember that this government has been ruled against by the International Labour Organization of the United Nations ten times for going against international standards of collective bargaining; for tearing up contracts; for, again, believing that might is right and their way is the only way.

I believe you have to start from a respectful place if you are going to mediate — not a place where your legislation has been found to be illegal and then you just try to put it back in and not a place where, on the first day of the job action, when you would expect the Premier to be in the Legislature debating the legislation, given her earlier calls to do just that…. Instead of being here in the Legislature, where was the Premier?

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's not appropriate to comment on the presence or absence of members in the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Then what I will say is that on the day the legislation was brought in and debate began, I understand the Premier was in Chilliwack. I can't say where the Premier was?

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's not appropriate to mention whether members are present or absent in the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: Then I will just say that I understand the Premier was in Chilliwack. She may have been
[ Page 9923 ]
here in this House as well.

Deputy Speaker: No, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: Okay. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will not….

Deputy Speaker: It is simply not appropriate to comment on the presence or the absence of any member in the House at any time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Okay, thank you, hon. Speaker.

Well, I'll just say, then, that there was a meeting in Chilliwack that people were at. I understand that some high-placed individuals in our government were in location at that meeting, when I would have understood that they would be here in this House.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I understand that our public schools are challenged and that when a labour negotiation starts, we would be here. But that's not, indeed, what happened.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I enjoy Chilliwack very much. I know the member opposite is trying to suggest that that is not the case. I'm glad that many of us have been visiting Chilliwack.

Now, I'd like to respectfully submit a quote that was read in this Legislature by the Premier on February 28, attacking the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier said:

"He won't even stand up here on this day of all days, when this dispute is coming to a head, when that withdrawal is about to happen, when children could find themselves out on the streets or home or in daycare but certainly not in school. On a day when this threat hangs over our public education system, this member doesn't have the backbone to stand up and talk about it in this Legislature."

That was a quote the Premier read. A Premier who has spoken about anti-bullying decided to attack the Leader of the Opposition and claim that he had no backbone.

Well, so far, the Premier has not addressed this legislation in this House, has not debated it, has not spoken about this legislation in the House — even though, according to her, it was the most pressing concern and instantly we needed to be into the debate. Instantly the Premier needed to have her say, so much so that she was ruled out of order a few times by the Speaker of the House because she decided to debate legislation in a forum where that was not acceptable. Understanding the rules, as the Speaker would remind me this morning, is something that we all should do.

The Leader of the Opposition was here, and he was calling for mediation. He was here calling for mediation in this House. But we didn't see the Premier stand up in this House and call for mediation on that day. No, we did not. The leader was missing; the Premier was missing from debate.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: From the debate.

[1035]

The Premier did not engage in that debate in this House on that day, did not speak about that issue on that day, did not speak about that issue on the next day, did not speak about that issue on the next day after that, did not indeed speak about that issue yet today. Where was the Premier? The words of the days before about how.…

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, you're not to question the presence or the absence or ask where members are at any time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The minister is rising on a point of order.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has now been warned by the Chair repeatedly about this particular theme that he persists in articulating. Perhaps he might want to turn to the content of Bill 22 and perhaps provide us with some attention to that, as well as continuously going out of the bounds of the rules of this House.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I feel that I'm in control of the Chair, but I appreciate your intervention.

Would the member please continue.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Well, I think about what the Vancouver school board called for. They called for mediation. They did not, respectfully, support the Liberals' perspective on this bill. I think they called for mediation because, again, a negotiated settlement is better than legislation.

Now, why is this important? Well, I think about my schools in Vancouver–West End. I think about King George. I think about Lord Roberts and Lord Roberts Annex. I think about the teachers that I've met in those schools and the parent advisory committees.

We hear stories about West End kids who are struggling with poverty issues and how their only respite is in the schools. Because of this bill and because of previous bills before it that the Liberals have brought in, the parents and the teachers feel that their kids are not getting the best for them and for their education.

They talk about how kids will be sleeping in closets in apartments because their parents are struggling in poverty. Of course, B.C. has the worst child poverty rate in
[ Page 9924 ]
all of Canada and a government that refuses to enact any plans to deal with that issue.

Those issues are manifested in our schools. We see that in our schools — children struggling in poverty. The parents try to fundraise to support the less fortunate. The teachers fundraise, and they put their own money in to support the less fortunate. But again, the government refuses to acknowledge this — that the learning conditions are also the working conditions.

This bill will kick that issue off again, down the road — hopefully, after the by-elections, I'm sure the government hopes; hopefully, after the election, the government hopes, just like so many other decisions. Boot it off into the future so that your children have to deal with it, so that my children have to deal with it.

Just like debt. It's a similar issue. There's concern around debts. Of course, we know of huge debts and deficits under this government, which the future will have to pay for, but it's the same in education. If we don't deal with the issues when children are young, they will be forced to deal with them when they're older. Indeed, all of us will be forced to deal with those issues when we are older. This legislation, by making it so that class size and composition are not considered, will make it even more difficult for our future.

I think about a single dad I worked with in my constituency, who came in. His child needed support because he had difficulty speaking. He needed help from a speech therapist. He needed special attention in his classes.

He went to the school. They said: "We'd love to help you, but we just don't have resources. We can maybe assess you a couple of months down the road."

Meanwhile this student was struggling, was not passing the tests, was not thriving in his school. So we worked with the school. We worked with the principal. Finally, after months, this student got some of the assistance required — not all but some. Again, it's partly because of how this government has dealt with the education system.

It's like giving your kid an allowance and then starting to charge them rent. That's the government's approach so that it can obfuscate and distract, so it can say: "We have the highest levels of funding." Yet they also increased to the highest levels of rent.

So on one side, you can say, "Look how great we're doing," but over on the other side, you're taking out of the other pocket.

[1040]

I think about a particularly wonderful teacher at Lord Roberts who realized that the students with autism in her classes — and, indeed, in the whole school — were really struggling. She tried to fundraise. Indeed, she was successful in fundraising so that the students could get access to iPads, because she found that those tools were incredibly useful for teaching. She went to a private donor, and she managed to get the resources to do that.

That's the kind of love of learning, love of education that our teachers bring. But again, does this Bill 22 address that? No. It decides to pitch a fight with those people who are trying their hardest to make our students succeed.

I'd like to read a few words from teachers in my constituency and from parents in my constituency. This is from a man in my constituency, Todd. He writes:

"I'm a gay man living in the west end of Vancouver who will never have children. However, I believe in the importance of education. I have to tell you I am deeply embarrassed by how the B.C. government, despite a fairly robust economy, is treating teachers. Shame on the current government.

"Respectfully yours, Todd."

From another parent, Melanie:

"I want the BCTF and the provincial government to use mediation rather than legislation to deal with the teachers' job actions and requests. It makes me so sad to see the use of a bludgeon to deal with things that require care and respect on both sides. I know that in the B.C. government there's a tendency toward a blinkered vision of the realities of life and a sense that they have the only sane agenda in the province, but even so, it should not have the right to beat people back to work without talking seriously with them."

She continues:

"Oh, it makes me weary that every single thing that I consider a part of a civil, democratic society must be fought for over and over again with scant resources of time, money and energy."

That's Melanie.

Now from a teacher who teaches at King George:

"Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns about what is happening in our schools over the past ten years since the Liberal government arbitrarily and illegally stripped our contract of working and learning condition protections.

"In September I had a class of 30 students and seven different courses, four different grade levels. Nine of those students are designated with special needs of various sorts, and several others have special needs that have not been officially recognized due to delays in getting them recognized.

"At the moment too many of these students are failing or just scraping by. I'm deeply saddened by this situation, but how in heaven's name can I possibly meet the needs of such a large and diverse group of students? Under the stripped language, enrolment in this class would have been significantly reduced, and additional support would have been provided."

When education is the number one thing we should be considering, this teacher, Lee, is very concerned about how difficult it can be in the schools, how difficult it can be for students who should be succeeding, who should have the assistance provided to them, who should be supported through our government so that they succeed.

In the end, shouldn't one of our principal jobs be ensuring that those with the least can achieve the best, that those who struggle the most, the vulnerable, should achieve what their dreams are? Government, as Abraham Lincoln said so well — and I'm paraphrasing here — should be about doing what we can't do alone. We should be doing it collectively — us working together to achieve things that we cannot do alone. Isn't that education?

The student may try to teach themselves and certainly will succeed in some regard, but when they struggle, a teacher can help them. A special assistant can help them. A teacher-librarian can help them. A musical teacher can
[ Page 9925 ]
help them. Their parents, of course, will help them to the best of their abilities.

Our school system should be supporting the most vulnerable, yet under this government, we've seen the gap between those with the most and those with the least widen into a chasm and those in the middle getting squeezed further and further, with less support when they need it the most. That's not how a government should be treating its citizens.

This is from a teacher who teaches at Carnarvon but lives in my constituency.

"I've taught for 23 years and have seen cumulative monetary cuts and then lesser amounts put back into education, with announcements of increased funding and also reductions in specialist teachers, which makes it ever more difficult to meet the needs of the wide diversity in our student population.

[1045]

"After the Sullivan Commission report in '87 education was immensely exciting for about the next 15 years. Inspiration, excitement and stimulating debate on a large scale are but a fading memory. Thankfully, I still share excitement with individual colleagues, but the community milieu is not excitement."

This is from a teacher who is concerned that because of the Liberals' approach to education, the work environment is not good, is not increasingly successful and is not one that supports their desires to teach the kids in the best abilities.

This is from another teacher in my constituency. "Teachers deserve respect from our employer. We get it from the parents of our students. We never hear encouragement from the Minister of Education. Why are we so hated by the ministry? We are hard-working and committed. Plus, we pay our taxes."

Now, this is a very strong statement, and it's one that any government, I think, would do well to listen to. Teachers, in my experience, try to model respectful behaviour, try to be role models for their students. If a teacher is saying she feels hated by the government — her employer — we've got a problem here. We've got a dysfunctional relationship.

This is from another teacher in my constituency. He says: "The Liberal government has spent over ten years creating the working and learning conditions that teachers find so difficult by illegally tearing up our contracts."

Again, this is where it began, and here we are today — the Premier, in a sense, trying to relive the days of the Ministry of Education, when she was the minister, trying to relive those days which have done us so badly and so poorly.

I'm sure there must be a teacher at home who's possibly watching this and would correct my grammar and tell me that I should have put a colon or a comma in there somewhere. I've never been particularly good at grammar. I tried my best; my teachers tried their best.

They used to have me come in at lunchtime in elementary school to try to teach me on these issues. I got a little better, but I've got to say my penmanship has never been very good, despite my teachers' best efforts. I apologize to them. I've done them poorly. Luckily, they cannot see my written words here today. They might be appalled.

A teacher in my constituency wanted us to know that they volunteer about 170 hours of their time yearly and have done so for nearly 20 years. She doesn't know of any other profession where it's just expected to give so much unpaid time. "I've always been happy to do it, but I've always felt underappreciated by my government."

That's a teacher who works very hard to bring the best for our kids but feels that because of this dysfunctional relationship, because of using the legislative hammer rather than negotiation and discussion, they are not respected.

From another teacher in my constituency: "The B.C. Supreme Court said that Bills 27 and 28 were unconstitutional. This government is refusing to repair the damage done by those past bills, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling and is in fact trying to remove all limits on class size and composition." She's very concerned about this, because she knows that the learning conditions and her working conditions go hand in hand — again, a big concern.

I've got to say that I love teachers. I love education. I love learning. Indeed, my constituents of Vancouver–West End support that point of view. They want us to negotiate. They want us to mediate. They don't want us to slam things through.

They don't want a situation where some Liberal MLAs are getting up and claiming that the NDP is trying to cause a strike. Then other Liberal MLAs in this Legislature are saying: "Take all the time you need. Spend all the time you need discussing it." The Premier is slamming teachers, and the NDP are trying to turn it into a partisan slugfest. That's not good for education, and I think this bill should be scrapped.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to rise in debate in this House. As I remind the members, it's a privilege and an honour to be here, elected to represent our constituents. I think one of our special responsibilities in being elected to this chamber is a responsibility to those who need help in life and those who can't help themselves. Surely, that would include the students who attend our K-to-12 system, which is the focus of the debate today and should be the focus of the debate today.

[1050]

However, it's hard to focus on education in a serious way when the government chooses to bring in what I think can be fairly described as draconian legislation, with the interesting title Education Improvement Act.

Now, a couple of holidays ago I had occasion to drag out George Orwell and 1984. It's been a long time since I read it the first time — you know, the great concept of Big Brother and doublespeak and all of those things. I can't help but be reminded of what a wonderful book that is and what a great educational tool it is in teaching
[ Page 9926 ]
children and society and anyone who takes the time to read it about the importance of democracy and the right to free speech — the ability to say what you want, where you want to and when you want to and how you want to, without fear of reprisal, without fear of imprisonment.

That's the great privilege we enjoy in this chamber. We can speak in this House and say things that would even be defamatory — not that any of us would want to, of course. We can say things in this chamber that are defamatory and not fear, stepping outside this chamber, that there will be any retribution for that.

The Education Improvement Act. I'm not quite sure that I've grasped, notwithstanding the great efforts of the members opposite, exactly how this is going to improve public education in British Columbia.

Now, I may be a little cynical, having been here for a few years now. I may be a little mistrustful of a government that, throughout its 11 years in office, has so managed to attack public education in so many destructive ways that it almost beggars the imagination. To think that in 11 short years they've been able to do so much destruction to a public education system that has served the people of this province for well over 100 years.

Indeed, in the community where I was raised, in the warm bosom of a family that cared passionately about education, it is the 100th anniversary of French Creek Elementary School. This May there will be people from all across the province who will come back home to Coombs, B.C., to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the building of that school.

Now, I can't tell you how important education is and has been, for me in particular. For me, it was an opportunity to learn about a world that I couldn't afford to see when I was young, that my family couldn't afford to take me to see. It was an opportunity to hear things and understand things that were way beyond the financial reach of the circumstances in which I was raised.

That school was the school that my mother attended. It was the school all of my siblings attended. It was the school my father attended. It was the school that all of his siblings attended. It was very much the centre of the community. It's why it is such an important thing. Now, why is a school so important in a small community? What does it have to do with education improvement?

Education is about improvement. Education has everything to do with improvement. Education has everything to do with building our democratic institutions by teaching pupils critical thinking, by giving them the tools to read and understand and criticize and, in many cases, thankfully, to educate themselves, to learn, to learn from their mistakes.

I'm not going to for a moment suggest that this government hasn't learned something in 11 years. But clearly, when it comes to public education, notwithstanding the improving value of experience and self-teaching, they haven't really learned very much about labour relations.

We are here today quite simply because this government can't seem to get it right when it comes to public sector bargaining. They just can't seem to get it right. So in the year that the school that was so important to me celebrates its 100th anniversary, this government, after 11 years, can celebrate 11 years of increasing ignorance and arrogance, and it is no more forcefully demonstrated than by Bill 22, the infamous Bill 22.

[1055]

I defy the members opposite — and I know they'll jump up and correct me if I'm wrong — to remember the number of a bill in what they always refer to as the dismal decade. I defy them to remember any number from that decade that has the same ring, if you will, the same familiarity with British Columbians and voters, as Bill 29 and now Bill 22.

This government loves numbers. It's just that they can't do the addition. They can never seem to figure it out. If you add rancour, if you add arrogance, if you add an unwillingness to listen to common sense and reason, I can assure you one thing. The sum of the total of those things will not be an improvement to education. It will be anything but. It will be the circumstances in which we find ourselves again legislating the teachers back to work.

The government has spent a year…. Frankly, I think we have to move beyond Orwell and admit the facts. When we talk about the bargaining situation involving B.C. teachers, it's not the British Columbia Public School Employers Association; it's the B.C. government. Everyone gets that. They understand that. So let's skip the doublethink.

This is about the B.C. government. This is about a government that — in defiance of common sense, in defiance of what the people of British Columbia told them at the time — brought in legislation that made changes to how we conduct public education that the B.C. Supreme Court essentially said were illegal.

My friend the member for Vancouver–West End has reminded this chamber of how many occasions this government in particular has had its hands strapped by the International Labour Organization. I mean, how many times does one have to be taken to the woodshed in a public way by internationally recognized bodies before you learn something?

Now, I don't mean to degrade the term "special needs," but you've got to somehow think that this government really has some severe learning disabilities when after 11 years they haven't figured out yet how to treat the people who teach our children, the very people who we entrust our children to hour after hour, day after day, week after week for 12 or 13 years, depending whether they get the benefit of kindergarten or not — or more, in some cases.

They still haven't figured out how to treat them. They haven't figured out the basic rules of kindergarten, for heaven's sake. You don't take other people's stuff, you listen, and you respect your classmates. We're here de-
[ Page 9927 ]
bating this bill because this government, after 11 years, hasn't learned anything.

What's the line? I've used it before. It's the Bourbon kings. They have forgotten nothing, and they've learned nothing.

Interjection.

L. Krog: My friend says: "Who are they?" My friend knows. I'm waiting to hear the member for Chilliwack tell me who they are. He's often interested in what I have to say in this chamber.

So where are we at? We have teachers who have been saying for 11 years now, close to it, that public education is important. It is important in the lives of our students. I know the government would love to focus this debate on money and say it's about greedy teachers. It's about them wanting a wage increase that's out of proportion to the ability of government to pay an increase in salary.

What I hear over and over again from the teachers and from the public and from the parents and from students articulate enough to speak about these issues intelligently…. There are tens of thousands of them in our province. What I hear from them is very clear and very simple. Public education is important. What happens in our classrooms is important.

[1100]

This government fails to understand that when you have the significant range of abilities amongst our student population; when you have the significant range of disabilities; when you have the significant range of family and home life problems and the problems of poverty that so directly impact on how students perform; when you have all the difficulties of health, all the challenges of a modern world and all the challenges of a changing economy that have impacts on their family and their home lives, it's tough being a teacher. It's very tough being a teacher.

Yet the teachers of this province go in day after day looking at diminished resources; at libraries that are often not open for more than a couple of days a week, depending on the school you're in; where educational assistants are in short supply; where special assistance for those students who desperately need it is unavailable; where assessments even to determine what help they need are often so delayed that you're looking at months and months before those students receive assistance. Yet the teachers go in.

I've told this little story before. I think it is a useful example, particularly for this debate. I've talked about the 100th anniversary of the French Creek School. After French Creek School my mother went on to Qualicum Beach from Coombs. She rode a bicycle six miles on a gravel road. It wasn't uphill both ways, but that's how she got to school.

The school that then existed in Qualicum Beach still exists today, but it's the Old School House art gallery. It is a wonderful building of its time. It has a magnificent facade. It has a grand staircase up to the second floor.

At the time that the school district was discussing building that school, there was one woman of very poor circumstances who sat on the school board. The rest were men, and that's why it's so particularly important, I think, to tell this story again on International Women's Day.

It was this lone woman who argued vociferously and won the day and convinced all the men on that school board to spend a little extra money and to create the facade of that school so it was not a pedestrian-looking building. It was something that was beautiful and impressive, and it's still impressive. I suspect many of the members of this chamber have been to Qualicum Beach and seen that lovely building.

Her argument was this. It was really very simple. She said that when children approached that building, when they saw that facade, they would be impressed by it. They would know that it was important, that what took place in that building was important, and what took place in that building was education. What happened in that building was important.

It's why I have never argued, as some of my constituents have on occasion, about the quality of buildings when it comes to public facilities, particularly public schools. The lesson of over…. Literally, it is roughly a hundred years ago that this argument was made to build the old schoolhouse in Qualicum Beach.

The argument a hundred years ago works today. What that building says today is what schools should say today. What takes place in those buildings is important. I guess that's what troubles me most. What Bill 22 says is that education isn't important. What Bill 22 says is: "You know what, teachers? We really don't respect what you do. We think you have to be jammed into accepting what the government says is good for public education."

Why? Very simply because this government, year after year, has chosen to give priorities to other matters. Whether it's the magnificence of B.C. Place, which they don't even want to put decent signage on anymore, for $40 million over the next 20 years…. Whether it's B.C. Place, whether it's tax cuts for big financial institutions when they didn't even ask for them, whether it's tax breaks for people in the high-income bracket — who didn't ask for them either, actually, and certainly didn't need them….

[1105]

Those were this government's priorities — not public education, not supporting learning in the classroom and not supporting teachers.

Now, I've talked about the school, the physical side of it, if you will — the building, what a school looks like and how important it is to send a message about its importance. After all, look at this place, look at this chamber, and look at this building.
[ Page 9928 ]

When this place was built, this was a boondoggle of public expenditure that was way beyond what the people of British Columbia could possibly afford or ever wanted to even think about spending. But it was a message that this was a province that was going places, that it was important, that British Columbia would play its full role in Confederation. The building of this structure was a message.

We all know that this is a magnificent building, but we know, also, that what is truly important is not the facade — as wonderful as it is — and is not this ornate chamber; it is the people in here and what they do. That's what a school is about. It is about the people in the school. It is about the students. It is about the teachers. It is about the assistants. It's about all of those who support public education. What they do is important.

You have to ask: does Bill 22 assist teachers, help students, encourage public education? Does it put more books in libraries? Does it give students textbooks to read? Does it give better time and assistance to those students who struggle? No. It does none of that. It instead says: "You know what? Even though the teachers of the province offered as clear as a bell — indeed, went to the Labour Relations Board and said, 'Send us to mediation. Let us try and work this out. Let us come and reason together in defence of public education….'"

They held out the olive branch to this government. They said: "We'll go through this process. It's available. It's legislated. It's there. Let's do it."

[L. Reid in the chair.]

What was the response of this government? Like pharaoh, their heart was hardened, and instead they chose to go into the dusty confines, produce Bill 22, and come back and say: "You know what? This is what mediation looks like to us." This is what mediation looks like. What mediation looks like is: forcing a mediator to work within confines so narrow that it reminds me of a wonderful trip Sharon and I took the children on many years ago.

We went through southern British Columbia, stopped at the Frank Slide and took the kids to Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. Now, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump is a UNESCO world heritage site. It is where, for hundreds of years, before contact with the Europeans, aboriginal people, in order to stay in their society and civilization, paraded buffalo into a narrow area and over a cliff.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I knew that the member for Chilliwack couldn't resist this one, but we're coming to it, Member. Just wait. We're coming to it.

H. Lali: He has awakened.

L. Krog: He has awakened. So will the people of Chilliwack in a coming by-election — to remind my friend from Fraser-Nicola. But we'll come to that.

Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump really doesn't leave a lot of choice for the buffalo. You know, once you're corralled in there and you're headed towards the cliff…. Those lumbering beasts, who are notoriously dumb — and nearsighted, to boot — are inevitably going to end up with one conclusion, and that's the termination of their earthly existence.

So I think the member for Chilliwack is getting my point now. I think it's coming clear to him. What this bill does is not much different than what happens at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. You're left with one inevitable conclusion.

[1110]

You're going to come up with a result that has the facade of mediation. What the buffalo no doubt thought, when they were being chased, was just a happy romp across the prairie…. But the conclusion is still the same. You're going to end up with an agreement, or a recommendation, that the government will happily enact, that will do nothing to benefit public education, that will create rancour, division and frustration in our public education system. It will do nothing to help those vulnerable students, and there are thousands of them — thousands of our students who are vulnerable.

It's not common for me to read letters from my constituents, but I have to read a letter from Lori Parsley. She teaches at Georgia Avenue. Now, it's in an area of town where socioeconomic status would indicate that many of these children are raised in poverty. Now, what does she do? She loves her job. She points out…. I am going to read this.

"I work at Georgia Avenue Elementary, and many of our students come to school hungry and cold. I start my day an hour before any other teachers so that I and an EA, who gets paid an extra hour a day — I don't — can make a hot breakfast for anywhere from 20 to 35 children, who would otherwise come to school hungry.

"Often their last meal was the lunch they got at school from the lunch program the day before. I also spend a couple hours of my weekend shopping for food for the program — unpaid."

She goes on.

"On Fridays I take 60 of my 110 minutes of paid prep time to facilitate a rainbows group, where I work with four young people who are working through their grieving process. I do this because I make a difference in their young lives.

"During the rest of my teaching day, I teach remedial reading to four different groups of children with learning or behaviour issues; a grade 7 remedial math group with eight designated students; and finish the day with a cooking program, where I teach children how to create simple and nutritious meals and snacks, as they are often" — listen, hon. Speaker, very carefully — "the caregivers for their younger siblings.

"That's a pretty full day, but I'm not done yet. I'm a support teacher, so I also write IEPs and manage the cases and files for 17 designated students and co-manage another 26 files and IEPs with a counsellor and a learning-assistance teacher.

"I'm also a member of the school-based team which meets at least once a week before school to discuss various students with exceptional needs. I'm not paid extra for this, either.
[ Page 9929 ]

"Not finished yet. In addition to these duties, I'm the site coordinator for the rainbow program at Georgia Avenue and have three other facilitators who I work with.

"I'm also the site coordinator for SET-BC, who supply assistive technology to special needs students. This involves writing applications — about two hours per application, three times per year — for three or four students each time, plus organizing for EAs on how to use the equipment, plus making sure that said equipment is in working order and being used correctly and stored safely.

"Not quite done yet. Many of our students have difficulty with reading and writing, so they have to have access to a computer program called Kurzweil. Guess who gets to load all the various texts and novels, etc. into the various students' accounts so that they can access them? Me.

"Oh, yes. I also write SIPs for about 18 students who do not meet designation criteria, who need an adapted program" — designated criteria.

I have another letter that I'm not going to read. She has a class full of students who, because of changes, are not designated anymore but all suffer from various disabilities.

Lori says in the next line: "So do I make a difference? Yes, I think so" — exclamation mark. Of course she makes a difference. She makes an enormous difference in the lives of students who face particular challenges. She does that notwithstanding that this government chooses to show to her the incredible disrespect of Bill 22.

What happens, as I said earlier in my remarks, in the school is important. What teachers do in the school system is important.

[1115]

What this bill does — almost laughably, if it wasn't so sad — is to basically say: "You don't have the right to bargain collectively anymore if you're a teacher in this province. We don't respect the work you do. We have no great sympathy for the students who you teach and care for and look after. We're just going to tell you how it's going to work."

Now, when I used the term "draconian" when I started my remarks, some may think there's a bit of hyperbole there. But I'd be inclined to say you have to read the bill for what it says. "Despite the Code" — the Labour Code, the Labour Code that guarantees the right to collective bargaining for all other British Columbians…. Section 3 says: "Despite the Code, immediately after the coming into force of this section and until the end of the cooling-off period…(b) the BCTF and the employees represented by the BCTF must not strike or declare a strike and must terminate any strike."

In other words, the rights guaranteed to all of us by the Labour Code, for the teachers of this province, don't exist if and when this bill passes. Then, in that magnificent use of doublespeak right out of Orwell, section 5 says: "Within 72 hours after the coming into force of this section, the parties must continue or commence to bargain collectively in good faith…." What a joke. What a joke — bargain in good faith.

The government that has negotiated with the teachers for a year, had nothing to say, now purports to put forward a piece of legislation that says they must bargain in good faith. Hon. Speaker, not terribly believable at this stage.

Then to cap it off, section 6, the section that refers to mediation, says in subsection 6(5): "A question as to whether the terms and conditions of the new collective agreement or recommendations of the mediator comply with subsection (2) (b)" — section (2)(b) basically says "Tough luck; you're going to get what you get" — "must be determined by the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers' Council."

Now, what that says is that the guy who is hired by the employer, their chief executive officer…. Well, goodness, without the vetting process, he gets to be judge for a day. He gets to say whether this is or isn't true, accurate or correct. I don't see any appeal provision in here. Even in the worst decision in our justice system, inadequately funded as it is under this government, you have the right to appeal. There's no right to appeal here.

Then, to top it off, if you breach any of this stuff, we're going to single you out amongst all the people who work in the public service, in the broad sense of the word. If you're an employee, $475 a day; the BCTF $1.3 million. If you're an officer of the BCTF — in other words, if you've taken a leadership role in defending public education, gone out there and stuck your neck out — well, we're going to fine you $2,500 for each day.

I would have thought that instead of this embarrassment, instead of this ridiculous, Orwellian bill that calls itself the Education Improvement Act, the government might have taken the hand that was proffered to them that said we'd go to mediation voluntarily — real mediation: fair, open, honest unrestrained mediation. But no, the government wouldn't do that.

As I recall, I think Susan Lambert, to her credit, on behalf of BCTF, even mentioned arbitration, which is a different vehicle but would've bound, potentially, the parties to the recommendations of the mediator. But they didn't do that either. We're here because this government has failed, it hasn't learned in 11 years, and it deserves to be defeated.

[1120]

J. Brar: It's always an honour to stand up in this House and debate the important issues facing the people of British Columbia. Today I am very pleased to stand up in this House and respond to Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act.

At a time when we have 137,000 children living in poverty, the highest child poverty, in this province, for eight consecutive years, this government has chosen to fight with
[ Page 9930 ]
the teachers. At a time when the gap between the rich and the rest of British Columbians has widened to the point that the top 10 percent of B.C. families now earn considerably more than the entire bottom 50 percent of families, this government has chosen to fight with the teachers.

At a time when more and more kids in inner-city schools are walking to school without breakfast, this government has chosen to fight with the teachers. At a time when we have more than 15,000 classrooms overcrowded in this province, this government has chosen to pick a fight with the teachers. At a time when we have more than 25 percent special needs kids in some classes, this government has chosen to pick a fight with the teachers.

I think this is a time that this government should be working with the teachers and the parents to find workable solutions to these very pressing issues our education system is facing. This government has chosen to actually pick a fight with the teachers and, through the teachers, with the kids of this province.

I think those are very serious issues, and those are very complex situations in the classrooms that the teachers deal with every day. Our teachers deserve some respect — rather than a fight, which this government has chosen under Bill 22.

The education system has been under attack since the B.C. Liberals took over in 2001. Remember, once upon a time B.C. Liberals made a promise to the people of British Columbia for "the best education system so that no child is left behind." That was the promise made by B.C. Liberals under the New Era document. But in fact, they did the opposite.

That was the beginning of the new era of confrontation with teachers, in the year 2001. When this Premier was the Minister of Education at that time, she promised "to provide the best education system so that no child is left behind." In fact, she did the opposite.

They have closed 190 schools across the province and left more than 15,000 classrooms overcrowded. So 190 schools have been closed. Is that defined as the best education system so that no child is left behind? The government says one thing and does completely the other thing.

In addition to that, they have been downloading many costs on the backs of the local school districts, forcing layoffs of teachers and cuts to needed programs.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I draw you back to the contents of Bill 22.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What I'm saying is that we are here today talking about Bill 22, which basically deals with our education system.

[1125]

What I'm saying is that if you look back at the history of this government, the history is completely different. That's what I was trying to draw some attention to.

The Bill 22 we are talking about here is not going to improve the situation. It is actually going to worsen the situation in our education system, in the classrooms. It is going to make things more difficult. It's going to make learning for students more difficult, and that is what we are talking about in Bill 22.

The situation as presented, or as I've seen in various letters, in classrooms is so complex because the classrooms have become so big. In some classrooms with over 25 percent of children with special needs, it is very hard for any teacher to deliver a meaningful education program for the students.

In my previous life, I have been a lecturer, teaching students philosophy. I know how difficult it can be if you have a class size that is beyond your capacity to teach. It is very hard. But what we have in the province of British Columbia, and what we have particularly in my city of Surrey, is a situation that's way beyond imagination, any imagination. Bill 22 is going to make the situation even more worse in the city of Surrey.

That causes a lot of frustration, of course, to the teachers and to the parents and to the Members of the Legislative Assembly who are here who represent the people of Surrey.

Bill 22 makes things worse for students, parents and teachers. It will increase class size, weaken protections for special needs students and hurt the quality of education for our children.

This is not the first time that the Liberals have weakened class-size and composition protections in our children's classroom. They did something similar with Bills 27 and 28, which were declared illegal by the B.C. Supreme Court less than a year ago.

I would like to read some of the comments made by the judge about Bill 27. On April 13, 2011, the B.C. Supreme Court struck down 2001 and 2004 B.C. Liberals' amendments to teachers' collective rights as unconstitutional but suspended the effects of that order for 12 months to allow the government to make necessary changes. The amendments that were brought under the then Minister of Education, now the Premier of this province, were found to breach the BCTF's Charter-granted rights to freedom of assembly as expressed through collective bargaining.

The judge found that the Premier, the then Minister of Education, and her colleagues had trampled the collective bargaining rights of teachers by legislating away class sizes and other protections in their labour contracts and by doing so without consulting teachers in the slightest beforehand.

I would like to quote the comments made by the judge:

"'The government consulted fully with the employers before passing the legislation, over at least a seven- or eight-month period,' wrote the judge. '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.'

[1130]

"The failure to do so was fatal to the legislation. 'By passing this legislation without so much as consulting with the BCTF, the government did not preserve the essential underpinning of collective
[ Page 9931 ]
bargaining — namely, good-faith negotiation and consultation.'"

That's what the judge said about Bill 27 and basically does say that Bill 27 was illegal. It was wrong. It was wrong to take away the teachers' right to negotiate class size and composition. That's what the judge said. We are back here with Bill 22, which does exactly the same again. It clearly shows that this government does not care about our education system, that this government does not care about our kids or our future in this province, and that this government does not show any respect for the teachers of this province.

This strike we have out there is a B.C. Liberal government–created strike. It is in fact the direct result of the Liberal mismanagement of education and the mess they have made, starting with illegally ripping up the teachers' contract. The Liberals have played politics after politics, creating fear and anxieties in parents and students to distract from their mismanagement of education.

The Liberal government rejected mediation, even though both parties requested it to help reach an agreement. It is beyond my understanding that when both parties at the table are requesting the government for mediation, that request was rejected. I don't know why that request was rejected, but that was done. Probably the government wanted to force the teachers to go on strike.

We know that. The members on the other side know that. The people of British Columbia know that this government had lost the credibility among the people of British Columbia. This was a desperate attempt to restore some credibility among the people of British Columbia, because they thought that when the teachers go on strike, parents will be upset, and they will support them. That was the thinking.

In fact, parents are very wise. The people of British Columbia are intelligent. They understand what's going on, and they know exactly what they are doing to the teachers. They know exactly what they're doing to the education system — playing politics with our kids.

That's what this government has chosen, not once but from the very first day. Bill 22 does not fix the problem created by their illegal stripping of the teachers' contract. It will increase class size, weaken protections of special needs students and hurt the quality of the education all of our children receive.

Bill 22 is going to hit the city of Surrey and the school district of Surrey really, really hard. The school district of Surrey is the fastest-growing school district in the province. The Surrey school district, with growing student enrolment, last year alone had 1,300 new students enter into the school system in Surrey.

[1135]

At this point at time we have 7,300 students in Surrey school district receiving education in portables. Madam Speaker, 7,300 students receive education in portables. That is about 10 percent of the total students. The number of portables has gone up to around 300 portables per year as a direct result of the policies of this government.

I don't know how Bill 22 is good for families in the city of Surrey. How Bill 22 is going to be good for the children in the city of Surrey, I don't know. This is certainly not going to be good for them.

The school district of Surrey did not receive any capital funding, to give you an example, since 2005 to build new schools, even after the school district has been growing with the number of students coming every year. Surrey school district is being forced to deal with chronic overcrowding of classrooms. That's the situation we face in the city of Surrey.

The Surrey school district is being forced, under that situation, to deal with that overcrowding by spending money on new portables. One portable costs about $70,000 per year for the school district. This funding comes straight out of the school district's operating budget. That's where this funding comes from. That is money that has actually been earmarked for staffing and education programs, but they have to make a compromise. They have to compromise because there is overcrowding in the school system.

We are paying for the mismanagement of the B.C. Liberals' education system. The class size has been growing forever in our city. Regulations on class size and composition are being ignored every day. Programs for students with special needs may also be eliminated in that city because of the policies of this government.

I would like to read this into the record. This is a response from the Surrey school district on November 13, 2003: "Surrey school trustees demanded an apology" from the Education Minister of the day, who is now Premier, "for suggesting that school boards are cutting student services and closing schools to build up their own school board's bank account."

That's what the Minister of Education said at that time. The school trustees demanded an apology from the Minister of Education, who is now the Premier of this province. Madam Speaker, do you know who demanded this apology from the Premier, the then Minister of Education? The person who demanded that apology is now a member who sits on the other side of the House, the member for Langley. That was the person who said to the Minister of Education at that time: "Apologize to the people of Surrey."

I am sure that member will not stand up in this House today and say that this Premier and this government are wrong. That member will not say that today, but she said that on November 13, 2003.

I would like to read a letter I received by fax from the district 36 parent advisory council.

March 5, 2012
Minister of Education
Room 310
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C., V8V 1X4
[ Page 9932 ]

On February 29 we had the opportunity to celebrate Pink Shirt Day with our children. Pink Shirt Day is an opportunity to celebrate the essential values of tolerance and respect for others, which we try and instil in our children every day.

[1140]

Unfortunately, over the last few weeks parents have been watching the saga unfold between teachers and the provincial government, and realized that all those valuable skills we try and teach our children — such as communication, negotiation and empathy — have become casualties in a war of words between the British Columbia Teachers Federation, BCTF, and our provincial government.

Children learn from what they see around them and need adults who model the behaviour we expect of them. As parents, we believe that the behaviour currently being exhibited between the BCTF and the provincial government is not the kind of behaviour we would support from our children.

As you are aware, the Surrey school district faces issues with overcrowded classrooms as well as overcrowded schools. With the valuable protection provided by the teachers' contract, the parents were assured that teachers were consulted about the class size and composition. If a teacher felt they could teach the amount of students as well as the composition of special needs students in their classroom, then parents knew their children would receive the education they required in order to meet provincially prescribed learning outcomes and move successfully to the next grade.

Without these important protections in place, parents worry that the non-consultation approach around class composition, plus the overcrowded classrooms which their child is in, may not adequately meet their child's education needs, regardless of whether the child is special needs or not. We agree with this concern.

More importantly, Surrey faces even more pressure from English-as-a-second-language, ESL, and special needs students than other districts currently do. Often the biggest complaint we hear is that teachers are being pulled in too many directions without enough direct support in the classroom. With the elimination of class composition restrictions and insufficient support to replace them, we face uncertain classrooms without enough support.

Though we applaud the education improvement fund, it is simply not enough to meet the essential needs. Special needs children require specialized support, and teachers need to be consulted around class composition and the kind of support they will need to be successful.

As parents, we expect both sides to sit down and exemplify the lessons that we teach our children — the lessons of communication, collaborative thinking and negotiation. Thousands of children around the province will be watching how this is handled and modelling that behaviour in the years to come.

Sincerely,

Surrey No. 36 district parent advisory council

Co-President Bob Holmes

Co-President Patricia Enair

Vice-President Brenda Peterson

Secretary Tammy Karoway

Treasurer Vicky Hunyh

Director Hue Truong

Director Ruby Bhandal

Director Nancy Peirce

c.c. Hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly of B.C.

That's the letter that the parents advisory committee has written to the Minister of Education. This is the district parent advisory committee I'm talking about. These are very serious concerns in the city of Surrey, and that's why the people and the parents and the students in Surrey are very, very concerned about the situation we are in at this point in time, because this government has failed to deal with the negotiations they should have.

[1145]

Not only that, but I found recently that Surrey school district has to compromise a meal program for kids coming from poor families. They requested, from the government of B.C., funds for that meal program for the kids who come from homes without breakfast and without lunch programs and did not get any support from this government. They ended up spending a significant amount of money from the operating fund to basically provide these kids with a hot lunch program and the meal program.

I also received another letter I would like to read, for the record, from an individual teacher talking about the challenges and the complexities of classrooms in the city of Surrey. I would like to read that letter, as well, for the record. The letter was published on February 29, 2012, in the Now newspaper. It says:

"I am a grade 7 teacher in Surrey at an inner-city school. I have been in my current position for ten years. When I began working here, our school district still had separate support teachers for ESL, resource room and learning assistance. At that time students in my class received learning support from these three departments on a daily basis. I felt that individual students' needs were generally well met.

"A year or two later, when the system changed to an LST, learning support team, model, my class received daily support each day from an LST teacher. That teacher and I decided how to best use that time to meet the needs of students who were either not working at grade level or required program adaptations due to learning disabilities.

"Within that LST model, a single teacher was assigned to each class. It did not guarantee that a particular specialist would be matched with the best fit for an individual student's needs. Nonetheless, as a staff, we tried our best to make it work within the new system.

"Today I have 24 students in my class — 11 girls and 13 boys. Of 24 students, eight of them have special needs designations. I do not have an SEA, special education assistant, assigned to any of these students. One boy cannot read, and he writes at a grade 2 level. Another boy has a variety of physical, academic and social difficulties.

"One of my girls has an ESL designation. Two more girls and three more boys have designations for learning disabilities, two for both math and literacy and the others for literacy.

"How much support does my class receive? The boy who cannot read gets help from an SEA on Tuesdays and Thursdays for 30 minutes and the LST support on Mondays and Fridays for 35 minutes. Five of the students get LST support for math for 45 minutes each day.

"What about literacy support? That is up to me.

"I am an experienced teacher with a master's degree in education practice. I have developed a host of strategies for differentiating instructions and assignments to match my students' needs, but one person can only do so much.

"The major problem here is quite clear. Over the past ten years conditions to effectively support students' needs have deteriorated to an unacceptable level. We need smaller class sizes and greater attention to the composition of these classes. Eight out of 24 is 33 percent, and that is simply too much.

"My class is not an exception. It is reality in inner-city Surrey. The proposed education plan by our provincial government does not…."
[ Page 9933 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

[1150]

K. Conroy: I, too, am pleased to rise and take my place in the Legislature to speak against this bill, Bill 22.

I'm feeling like it's a bit like déjà vu. It's the same government, although it's a different Education Minister — and a different leader, in fact — but the same attacks on education in this province, the same attack on the education of our children and grandchildren. It's appalling that here we are again, seeing the direct attack on teachers in the guise of pretending to care about education.

This legislation carries a decade-long Liberal approach that has disrespected teachers, parents and students, and has constantly sought to pick a fight with teachers. The parties could be in mediation now if the government had taken the advice of teachers, parents, principals, trustees, employers and opposition New Democrats, all of whom have been advocating for mediation for weeks now.

The key question is this. Will this make classrooms any better for students? Well, the answer is clearly no. This legislation will do the opposite and make classrooms worse for students. The Liberals have chosen to allow, with this legislation, larger class sizes and weakened composition protections, which will hurt students. There is nothing here to fix the poison atmospheres the Liberals created ever since they illegally stripped teachers' contracts in 2002.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Instead, the government has imposed a contract and designed a mediation process that stacks the deck in favour of employer concessions and limits the ability of teachers to get resolution on key classroom issues. Who would think we would have legislation in a democracy like B.C. that actually stymies democracy?

One constituent wrote me to say, among a number of things…. He was very concerned, and he said: "Who would ever want to be a teacher in B.C.? These are things that Tea Party Republicans, led by Wisconsin's Governor Walker, are doing in the States, not in B.C." That is a fair analogy.

This legislation will hurt students, further alienate teachers, undermine relationships within our schools and deliver another blow to our public education system.

K. Conroy 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 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $2,456,780,000.

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

Hon. S. Cadieux: I will start this morning by thanking the ministry staff who are here joining me — on my left, Deputy Minister Mark Sieben, and on my right, Molly Harrington, who's the ADM for policy. Behind me is Wes Boyd, the ADM of corporate services, and Doug Woollard, the interim CEO of CLBC.

The Ministry of Social Development has about 2,200 employees who work with families across B.C. to help them achieve their full social and economic potential. They work compassionately and professionally to provide the best service possible. I commend them for their work, and I would like to personally thank them for the hard work they do on behalf of the province and on behalf of our clients.

The Ministry of Social Development helps individuals and families in their greatest time of need when they have nowhere else to turn. The ministry also provides income and disability assistance and a wide range of employment and training programs to people to help them keep and find a job. We support almost 14,000 individuals with developmental disabilities, and their families, through Community Living British Columbia.

[1010]

Budget 2012 commits funding to critical social services in this ministry. The 2012-13 operating budget for the Ministry of Social Development is $2.46 billion, an a increase of $118 million over last year. The total budget for income assistance for 2012-13 is over $1.6 billion.

We know that the numbers of people in need are increasing. Over three years an additional $294 million
[ Page 9934 ]
has been added to the income assistance budget. This additional funding for income assistance addresses the growing demand for disability benefits and responds to the relatively high numbers of single employable people receiving assistance.

We do believe that people who can work want to be self-sufficient and contribute to their communities. To help people find and keep jobs, $344.2 million will be invested through this ministry into the new employment program of B.C. In April we will open WorkBC employment service centres in communities throughout British Columbia to help British Columbians get back to work and build a better life for themselves and their families. The new program is about reduced administration and better efficiency, meaning that more program dollars are spent on direct services to British Columbians.

The ministry is also investing resources in Community Living British Columbia to better support individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. This budget not only addresses the concerns that we've heard in recent months or last year about CLBC, but it also supports a reasonable, sustainable, long-term strategy to strengthen the system of supports for people with developmental disabilities and those services that they rely on. Community Living British Columbia's 2012-13 operating budget has been set at $748 million, which is a $47 million increase.

Integrated case management is a $181.8 million project being implemented over six years. The ICM expenditures in 2012-13 are budgeted at $31 million.

Phase 2 of the ICM system will roll out on April 2, improving service delivery both for this ministry and for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I believe this money is well spent on a long-overdue system replacement that is needed to best support critical services that are vital to British Columbians.

The 2012-13 budget for the Ministry of Social Development focuses on helping British Columbians build a better future for themselves and their families. I'm looking forward to working alongside the ministry and CLBC staff, as well as the people of B.C., to build strong families and communities in British Columbia.

I look forward to the questions.

C. James: Thanks to the minister and to the minister's staff. I look forward to a productive few days of discussions with the ministry. I would echo the minister's comments about the appreciation for the staff who work in this field and appreciation for the clients. This is a part of government that is an important role, a critical role, and a service that government provides to people who are in need in various times in their lives, and it's a very important ministry and an important service because of that.

The minister ran through a number of programs in the ministry. As we've already let the minister know in these discussions, but for those people who are watching, today we're going to begin with the community living portion of the ministry and cover that through today. We think that's a critical area. We think that's an important area for us to look at.

Over the time that we're allotted, we'll go back to, then, the issues of income assistance, cover off the ICM area, disabilities and training programs as we follow.

I'll turn it over to my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who's the critic for community living, and look forward to the discussion.

N. Simons: Welcome to everybody here and to those in great numbers watching at home. I'm pleased to be able to ask some questions and get a little deeper into some of the issues than we normally can in other venues in this institution.

May I start by asking about the recent announcement of an infusion of money into the Community Living B.C. budget. It was called for $40 million, and there were breakdowns of $18 million, some covering contingencies and some covering employment programs. Could the minister explain an overview of those additions, and we'll go from there?

[1015]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To address the member's question around the $40 million announcement. Indeed, the first $18 million of that is an annualization of the $8.9 million that was added to CLBC's budget in September, and $10 million is in the Ministry of Social Development to work on implementation of the points raised in the Deputy Minister's working group around moving forward with innovative employment programs and additional programming in those areas, as well as looking at increased opportunities for individualized funding.

Then $12 million is in contingencies to specifically address anticipated caseload pressures this year, caseload growth.

N. Simons: I think there is some confusion as to what is actually annualized. What is an ongoing addition? Is the $10 million for implementation of employment programs and individualized funding an ongoing $10 million every year? Is the $18 million annualized? Is that going to be additional for that particular area every year? Then the $12 million — is that a contingency that will be in place every year for community living?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify for you, the $18 million is annualized this year and then continues to be there in the next two years. The $10 million increases to $20 million and then to $30 million over the three years, and the $12 million in contingencies continues at that level through the three years.

N. Simons: Can the minister outline how the $10 mil-
[ Page 9935 ]
lion that was earmarked for employment programs and transitioning youth will be allocated? What ideas or what program initiatives are going to be undertaken with that increase of funding to employment programs?

[1020]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The $10 million this year — we're going to use that in a number of ways. First off, some of that is going to be used in developing what the go-forward plan looks like and how we better improve service delivery to families and individuals. So the ongoing engagement that we're undertaking is part of that process in determining how these dollars should be allocated over the coming years.

The majority of the dollars this year will go to individuals and families through strengthening existing employment programs that are there and to improve transitions for families who are in that stage at this point. We'll be looking through this year to develop recommendations on improvements and changes to the system that would then follow into the next two years and into the spending of the additional dollars in the new years.

N. Simons: I'll change the line just for now. I wondered if the minister could tell me: how many direct contracts does CLBC have with service providers or individuals?

Just to clarify or continue, CLBC has direct contracts with home-share providers, with societies, with independent companies. I'm just wondering: how many in total do direct contracts? How many direct contracts? Not the subcontracts that are subsequent to those. How many direct ones?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are over 5,000 contracts. It does fluctuate. We can get you the current exact number and forward that to you later. We don't have that accurate number today because of the fluctuation that occurs.

[1025]

N. Simons: Is it possible to elaborate on how many contracts for direct services — like specific contracts with individuals, how many home-share contracts — the CLBC currently manages?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are 2,920 people served by home-sharing agreements. There would be slightly less in the number of contracts because there are some situations where an individual contract would serve more than one person. We can get you that direct number as well.

N. Simons: Just to clarify, is that direct CLBC — 2,920 contracts — or is that through agencies that provide home shares and companies that provide home-share supervision? I know that there are some old CLBC contracts that are directly provided to a home-share provider — parents of people who live in one house. There are also home-share contracts for, for example, associations for community living that have a series of home shares.

I'm wondering how many CLBC has direct responsibility for and how many they oversee through societies or agencies.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Of the 2,920 people who receive home sharing, there are approximately 1,300 that receive that through an agency. We can get you a precise number. The remainder of the individuals are served through direct contracts with CLBC.

N. Simons: So just over half are still directly funded by Community Living B.C. Is there any intention or hope that CLBC…? Is there a process of trying to get agencies to take over the responsibility of those specific contracts?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Gradually, over time. The intent is, yes, to see more of the contracts managed through accredited agencies.

N. Simons: Can the minister outline what process is involved in that gradual process?

[1030]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The process is that it starts with a conversation between CLBC, the family, the individual and the current caregiver. If there is agreement that it is in the best interest to move to an agency, then an agency is selected in the local community, and the contract would transfer to that.

The rationale is that this is the only service that CLBC delivers directly, and all of our other services like staffed residential and community inclusion are offered through accredited agencies. Those agencies provide that very knowledgable care and that link into the community.

At this point there are no specific timelines or targets in terms of having these transitions take place. It is, at this point, strictly on an individual basis when agreement is reached.

N. Simons: Is CLBC currently considering becoming accredited?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that agencies that receive over $500,000 in funding from government, through CLBC or through MCFD combined, would be accredited. CLBC is planning to also get that accreditation. The first step of that is for the provincial assessment centre to become accredited. The first phase in that is underway now.

N. Simons: Does Community Living B.C. have a timetable for the devolution of their direct home-share contracts to agencies?
[ Page 9936 ]

[1035]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think I mentioned that before. No, there's no specific timetable for that.

N. Simons: Are there any costs associated with the devolution of those home-share contracts? Is there any financial implication to the home-share providers through that devolution process?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There should not be any financial implications arising for the home-share provider if a contract is moved direct from CLBC to an agency to oversee it. That is not the intent of the change.

N. Simons: Presumably, when agencies assume responsibility for the supervision of home-share contracts, there will be a financial implication to those agencies. So is it a net loss to CLBC, in that case, to devolve those contracts to those agencies?

[1040]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It doesn't make a difference whether there is administration at CLBC or administration at an agency. The contracts have to be administered. So there's a movement of the dollars to do that administration — from CLBC to the agency, essentially.

N. Simons: Would there be a consequential transfer of FTEs to the agencies? Or is there an acknowledgment that perhaps the supervision of home-share contracts by CLBC is fundamentally different than the home-share supervision conducted by agencies out in the field?

If you see a transfer of responsibility for the oversight of home-share contracts and you see a transfer, that gradual transfer, of those contracts to agencies and money going to the agencies, are you left with people who aren't overseeing home-share contracts in CLBC?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We're transferring funds, not FTEs, to the agencies for oversight. What it means to CLBC is that as the caseload continues to grow annually, we don't need to increase staffing at CLBC as rapidly, because we're not doing that oversight function. Instead, then, new work can be assigned to the existing staff.

N. Simons: I'm just going to ask a few questions about the wait-list, also known as the request-for-service list — the mysterious part of the community living that we're still digging like squirrels to try to figure out.

Can the minister help out with, maybe, clarification around that issue and let us know how many individuals in the province have requested service from CLBC and are waiting for service from CLBC?

[1045]

Hon. S. Cadieux: First off, Member, we would like to reiterate that the request-for-service list is meant as an internal tool. What we have committed to through the deputy minister's working group is that that's not an accurate way to categorize who is waiting for service.

We are committed to ensuring that we have a more accurate system for tracking data that would be publicly consumable, in that respect, by fall at the absolute latest. It is a complex process to be undertaken, given that we need to build a system electronically that can be reliable. So we're actively working on that.

Certainly, the number of people who request services remains fairly stable. The last number that was out, in regards to the request-for-service list, of about 2,800 services being requested would remain accurate today. We're always responding to the health and safety needs first, and there will always be some people waiting for services of some kind.

In fact, the $8.9 million that was added to the budget in September was used by implementing the client service team to ensure that we were addressing all of the urgent needs first. A lot of individuals were able to receive some of the services they were requesting through that process.

[1050]

N. Simons: I understand that it is sometimes difficult to compartmentalize what people are asking for. That's understandable.

I know that Community Living hasn't actually established a mechanism through which they can estimate numbers that can be reliable. But in terms of requests for specific services, perhaps that's something that can be identified more easily. For example, before, government was saying they didn't have the numbers. They did have a number for those waiting for, specifically, residential care. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate how many British Columbians are waiting for and in need of residential care.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reality is that we continue to struggle with accurate numbers or reliable numbers because, in many cases, the individuals that are requesting services are already receiving services, and they're requesting a change or different service and/or are requesting residential services at some point in the future.

[1055]

Anybody who is in immediate need for residential services for health or safety needs is placed into residential services at this time. We can get you the current number on the request-for-service list of folks who are requesting residential services, understanding that that number includes people that are requesting it for some point in the future and/or may not be deemed to actually require residential services. We can get you that number after lunch.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that.
[ Page 9937 ]

Now, this idea that health and safety is the primary determinant as to whether someone receives services or not…. If we have a list of a hierarchy of need, I guess you would do safety, health…. What are the other categories of people waiting for residential services if it's not health or safety? What is it — desire or hope or, you know, convenience?

If it's not a health and safety need, what is it? Maybe the minister can explain that, because obviously there is a priority list, sure, but the government's priority list may be seen as different from what the people in the community think. Perhaps an aging parent is looking after an adult with a developmental disability. The aging parent is stressed and overworked and concerned, but managing. Her son may be well cared for but in a situation that is difficult to maintain.

I'm trying to figure out how the ministry can delineate when it's a health and safety need and when it isn't.

[1100]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is an organized and structured process that's followed using a tool called the Request for Service Priority Tool, which asks a series of questions of the individual and the family about how they're managing and about what their circumstances are. It determines, then, from that what the need is. How we respond to that need is based on the outcomes of this process to determine that current need.

Your example is actually a perfect one in that there are circumstances where a family is managing quite well, but they are anticipating that that will change and that that could change at any time. They're in the process of knowing there's going to be change or a need for change, so they are requesting a service that they're going to need but that they're not needing imminently. What we've got in the process is an ability to evaluate and re-evaluate that situation as time goes on so that we can adjust for changing circumstances.

N. Simons: It sounds similar to the guide to support allocation. I'm wondering: is that the same tool, is that a different tool, or do they work in conjunction?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This is somewhat complex. The process is that right now a family would come forward, or an individual comes forward, and the tool we had just described, the request for service priority tool, would be worked through, in dialogue with the family, about where their situation is in relative terms to other families. Once it's determined that there is a priority need — that the family is indeed in need of services now — then they go to the other process, which is the guide to service allocation that you mentioned, and that process to determine what is the actual level of need and how much service can and will be provided.

[1105]

N. Simons: To be clear, we're talking about people who are waiting for residential care. The guide to request for service allocation priority tool — it sounds to me like that's used specifically for people waiting for residential care. If not, then how is it different from simply going to a family and conducting the GSA — the guide to service allocation — itself? Is there one for residential care and one for other? Or do you only use one if the other is not needed? Can that be clarified?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, in my last answer to you I was talking about the process that anyone goes through when they come to CLBC for services, whatever that service might be. When they're first presenting, they go through that request for service priority first to determine urgency. Then once the urgency is determined, they go through the guide to support allocation dialogue process with CLBC to determine what it is that they are going to need and how much or what is going to be provided.

I will go on to say that certainly, as it relates to residential services and how families are feeling about that process, I heard a lot from families in my dialogues with them over the fall. It's reflected in the deputy minister working group that certainly the process isn't working as well as it should for families. So as part of the process, I've directed that we want to see improvements. That's part of the dialogue process that's ongoing and going to be ongoing through this year: how do we make the system better?

We acknowledge it's not working as well as it should. That is a lot of the work that's going to happen this year — finding a way to refine what we do and how we work with families in determining what the need is and the urgency and the process to make it a smoother transition for them and a system that works better to meet their needs.

[1110]

N. Simons: In 2008 the Queenswood report suggested that the GSA was in need of review, yet it's been used consistently. That issue wasn't addressed in the deputy ministers' report. It wasn't addressed in the internal audit. It wasn't addressed in the 2011 Queenswood report.

The GSA is a fundamental tool in determining the needs of people that Community Living B.C. serves. Why is that still being used? What plans are there for refining it or getting rid of it or finding a better tool?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, the guide to service allocation is what we have now, but as is referenced in the Queenswood report on page 43, and in recommendation 2 of the deputy minister working group report, we are very cognizant of the fact that there are currently numbers of tools used both internal to government in different areas to CLBC and across the country.

A lot of the work that's going on internally now is
[ Page 9938 ]
to look at what that's going to look like in the future. Certainly, a year to 18 months out, we anticipate that there will be a different way of assessment, a common assessment, that we're doing across the ministries and within government to ensure that the system works better for families and that the process is clearer.

N. Simons: The recommendation in 2008 was to review the GSA, and I don't think it was reviewed. I think it was institutionalized. There were 27 recommendations, and No. 16, the need to utilize an established assessment tool rather than a GSA, was apparently dismissed outright. Somehow it's marked as complete on the list of recommendations that have been addressed, but I don't think it's complete if it's…. You know, maybe the decision is complete that CLBC is not going to change their assessment tool, but I hear differently.

[1115]

I'd be interested to know what the rationale is for maintaining something that they recognize is insufficient at this point, when it's been recommended, since almost five years ago, that it be, you know, not used in this circumstance.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In fact, work was done following 2008, looking at the GSA. That is referenced in the Queenswood report — that the revised version, page 43 again, of the GSA had greater reliability than the previous version. That said, recognizing it is the current tool we have, it's being used.

But as is referenced in the deputy minister working group and as I have mentioned on numerous occasions, we're not satisfied that there are multiple tools being used, and there are differing opinions on how valid they are. So a lot more work needs to be done.

We need to do work on what tool is used, at what part of the process it is used and for what purpose. That work needs to happen within government, across ministries, but also with the sector. That's why it's going to take us some time, and we anticipate there could be something different in place 12 to 18 months from now.

N. Simons: Who is it that currently assesses the need? Who is it that does the guide to support allocation with the clients? Is it the facilitator, or is it the analyst?

Hon. S. Cadieux: An individual service plan is completed with the family and the individual by the facilitator. The guide to service allocation is then used by the analyst to assess all of the requirements from that individual service plan.

[1120]

N. Simons: One of the biggest complaints or concerns raised by community members to me is that the guide to support allocation is being interpreted by someone who may not have a lot of experience working in the social services sector. In fact, the job description requests people with business backgrounds and no need to have worked in the social services sector whatsoever.

It's all well and good. I could have a compass in the woods, and I'd still probably get lost. Maybe a rope won't help me climb a mountain. It's not just the tool. It's the ability to read the tool and understand the purpose of the tool.

I'm wondering if, fundamentally, there's a problem with a system that is seen to be put in place to narrow eligibility, to reduce the eligibility for services. When you have someone who has a deterministic tool — checkbox A or 1 through 5 — and is using that as a basis for determining eligibility for services, I don't blame people for having the suspicion that it seems to be a tool of exclusion rather than inclusion.

Can the minister explain how the public can be comfortable with a system that allows for people with no knowledge, necessarily, of specific needs of people with developmental disabilities to be interpreting and assessing and allocating the resources to those who need it?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm sure the member would agree that we can all agree that perception and reality are often different and sometimes the same. I certainly heard similar concerns from individuals and families in the public.

There was a recommendation in the first Queenswood report, and CLBC used the personal support initiative to test the concept of facilitators in applying the guide to service allocation directly in conjunction with families and individuals with developmental disabilities. That was a successful pilot.

This year CLBC is making a shift so that that model will be used for all clients and all individuals requesting services. There is currently a demonstration project on the south Island in place, which will lead to…. It's being used to develop an implementation plan for the rest of the province in terms of having facilitators use the guide with families to determine allocation.

[1125]

N. Simons: Is it fair to say that the GSA was used inappropriately in some cases? Was it used without the input of families? Does it require the input of families? Does it require the input of the individuals being served, or can it be administered without speaking to the primary caregivers or the day-program operators or the service providers?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Theoretically, the tool could be used by a facilitator based on the individual service plan that the facilitator would have worked with the family to develop — and the individual. But I think it's fair to say that in some circumstances, it was used inappropriately or didn't come out with the right outcome. Certainly, I
[ Page 9939 ]
think families and individuals will feel a greater degree of confidence moving forward, having the facilitator walk through the guide to service allocation with the families as the new model rolls out.

N. Simons: To clarify, there's a pilot project taking place on the south Island which is using a different mechanism to implement the same guide to support allocation. So we're not veering from the path of a number determining a financial allocation, but we're changing the way that tool is going to be used. Am I right about that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are two different things going on. Certainly, over the course of the next year we're taking a serious look at the system, and we're going to deliver on recommendation 2 of the deputy minister's working report, relating to a common assessment tool. That may or may not include the use of the guide to service allocation.

Second, we do have an obligation to live in the moment and do what we can now. While we're working on that for the year or 18 months, living in the moment means that CLBC is moving forward on previous recommendations to improve the process and practice of working with the GSA with families.

N. Simons: That somewhat clarifies it. I know it's a complicated process, and there are probably no easy explanations.

This whole review that is taking place now…. I know the minister was probably, in the fall session, wondering why we were calling for a review of Community Living. Admittedly, publicly it was clear that there were some problems, and there's no need to necessarily go over those. But I'm in opposition, so I will. No, I'm not going to at this point.

We repeatedly were asking for a review, and we were told that the minister established a deputy minister's working group. They were going to conduct a review. Then we were told there would be an internal audit that would attempt to determine what some of the financial issues were.

[1130]

At no time were we told there was a Queenswood review going on, which had been going on since August 2011. I think we asked 12 times in the Legislature about a review, and at no time was there any indication that Queenswood Consulting Group were conducting a follow-up to their 2008 report. What was that secrecy about?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I understand the member's questioning, but in fact, the answer is simple: it wasn't secret. It was ongoing due diligence by the ministry and by a deputy minister who was new to the file and reflecting on who instigated it as a part of his work in his review coming into the ministry and understanding that CLBC and the ministry needed to do an update on the recommendations of the first report and where that was going so that it could inform the fall budget process and the work going forward with CLBC.

Certainly, as well, it's a part of regular business and a part of due diligence that the ministry and the deputy do in regards to the files — to look at the cross-jurisdictional work and to have that help us inform our thinking on moving forward with any potential changes or adjustments.

N. Simons: Okay. Well, it was the deputy minister. I won't go there. I understand that it's a complicated ministry. It's certainly one of the most complicated — third-largest, I believe, in terms of financial allocation by our Treasury Board.

There continue to be some concerns around what I think…. You know, it's just kind of strange. We asked in October. We asked in November. And the review was going on since August. Now, how come it is that most of the reviews by CLBC are available on line, and why is it that the Queenswood review is only available if requested?

[1135]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reality is that what was being called for in the House by the opposition was an external report that was much greater in scope than the work that we regularly do as a part of the ministry, which is what the Queenswood report was. The Queenswood report did in fact help inform the work that was much broader by the deputy minister working group.

Again, it is not secret. If the member feels that it's of value, I'm happy to have it up on the website as well. Frankly, we didn't think that people would be that interested in it and have made it available to those that are. The main findings of that are included in the recommendations that the deputies have put forward.

N. Simons: Well, for the people who want to see it, I'm sure it is useful. The issue is one that dominated the media and the Legislature for most of the fall. I would just presume, because of the interest of advocates and service providers, that it would be there. I mean, I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory where there isn't one. There are plenty around that I don't need to make any up.

To just carry on, on that. Can the minister tell us how many of the 27 recommendations referred to in the Queenswood 2011 review have been implemented? I'm referring to the 2008 recommendations. How many, according to the 2011, have been implemented?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: All but two of the 27 recommendations were either implemented or are ongoing, as reported out in the 2011 report. The last two were partially
[ Page 9940 ]
implemented, and they related most specifically to the roles of the facilitator and the analyst. That work is what I mentioned is underway now with the pilot on the south Island in changing how the GSA is used with the facilitator and the family.

N. Simons: Okay. My notes indicate that 15 are complete. Now, that might be just complete — out of 27.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Nine of the 27 are ongoing. Okay.

I suppose the pilot project in the south Island is considered the one that addresses the expansion of the role of facilitators. I might be repeating what you've just said, but I just want to make sure it's clear in my head. Number 5 is expand the role of the facilitator to directly approve limited services.

Now, will Community Living B.C. do an assessment of this pilot before making it provincewide? Is it a test? Is it confirming what Community Living B.C. believes is going to occur? Or is it going to be reviewed as to whether or not it's addressing the needs of families and, I guess, meeting financial targets before it's broadcast as a provincewide policy?

[1140]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, the pilot was done with the personal supports initiative group and project. The implementation of having the facilitators walk through the guide with the families was determined to be successful, and an external review was done by Dr. Frances Ricks to validate that.

The demonstration on the south Island is now to work out the bugs in implementing this on a provincewide scale with families. We're working with families and engaging with families in having them articulate back to us what's working or not working through this process so that the broader implementation around the province goes smoothly.

This is also in response to my response to the interim report to CLBC, where I said to CLBC that I expected more conversation with families and better explanation of process and involving them and having them understand what was available to them, how to best access that and what was or what was not being done and why. All of this is being rolled up in this pilot phase so that as we roll it out to the rest of the province, we are doing it really well.

N. Simons: So the bugs will be worked out when it goes provincial. I'm interested in knowing what additional authority the facilitators will have. I guess if I knew the south Island project, I would probably be witnessing it. But what are some of those additional abilities of facilitators in terms of being able to allocate funding or supports?

[1145]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In answer to the question about the increased role of the facilitator or the ability there, the facilitator is now in a position to determine the general level of support that will be provided for the individual. There's a further process on the specifics, but the types of services are determined largely by the individual and the family and what it is they need in working with that facilitator. But the general level of support is now able to be assessed by the facilitator.

So that you can get a better understanding of that, I would be happy to offer you a briefing or a visit with the south Island folks that are implementing this.

N. Simons: I would find that helpful, actually, partly because the perception that has to be erased from the public's mind is that there are different gates or speed bumps that are geared towards allowing people to fall by the wayside — you know, that it's a funnel — hoping that the more gates to go through, the fewer demands there will be. I'm hoping that services based on what the needs of the community are and understanding the need for fiscal restraint, by recognizing the vulnerability of the people in receiving services….

I guess we've covered off, in some way, the GSA and parts of the Queenswood report. So in conclusion, just before we break for the noon hour, I would say that following lunch I guess I'd like to ask some questions on other aspects of the deputy ministers' report with respect to conflict and with respect to some of the other recommendations. But before we do that, can the minister just outline the key findings of the deputy ministers' report?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just to quickly recap for the member the 12 recommendations of the plan. To develop a coherent one-government policy framework for people with developmental disabilities. To implement a more consistent assessment platform, which we've mentioned. Using a coherent, integrated system to track demand, which we've also discussed this morning. To improve cross-government planning for transition, which I think is well understood — certainly, that we will maintain CLBC as a Crown agency but implement changes to address mandate tensions that are created by generational change and the approach to the relationship with families.

To implement new government capacity focused on transition supports, which is made available through Budget 2012. To increase employment services planning and supports, again, and alternative day programming options, which is what will be addressed by that $10 million this year. Supporting greater utilization of individualized funding — again looking in that $10 million, that we're going to work with the Ministry of Health to assess the needs of the older cohort of individuals to de-
[ Page 9941 ]
velop a plan to meet those needs and ensure early planning with families.

Re-enforcing government's accountability and responsibility for CLBC through use of our legislative authorities. Increasing funding to support these changes and link new funding to clearly identified outcomes, which is what we're doing by holding some of the money back in MSD for implementation. And support ongoing innovation in the sector, recognizing the innovations that have been developed and championed by people here in British Columbia and by people that are leaders in the sector, like RDSPs and representation agreements and the like.

[1150]

Looking forward to the afternoon and more discussion, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Social Development and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 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