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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: Today I'd like to introduce two wonderful constituents of mine, Jack and Olga Froud, who are residents of Ladner. Jack is a retired electrical engineer and is a member of the Kirkland House Society, a group of men and women who have worked long and hard to completely rebuild a very fine heritage home on Delta's farmland. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

M. Coell: The B.C. Liberal caucus has a good friend in the House today. Elishia Butler has been our receptionist and has worked for us and with us for five years. She's going on maternity leave. I hope the House would wish her and her family all the best.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a real honour for me today to rise and introduce some very special individuals who are with us in the gallery. They are here helping us mark what was undoubtedly a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and you'll hear more about that later.

[1335]

The Canadian Red Cross is instrumental in transforming donations from the public and government to help those who need it most.

It's my pleasure to introduce Kimberley Nemrava, director for B.C. and Yukon; Phyllis Argue, regional manager of the B.C. coastal region; and Ivan Watson, volunteer council member. They are here today representing the more than 2,000 Red Cross B.C. volunteers and staff, and I know that everyone in the House would like to thank them and welcome them to the gallery today.

D. Barnett: I received a phone call this morning from my constituency assistant in Williams Lake, the daughter of the late Alex Fraser, who asked me if I would ask the House today to congratulate her son and Alex Fraser's grandson, Alex Gavin, on his 19th birthday.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

M. Mungall: We are in every community from Cape Horn to Cape Dorset and back down to Cape Town, from Lisbon to Kathmandu. We are 3.5 billion strong. We are mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces and grandmothers. We are women and girls, and today is our day.

Women's movement for equality is felt wherever we are. When we say we want a promotion, we want to wear pants or we want to share the domestic labour and child care, we change the world. When we stand up for pay equity, for better representation in governments and boardrooms and classrooms, too, we make history.

Women have stood up to say we deserve to earn money in our own names and we have authority over our own bodies. We have demanded the vote and the recognition as a person. We have shown that we can handle a hammer as well as a nail file. We have made the world a safer place.

We have come so far, but we still have so much to do. Violence against women persists. We still make less money than men. We still struggle with access to reproductive rights. We are still under-represented in governments, boardrooms and shop floors, and we still do more dishes and change more diapers than men.

For the past 101 years International Women's Day has given us the opportunity to celebrate our movement for equality. We honour our successes and take stock of our challenges, and we recognize that we each have the ability to change the world every day.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

M. Stilwell: I, too, would like to speak in honour of International Women's Day, a time to celebrate our love, admiration and appreciation for all that women do. The day was first observed over a century ago. It has grown from a strange amalgam of Mother's Day and Valentine's Day to a global campaign recognizing the political and social struggles of women worldwide.

Throughout its history International Women's Day has been a rallying point for various movements from women's suffrage to the fight for employment equality. Women around the world have used this day to raise awareness and bring about change. In 1977 the United Nations honoured International Women's Day, proclaiming March 8 UN Day for Women's Rights and International Peace. Today it's recognized and celebrated in more than 100 countries.

I'm proud to say that my mom was a peacenik long before it was fashionable in 1977.

The theme for this year's day is "Empower women and end hunger and poverty." Oxfam America reports that approximately 70 percent of all those living below the poverty line are women, and 66 percent of the world's work falls on women's shoulders. I'm not sure if that counts washing the dishes. Yet they earn just 10 percent of the global income. In most countries, women's wages are 10 to 30 percent lower than their male counterparts.

[1340]

After a hundred years and a hundred International Women's Days we still have much more to do. So let us celebrate how far we've come and identify what remains to be done. We are mothers, aunts, sisters, wives and companions, and today we show how strong we are.

KIDNEY HEALTH AND
KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION

K. Conroy: March is kidney awareness month in B.C., and today, March 8, is World Kidney Day. The 2012 campaign is aimed at public awareness of the necessity of maintaining good kidney health, and in the absence of it, how transplantation has advanced and may be a solution where possible.

Our kidneys are small organs about the size of your fist and do an amazing job to keep our bodies healthy. Their main job is to remove toxins and excess water, but they also help to control our blood pressure, to produce red blood cells and to keep our bones healthy. Every day your kidneys carefully control the salt and water in your body so that your blood pressure remains the same.

Worldwide more than 5 percent of the adult population has some form of kidney damage. An estimated 2.6 million Canadians have kidney disease or are at risk of getting it. The number of Canadians being treated for kidney failure has tripled over the past 20 years. At what cost to our health care system?

Hemodialysis is a treatment used in the majority of dialysis cases, and it costs roughly $60,000 per patient per year. The one-time cost for a kidney transplant is approximately $23,000, plus $6,000 a year for necessary medication. Over a five-year period a transplant is approximately $250,000 less expensive per patient than dialysis, while considerably improving quality of life.

Nearly 80 percent of the over 4,000 Canadians on the wait-list for an organ transplant are waiting for a kidney. Sadly, though, the donor rates have stagnated since 2006, and the need for organs outpaces the supply. Kidney patients wait about three to four years for a deceased-donor kidney transplant. The longest waits are here in B.C. — five to seven years. As good as dialysis can be, it is not the first choice of the way of life for most people. A transplant can give someone a new lease on life.

However, there are things we can all do to prevent kidney disease in the first place. Exercise, eating healthy, drinking lots of water and low salt intake are key to maintaining low blood pressure and healthy kidneys.

But you can make a difference today in other ways. If you haven't already done so, register your intention to donate your organs, speak to your family and loved ones to make sure they know your wishes, and consider a living organ donation or joining the living donor paired exchange.

WOMEN IN BUSINESS AWARDS
IN SURREY

D. Hayer: Today, on International Women's Day, I would like to recognize the winners of the third annual Surrey Women in Business Awards held yesterday at the Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

This very significant recognition of the business power of women held in Surrey was sponsored by the Surrey Board of Trade and organized by the CEO, Anita Huberman, and the president, Mary Jane Stenberg, who are business powers in their own right.

In the entrepreneurial category, the winner was Kim Russell of Canadian Tourism College, and the finalists were Cathrine Levan of Kickstart Communications and Saima Naz of Higher Grade Learning Centre. In the professional division, the winner was Vivienne Wilke of the city of Surrey. The finalists were Naz Kullar of Community Savings Credit Union and Ronnie Singh of Surrey Dental Hygiene Clinic.

The winner in the corporate category was Amy Hennessy of Fortis B.C., and the finalists were Kristen Ash of Helping Hands Rehabilitation Clinic and Jane Graydon of B.C. Biomedical Labs. In the leadership category, the winner was Ellie King of the Royal Canadian Theatre Company, and the finalists were Ingrid Bos of Coast Capital Savings and Tricia Chio of Business Development Bank of Canada.

In the not-for-profit category, the winner was Kathleen Kennedy-Strath of Kinsmen Lodge, and the finalists were Marilyn Herrmann of Surrey Food Bank and Laurie Larsen of CUPE 402. Bonnie Burnside was the winner in the Community Achievement Awards.

Special thanks goes to award sponsors: Simon Fraser University, A.S. Bubber chartered accountants, the Surrey Leader newspaper and Whalley Printers. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating and thanking all the winners, finalists and nominees of these prestigious awards and all of the very successful business women in Surrey.

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

D. Black: It's been 150 years since the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster first opened its doors. As B.C.'s first hospital, it opened in 1862 with just 30 beds, all of them for men. The hospital is now the busiest air ambulance hospital in the province and, incredibly, serves one in three British Columbians.

[1345]

It's also one of the busiest emergency departments in B.C. and in Canada. Patient visits top 67,000 per
[ Page 9945 ]
year. It's a provincially designated trauma, heart and neurosciences centre for Fraser Health region — a region that stretches from Burnaby to Boston Bar and south to the U.S. border. It's a regional referral centre for orthopedics, high-risk maternity and advanced kidney care.

Staff and supporters of this busy facility are celebrating the 150th anniversary in a variety of ways. Tonight a large crowd will gather at the fifth annual SHINE Gala. In addition to celebrating 150 years of excellence at RCH, they will be helping to raise more than $250,000 to purchase life-saving equipment. If you were born at RCH or had life-saving surgery there or work there, you are invited to share a story on a special website that was launched today — rchcares.com.

The future is also a high priority for the hospital's administration and staff. A plan to increase the number of acute care beds, modernize the emergency department and improve infection control has been submitted to the government. This expansion simply must proceed soon, so Royal Columbian can continue to meet the needs of the growing population it serves and to ensure quality health care in the future.

PENTICTON VEES JUNIOR HOCKEY TEAM

J. Slater: When I drive through the neighbouring community, I see nothing but blue. You would think I was driving through the Smurfs' village, but I was not. I was driving through the community of Penticton, home of the Penticton Vees. The community has painted the town blue in support of their junior hockey club.

Al Formo, who has done colour commentary for the Vees for the last 45 years, said before Tuesday night's game that the date is auspicious for the team. History has a way of repeating itself, and if it repeats itself, the Vees are going to set that record tonight.

It was March 6, 1955. Then the Penticton Vees won the world championship against the Russians, defeating the Russians 5-0 in Germany.

That was March 6, and here we go again. Before a huge crowd of 3,655 fans, March 6, 2012, the Penticton Vees broke the North American record for the most consecutive wins — 41. This record was previously held by two Ontario teams 20 years ago. No other junior or pro team in North America has come close to winning 40 straight.

The Vees won their 20th straight home game during the regular season at the South Okanagan Events Centre. They also set a new record for the most wins in a 60-game season — 53 — and tied the mark for the most points in a season, with 108. While they still have two regular games to go, the Penticton Vees have clinched first place and will be heading to the playoffs starting March 16. Go, Vees, go!

Oral Questions

B.C PLACE BUSINESS PLAN
AND NAMING RIGHTS

J. Horgan: Yesterday we learned how seriously the B.C. Liberals take private sector investment in British Columbia. When it was raised in this House that $35 million to $40 million in sponsorship rights were left on the table by the government, the response was gales of laughter.

After years of negotiation, of good-faith bargaining between TELUS and PavCo in the province of British Columbia, a deal was done and then reneged upon. My question to the minister responsible: does he think today that it's funny that B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for more money at B.C. Place?

Hon. P. Bell: What I do think is funny is that the members opposite think they are the bastions of free enterprise in this province.

We went through a long and involved negotiation with TELUS. It was well over a year in length. The discussion revolved around the rights to rename B.C. Place as Telus Park. In the end the offer that was made was deemed to not be in the best interest of taxpayers. It made more sense to maintain the integrity of the name B.C. Place. That was the decision that was made, and we're very comfortable with that.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, it's odd, when we are in a deficit situation here again for the third consecutive year, that the government would think in its wisdom that the naming rights…. Regardless of how people feel about what you call the stadium in Vancouver — I'm a Vancouver Islander, and there are people from all across British Columbia, many of whom will never set sights on B.C. Place in person — $35 million is a lot of money when you're in a deficit. And $35 million is now on the backs of taxpayers to make up for the financial mismanagement that has been the replacement of the roof of that stadium over the past four years.

My question, again, is to the minister. He says casually that $35 million can be recouped through other means. I'm wondering if he has the temerity, to use a word often misused by the Premier, to table a business plan, to demonstrate to the people of British Columbia where that money is going to come from. Is it going to come from more taxes, more debt? Or are you going to find $35 million from some other private sector company tomorrow?

Hon. P. Bell: Speaking of tabling documents…. On this side of the House we're kind of wondering if the
[ Page 9946 ]
members opposite would care to table the budget that they've prepared, which perhaps accounts for up to an additional $6 billion in spending. How would they like to put that document out in public so that people really know what the NDP stands for?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: As regrettable as it is that the government of British Columbia is still the B.C. Liberal Party, someone needs to be responsible for the mismanagement at B.C. Place. It's normally the minister responsible for PavCo.

Again, I'll pose the question to him. Perhaps he'll focus on an answer so the people of British Columbia can have some confidence that this gong show that has been the replacement of a roof will somehow stop, and we can get back on a sound fiscal footing and find the money to pay for this action.

Where is the business plan that will recoup the $35 million that you left on the table, with TELUS holding the bell?

Hon. P. Bell: Listening to the member opposite's question, I'm going to assume that he actually supports the renaming of B.C. Place to Telus Park. It should be noted that the member opposite is perhaps exaggerating a little bit. The $35 million was spread over 20 years — $1.75 million per year. It actually created a large number of opportunities for TELUS to use within the facility for advertising. All of those opportunities now will be freed up, and we'll be able to sell those to other advertisers.

I'm more than confident that we'll be able to get the level of funding back to PavCo and to B.C. Place that's necessary.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Liberals' mismanagement of B.C. Place is well known. The dome roof collapsed under their watch when they assured everybody that it would be fine. Then when they started reconstruction, they claimed the new roof would pay for itself, yet had no business case to prove that. Construction then went hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, and there may be more yet to come.

It wasn't on time. The retractable roof doesn't open or close when it's raining. Their financing plan was a roll of the dice on a mega-casino with a Liberal insider through a shady process that was roundly rejected. Now there's the deal that's been botched with TELUS. Will the minister please table in this House today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: …a business plan explaining how the Liberals plan to get B.C. taxpayers out of this mess? I know that the minister may laugh about this, but British Columbians certainly aren't.

Hon. P. Bell: One of the risks with taking a position — and I suspect one of the reasons why the NDP doesn't normally take positions — is that it just may conflict with something they said at a different point in time.

[1355]

I would suggest that the member opposite, the member for Vancouver–West End, go back to the Hansard document of October 29, 2009, when the member opposite said: "I, too, like the name B.C. Place." He goes on: "I can tell the minister that I'd be quite upset if we decided to sell off the name B.C. Place, especially given what a substantial investment the people of B.C. have put into the stadium over so many years. It really is B.C.'s place in that context." Congratulations, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, regardless of what you think of the renaming of B.C. Place, it was those folks on that side of the House who went after TELUS, courted them again and again, spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of taxpayers' dollars, trying to get a deal. The minister actually told me he thought he would have a naming rights deal with TELUS very shortly. Now they've walked away. Well, failure after failure has been the Liberal trademark on B.C. Place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister claimed it would pay for itself. I asked again and again for a business case to show that. There wasn't one. It's now costing British Columbians nearly $600 million, after going hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The government gambled and lost on a shady deal with a Liberal insider for a casino. Then they botched the deal with TELUS.

My question to the minister, again…. He thinks this is humorous, yet it's millions upon millions of British Columbians' dollars. Will he table in this House today the business case to show British Columbians how his government is going to get British Columbia out of the mess that they created?

Hon. P. Bell: Apparently, the members opposite would accept any deal. That's what they're telling us — that any
[ Page 9947 ]
deal, no matter whether it's good or bad for the taxpayers of British Columbia, should be accepted. But let's fast-forward from the 2009 estimates to the 2010 estimates, because there was some consistency from the member opposite at that point in time.

On April 1, 2010, the member opposite in the Hansard record said: "I was disappointed to hear in the minister's answer that B.C. Place itself will be renamed — sold off to, I guess, the highest bidder. As I understand it, it's British Columbians that have put $563 million into this project. I understand somebody else may come in with some money, but I would think that those that put in the majority of the dollars should be the ones to name it." Words from the member opposite.

M. Karagianis: Well, the man that runs B.C. Place does not seem to have nearly the same confidence in the Liberals' plan for where this revenue stream is going to come from. In fact, Mr. David Podmore said: "He needs the B.C. Liberals to relieve PavCo of the need to find the $35 million that they walked away from in the TELUS deal." So perhaps Mr. Podmore would have more faith in this government if the B.C. Liberals had a business case for this $35 million shortfall.

[1400]

Now we know that the cornerstone, the centrepiece, of the B.C. Liberal budget mismanagement fiasco this year was a sell-off of $700 million of public assets. Is that what they're going to do — sell off more family silverware to cover this $35 million shortfall?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the member for Vancouver–West End has been fairly consistent with his views on naming rights and B.C. Place up until the last two days — three estimates, three times in a row.

Here's the quote from the estimates, May 4, 2011 — just not even quite a year ago. "I know one of the ministers said that he didn't want B.C. Place, the name, to be sold off. I tend to agree with him. If taxpayers" — of British Columbia — "are putting up $563 million and somebody else could come in and put in $20 million" — the member opposite quoted — "and their name goes on it instead of the great province of British Columbia, it just feels a…bit odd to me."

We are making sure we make the right decisions for British Columbia. It represents the best possible value, and we're confident in our ability to make sure that stadium produces long-term results for B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's fast-forward to today, when the B.C. Liberals have just walked away from a deal that they tried to put in place for two years and left money on the table. Now, Mr. Podmore has said that because of this B.C. Liberal mismanagement….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we're having a hard time hearing.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: Mr. Podmore, who runs B.C. Place, has said that because of the mismanagement of the B.C. Liberal government around this TELUS agreement, they are asking…. He's saying that the B.C. Liberals are going to have to relieve PavCo of the responsibilities here. Well, there is only one place they can find that relief — from B.C. taxpayers. It's the only creative plan they've had for getting out of the budget mess they've got us in — to sell off public assets.

I would like to know, and B.C. taxpayers would like to know: what are they going to sell off to pay for this mess that they've made?

Hon. P. Bell: The principle behind making sure that you make sound business deals is something that this side of the House actually understands. Members opposite seem to be willing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second, Minister.

It's your time, Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: Members opposite appear to be willing to make any deal at any cost. That is not the position of this government. We believe in the principle of getting best value for taxpayer dollars in this province. We've done that consistently, unlike the opposition through the 1990s that have a long and sordid history of making poor deals.

The member opposite goes on and continues to talk about the value of protecting the name B.C. Place. The member for Vancouver–West End said in 2009, " I think the people of B.C. — at least, my constituents, anyway — would support, since we have spent so much of our taxpayers dollars in that place," that it continues to be B.C. Place.

All of a sudden, for political expedience, it appears that we have a little change in view on the other side. Mr. Speaker, the future is friendly.

SENIORS CARE CASE
IN NANAIMO HOSPITAL
AND IN-HOSPITAL BILLING POLICY

D. Routley: Erin Caldwell's husband spent 6½ months in Nanaimo Regional Hospital awaiting placement in long-term care. While he languished in acute care, Mr.
[ Page 9948 ]
Caldwell was not getting any services such as clothes-washing, exercise or stimulation. His condition deteriorated, so Mrs. Caldwell hired someone so that he could at least have clean clothes and a little fresh air now and then.

Does the minister feel that this was appropriate care Mr. Caldwell received while occupying an expensive acute care bed?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member will recall I have already said, both inside this House and outside, that I believe it is regrettable that anyone spent six months in an acute care facility and that the only thing I would have felt to be more regrettable is if that individual had been discharged from that facility to a place that was not equipped to provide the unique kind of care the patient required.

[1405]

There are in British Columbia a very small number of individuals who require very, very specialized care. I will say again that it is regrettable an individual spent that length of time in an acute care hospital pending the availability of the kind of bed, the kind of facility and the kind of care that they required.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: What's regrettable is the long history of failure on the part of the B.C. Liberals to honour and care for our seniors in British Columbia. That failure is documented well by the Ombudsperson.

This situation only got worse for the Caldwells. While Mr. Caldwell was waiting placement on the wait-list, VIHA began billing Mrs. Caldwell 80 percent of Mr. Caldwell's pension. As a result, she could no longer afford that extra support. Mr. Caldwell had no one to wash his clothes, got no walks or fresh air, and with that total lack of stimulation, his condition went downhill quickly.

Does the minister not agree that it was unfair, inefficient and dangerous for Mr. Caldwell to be stuck languishing in acute care without any support, and then, to add insult to injury, he was billed for the services that he wasn't receiving?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won't repeat my comments from a moment ago about the regrettable situation that the patient confronted in terms of the length of time he spent in the hospital.

I would, however, remind the member that the co-pay policy that he has referred to dates back in various forms to the 1990s. So to suggest….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I realize the members won't want to hear this, but these are policies that are designed to ensure that there is fairness. They are, as the member has pointed out, based on two things: the income, and the belief that when long-term care is being provided, it is appropriate to ask, where a patient is capable, for them to contribute to that long-term care.

K. Conroy: The Ombudsperson report was clear, and what's regrettable and what's unfair is that seniors are charged for their time in hospital because of delays in the health care system.

Recommendation No. 114 says that health authorities shouldn't charge patients who are stuck in hospitals because of the Liberal government's failures. Yet Mr. Caldwell was stuck in acute care, waiting for services in residential care, paying 80 percent of his pension for services he wasn't getting. That's regrettable. That's unfair to seniors in this province.

If the minister really feels it's regrettable, if he really feels it's unfair, then maybe he should stand up today and implement these recommendations so that no more seniors like Mr. Caldwell are out there, paying for services they're not getting.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, as I have done previously in the House, I will point out that the in-hospital billing policy that the member refers to and takes great issue with, in terms of her submissions here today, dates back to 1999. So I take it….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, a second policy pronouncement from a member of the opposition, who says: "Change it."

We actually take the view that in terms of providing long-term care…. And by the way, great progress has been made. The member from Cowichan-Ladysmith — I think it's Cowichan-Ladysmith — may harken back to the good old days when patients waited over a year for placement in a residential bed.

[1410]

The fact that that has been reduced dramatically is something that we are very proud of on this side of the House, and we're continuing.

FUNDING FOR GROUPS PARTICIPATING
IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

J. Kwan: Today is International Women's Day, and the Missing Women Inquiry is collapsing. Dozens of women went missing from the Downtown Eastside and the Highway of Tears and were murdered. They are predominantly aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women organizations and community groups were among the first to call for an inquiry into
[ Page 9949 ]
this tragic situation. Today all groups representing aboriginal women and community groups have withdrawn from the inquiry, yet their voices are essential to the inquiry. It so angered the aboriginal community leaders that Chief Stewart Phillip said: "The Premier of this province was so out of touch with the significance of this inquiry that she denied increasing funding or providing adequate support."

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Will she be the voice at the cabinet table on behalf of the aboriginal community and call on the Premier to take action now so that aboriginal women's voices and community groups could be heard at this inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: As we've said over the course of the last two, if not three, days in the Legislature…. I appreciate the passion that the member opposite brings to the floor of the House about an issue that matters not just to her but to every single member of this House. In fact, that's why the government did take action.

It created a study commission and a hearing process which allows for there to be a process in place, which means that individuals and organizations can participate in this process without legal support. In fact, as I demonstrated yesterday, Commissioner Oppal has travelled — for example, across northern British Columbia — and met in numerous, numerous communities, talking to aboriginal communities, aboriginal men and women, whose voices are critical.

That's why we took action. That's why we provided support, legal support, specifically to those most impacted — the families of missing and murdered women.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: It is not about passion. It is about justice and fairness. That's what this side of the House is calling for.

Ms. Gervais, the one and only legal counsel representing aboriginal interests, before she lost confidence in the inquiry, said that the aboriginal community at large is skeptical of the process. She further stated that the aboriginal community feels the panel is not a good structure to put witnesses in.

Ms. Lilliane Beaudoin, the sister of Diane Rock, one of the murdered victims, said: "Mr. Oppal is just trying to save time and money by getting a lot of witnesses on at once. We came for a public inquiry, and we're not getting one." This is a statement from a family member of a victim in the Pickton inquiry. So is it a wonder that Ms. Gervais calls the representation of aboriginal interests at the inquiry "aboriginal tokenism"?

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Is this acceptable to her? And if not, does she have the courage to tell the Premier that the Liberal government is wrong in not funding the 13 groups with standing and take action now so that the voices of aboriginal women and groups can be heard at the table?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, who is, I'm sure, well aware of the fact that this government created the inquiry commission.... We certainly expect the results to be brought forward in a timely way.

[1415]

To suggest for a heartbeat that there has been a lack of resources provided is simply inaccurate. British Columbians today have invested more than $4 million in this inquiry. In fact, the commissioner, out of that $4 million, made sure that there were four lawyers available. Those lawyers and legal support were provided to the groups that the member opposite mentioned. They did not take advantage of four additional lawyers — two pro bono, two provided through the commission inquiry funding — to do exactly what the member opposite is asking to be done.

S. Fraser: So 24 to four — the deck is stacked. On today of all days we should recognize that the Missing Women Inquiry should be one of the most significant inquiries in the history of this province. So many women have lost their lives while many questions remain unanswered for the families of these victims.

A quote: "Our women face racism and systemic stereotyping at every turn. For aboriginal women, this racism and stereotyping is rampant right through the system, from the police to the courts." That quote is from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from 1996. Nothing has changed under this government.

The commission has urged this government twice to fund Mr. Oppal, their own handpicked commissioner. He said twice to fund a list of 13 participants granted standing, having called the government's decision to not provide the counsel "the height of unfairness."

This government has failed to provide the tools necessary for the commission to fulfil its mandate, which has destroyed the credibility of the inquiry in the aboriginal community. Aboriginal groups should be supported in fully participating. They should be given the time to be heard in evidentiary hearings on the record like everyone else at that inquiry — 24 lawyers.

What actions does the Minister — we're not getting it from Justice — of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation…? What will she do to repair the ties with the aboriginal community in this inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: Everyone in this House, not simply the member opposite, is acutely aware of the need to ensure that this inquiry is conducted with integrity, with inclusiveness and with the opportunity to bring back recommendations so that what happened to women in British Columbia simply never happens again.

But for the member opposite to stand in this House and begin to impugn the reputation of Commissioner
[ Page 9950 ]
Oppal…. I would remind the member opposite what the previous Attorney General, who was an NDP Attorney General, Colin Gabelmann said about Commissioner Oppal: "Mr. Justice Oppal has conducted the inquiry in a way that is sensitive to the needs of differing groups."

So the fact of the matter is that Commissioner Oppal is well aware of the importance of including aboriginal voices. He has done just that in communities like Nisga'a, Kitsumkalum, where hundreds of aboriginal people had the opportunity to participate. That is an appropriate process where voices will be heard.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKE
AND TSUNAMI IN JAPAN

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have the honour to rise today to speak about the one-year anniversary of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011.

Thousands of lives were forever changed when an earthquake measuring 9.0, followed by a massive tsunami, devastated many parts of their island nation. This occurred in one of the best-prepared countries in the world, but the toll was worse than anything that could have been expected or planned for. It is hard to fathom the extent of the damage to roads, buildings, homes and livelihoods.

[1420]

The greater tragedy, however, is the toll this disaster took on hundreds of thousands of families who lost loved ones in a matter of minutes. Theirs is a profound loss, one that has moved British Columbians to help.

On behalf of the Japanese government, it's my honour to thank the people of British Columbia for the extent of their generous support following the tragedy. For its part, the province was pleased to provide $1 million last year to the Red Cross to help with immediate medical and emergency support for the people of Japan.

Joining us in the House today are representatives from the Canadian Red Cross. In the past year more than 160,000 Japanese Red Cross volunteers and 896 Red Cross medical teams were mobilized to provide support to survivors. More than 30,000 emergency kits were distributed to support thousands of families living in evacuation centres. More than 87,000 patients were treated. More than 126,000 families received household appliances and furniture to help them return to a more normal life.

Signs of recovery are clear, with most of the debris now removed and shops and businesses gradually reopening in many places.

When I look at the donations, the volunteers, humanitarian efforts and progress being made in the many areas, I'm truly inspired by the dedication and perseverance by and with the people of Japan. The events in Japan emphasize the wider importance of emergency preparedness to governments and individuals, to ensure that communities are stronger, safer and more resilient should a large-scale emergency strike.

Each of us needs to make personal preparedness a priority. I encourage everyone in the House today and all British Columbians to visit Emergency Info B.C. on line for emergency checklists and other helpful information.

Mr. Speaker, there's a word in Japanese. It's gambare. It means to adhere to something with tenacity. When you hear it, it's often shouted. You might shout this out to encourage someone who is undertaking a very difficult task. In English it would be translated as: "Hang in there; don't give up; give it your best; give it your all."

To our friends in Japan, I say on behalf of all members of the House: gambare.

K. Corrigan: The official opposition certainly would like to thank the minister and join the minister in her expressions of concern and support for the Japanese people, whose northeast coast was devastated by the earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent Fukushima nuclear disaster.

I would join in thanks for the Red Cross and the many other organizations who have contributed to the rebuilding of that country. The Japanese certainly have shown great character in rebuilding and in economic recovery. However, despite that resilience and strength, our thoughts continue to be with the families and the communities that were destroyed by these events.

One only has to consider the size of the field of debris which is drifting towards North America and the fact that we now have to plan for its arrival as an emergency to get some sense of the scope of the devastation in Japan. That debris consists of houses and cars and television sets and other things that are pieces of the lives that were destroyed. As it comes to our coast, where in fact many of our first Japanese citizens made their homes, many of them in the industry, we think of the Japanese-Canadians.

Our condolences and concern continue for the people and communities of Japan, but we also think about the many Canadians of Japanese background who still have very strong connections with family and friends in Japan who have been so impacted by this disaster.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon we will continue second reading debate of Bill 22 intituled Education Improvement Act, and in Section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development.
[ Page 9951 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

K. Conroy: I'm going to continue my remarks that I made this morning. I'd like to reiterate that I truly feel that this legislation will hurt students, further alienate teachers, undermine relationships within our schools and deliver another blow to our public education system.

[1425]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I want to just briefly talk, on a personal note, about what teachers have meant to us and how I think that this bill, Bill 22, will affect students in the classrooms now. In the late '90s our two younger children were in the school system. They were in high school, in fact. At the same time, our family was going through rather a difficult time. I worked full-time; my husband worked full-time. He was the MLA for Rossland-Trail, and he had some quite considerable health issues.

Our teenage daughter and son were struggling with what teenagers normally struggle with, as well as high school. Our daughter was having particular challenges. She was fortunate in that she had a teacher, a special ed teacher, who took time with her and took her from a young woman who in grade 10 was on the verge of dropping out, getting involved in things that she shouldn't have been, to recognizing her potential.

Marilee Papau recognized Sasha's potential and said: "This is a kid that's going to go somewhere; this is a child that can do something." She worked with her and helped her so that not only, in fact, did Sasha not drop out; she graduated with honours and today is a 30-year-old young woman with three amazing grandchildren of mine, who is going on to school now and is going to become a registered nurse.

I think it was just due to a special ed teacher like Marilee Papau, who had the time to work with our daughter, who had the time to give her the attention she needed and make sure that she did graduate and turn into a fully functioning, great kid that she is.

Our son also was going through the difficulties that our family faced, and he had another amazing teacher, Augi Cupello. Ben wasn't sure what direction to go in. Should he be a teacher? Should he go into trades? What should he do?

He was really confused at that time, and Mr. Cupello sat with him and said: "Look, Ben, here's what I think you should do. I think you should get a trade and then carry on with your education, because you can do it. You're a smart kid. You can be a teacher someday."

He had the time to spend with Ben, the time to be there with him, to talk to him when Ben really needed that, as a high school student. That support for kids in our education system was pulled from kids with Bills 27 and 28.

Bill 22 is doing nothing to reinstate that support for kids like Ben and Sasha were in the 1990s. They got the support they needed. They're high-functioning young adults now in this day, and I thank those teachers that were there for my kids and those teachers that are frustrated nowadays, today, because they don't have that same support in the school system.

I'm sure that the Liberal members on the other side of the House are getting just as many e-mails, phone calls and personal visits from people that are concerned with this bill. It's folks from all walks of life who are speaking eloquently about their frustrations with the government and the legislation this bill imposes.

In fact, a city councillor and a retired teacher called my constituency to say, "I support the teacher action fully; it is like we are living in Putin's Russia," and he's frustrated with it.

You know, retired folks who no longer even have kids or even grandkids in the system care about our province's future. They're really concerned with this legislation. They feel that Bill 22 is going to further erode the education system in the province.

I had Linda from Winlaw. She wrote to say:

"The people of the province of B.C. must be given the opportunity to vote on the labour laws the current government is trying to pass. To make laws about a union can pay strike pay to their striking workers, fining people over and above the loss of wages when they strike, fining unions for going on strike and deciding who is allowed to strike needs a referendum….

"How a few elected people can change hard-earned labour laws and throw out the hard-earned rights of workers is beyond my comprehension. Have these issues been discussed with your parents? Does anybody read history? Please stop Bill 22, and let the province vote."

That's from Linda in Winlaw.

Now, Dave from Kostan — an interesting letter that he'd written. He said he's writing to express his opinion about the teachers' negotiations and is very disappointed in the way that the government has handled this situation.

"You are the biggest business in the province but are setting a very poor example for other businesses. I operate a small business but also work at a union job. The benefits and the wages you as MLAs have, as well as what other workers enjoy, are there because of what unions have done in the past through the negotiation process.

[1430]

"For employers to try to gut collective agreements to increase profits or to try to buy votes is very offensive. Teachers are not overpaid. A teacher with five years of university and considerable debt makes less than a first-year apprentice in the trades. Most teachers work because they love what they do."

He finishes by saying:

"I'm proud of the senior students who speak in favour of education and teachers. They have the ability to speak to the issues because they have experienced firsthand the deterioration of their school system. I am very happy that they will soon be informed voters."

It's interesting. Dave's right on the money. Students have been extremely eloquent in their concerns that
[ Page 9952 ]
they've shared. In fact, the Lucerne students from New Denver showed their solidarity with teachers. I want to quote Danica Hammond. She said: "Our teachers are fighting for valid things that are important, so we feel it's important to give them support."

Not only have they spoken out about this; they've made an appointment to come to my office and talk to me about it because they feel so passionately about it — students who understand the benefits of a good, quality education. Is that not what we want to see from students in this province?

Now, I had a number of letters that I found quite emotional, and so I do want to share them. This one is from a young woman named Lizz. She says:

"You have no idea how happy it makes me to actually have my opinion listened to. My name is Lizz, spelled with two Zs. My name is like me: strange, odd and made by my friends. I can tell you more about myself, like the fact I suffered from depression for two years during middle school, that I went from a straight-A student to a B student, or that I have the most supportive friends and teachers.

"I could tell you that in my 14 years of life I have witnessed multiple car crashes, six family deaths, a friend that committed suicide and the most beautiful sunsets. I can tell you that I was a competitive figure skater and MVP in almost every softball tournament I played in, or that I volunteered at a retirement home for a year and a half.

"But in the end, none of that matters. What matters is that in the next four years of my life I will become an educated adult, ready to vote, make mistakes and maybe even drive. That is only if you give me the chance. Without school funding, I can't become the person I want to be.

"Let me tell you a bit more about myself. I cut — used to, I mean. That was because of my depression. If you look at statistics, most people who suffer from depression are females from 12 to 22 years of age. Most of those people have an above-average IQ. That is because we are unable to expand.

"Teachers have to spend time with children who don't understand, instead of letting us expand our education. We are sent to the library to study alone. Our friends become distant, and we eventually cave in on ourselves.

"I can tell you what teachers made for me. They made a challenge program, specifically designed for those labelled 'gifted.' They made me see my true potential. They made me see past the scars on my arms. They made me see that there is something brighter than the blood running down my arms, and that was my future. They made me see I can make a difference, that I can stand up for what I believe in. They showed me that even though I'm still a child, I have an opinion and a right to voice it.

"What did teachers make you? Somebody with the ability to read, write and get into politics. Somebody who knows how to think for yourself. Or did they make somebody that doesn't care about their children's education? You know what they made me? Somebody who, in four short years, will be able to vote Green Party.

"What we want isn't unreasonable: smaller class sizes, more special needs programs. These are reasonable requests if you think long-term. When you pass Bill 22, think about a girl somewhere, just 12 or 13 years old, who is thinking about death way too much, a girl who wants to use school as a refuge but can't because somebody in an office took that choice away. Please, think about me."

This is from Lizzie.

Natasha from Vancouver:

"What has occurred over the course of the last year, especially the last few weeks, has moved me enough to speak up about it. I'm a 16-year-old grade 11 student currently at a Vancouver high school. I have been following the action around the teacher-government negotiations decision, and what has happened recently has led to a great deal of frustration and emotion for myself and my peer group.

[1435]

"As decisions are carried through, it is disheartening to watch as a helpless minor who, along with friends and family, is being affected and will furthermore be affected by the careless actions being performed.

"As a high school student, I am almost powerless in what transpires in government, yet as an educated person, I have common sense and knowledge. The glaring truth lies before me. The poor decision-making I have seen has made me so frustrated that it has led me to want to reshape my career path so that I can be involved in government in my future years, so that nothing like this will ever happen to the public education system for my own children.

"With teachers in my family, I get to experience firsthand how hard they work and what passion and drive they have to aid students to exceed their full potential. Their dedication and love are what propel me to continue to have enthusiasm for school.

"Anyone who has common sense is able to figure out that if the conditions get better for the teachers, then as a result the students reap the benefits. It is a symbiotic relationship. You put money into the schools and teachers, and you will see the improvements in students' achievements. The two go hand in hand.

"If you are so keen on improving education and the lives of children, and I hope that the government should be, then why is it that things essential for success in schools and classrooms are being stripped away? One of the most striking things about Bill 22 is that it outlines that there will be no limits to how many special needs students can be in the classroom."

She has a quote from the Minister of Education: "There is no reason to assume, on the face of it, that a child with a designation is going to be any different or any less manageable in a classroom situation than a child without a designation."

"This statement, the bill itself and the lack of conscience and action from the majority government are appalling. Obviously, these persons representing this bill do not understand what it entails to support a special needs child.

"I have a six-year-old sister, diagnosed with a rare congenital disorder. She is clearly developmentally and physically behind the rest of her peers. Even when she comes home from school and I give her one-on-one support to teach her how to grip a pencil and draw a circle, or attempt to show her basic skills that a grade 1 child should have, it is challenging, exhausting and takes a great deal of time.

"Hypothetically, if she is placed in a class with a great deal of other special needs students, she will certainly not be provided with the support she deserves or needs. I want her to have the best opportunity possible in school and life, and there is nothing more frustrating than watching people in the B.C. government taking those opportunities away from children, as if it means nothing at all.

"One cannot understand what it feels like to be in this situation if they have not experienced it themselves. I cannot describe to you the feeling of being a helpless student, watching all of this unfold. It is extremely discouraging to be a witness to such poor and insensitive judgment.

"All of you have been elected into government. You wield the most power in what happens in my life, my friends' lives, my family's life and hundreds of thousands of lives across this great province. You represent us, and it is your job to stop injustices such as this from occurring. It is easy to make decisions and statements from behind a desk, but the actions being taken affect a wealth of young people.

"Education is the foundation of success and the future. If we cannot properly provide that, then how exactly do we propose to be
[ Page 9953 ]
a functioning society? The only hope left for me to hang onto, for now, is hope — hope that we can move forward, contrary to what appears to be happening currently.

"For those of you with a conscience, please take children's lives into consideration. Stand up for us. We are your future."

That is Natasha from Vancouver.

Now, parents have been expressing their stories and concerns in many ways. Some parents have expressed their concerns of what's happening today, in today's classroom, and how Bill 22 is going to affect their children. Also, they're talking about what happened with their kids in the last few years, and parents across the province are saying: "This isn't right." They're saying that a fight with the Liberal government, with the teachers, is affecting their children. It's affecting the children that are in the classrooms today.

I had a chat with Cheryl. She's a parent from the Arrow Lakes region, and she's also an education assistant. As a parent in the Arrow Lakes region, which is up north of my constituency, she said that she's disheartened to see the downturn of the public education in our province. She said: "Problems began ten years ago, and no improvements have surfaced recently." She said: "It's put the future of the education of our children at risk."

[1440]

As an education assistant who works in the Arrow Lakes region, she's witnessed the suffering of students in classrooms with no class size limits. "Increasingly, classrooms have students with both identified and unidentified needs. It's impossible for teachers to teach when they are dealing with such a wide spectrum of learners in the classrooms.

She goes on to describe one of her classrooms. In one English class that she works in, they have three English-as-a-second-language students, seven behaviour-issue students. Of those, one is on an individual education program and two have unidentified mental challenges. One student with identified needs is on an individual education program.

As the other students in the class try to get an education, the teacher and this education assistant try to get the others to work without acting out. She asked me…. She said:

"Would you like to come and spend 78 minutes a day, every day, trying to work with this group? Would you like to be sworn at, disrespected, have items hurled at you, look for solutions, referee fights and search the room for any glimmer of hope that someone is actually learning and retaining information for their future?

"It's not fair. Our education in this province is failing the very students that are in it.

"Please work with the teachers, not against them. They already have too much against them as it is. Educating the future of our province is a challenge. Don't make their work even harder. The teachers need to be heard, not ignored. Work with them for a fair contract. Don't rip it up and say they don't matter."

She thanked me for my time and went on to say that she had to get home because she had more work to do to get prepared for the class the next day. That's Cheryl from the Arrow Lakes — a small part of my constituency in the north that struggles to make sure that the kids in that area get the education that they need.

We've all heard from teachers. Hundreds and hundreds of teachers from across the province have been talking about their experiences in classrooms, their experiences in trying to deal with the composition in their classrooms and what Bill 22 is going to do to them — what Bill 22 is going to do to the composition and the makeup in the classroom and how it's going to, for instance, put any number of kids with identified needs or unidentified needs in the classroom, and not with the support those kids need.

The teachers have expressed so many concerns on how they're going to deal with it. I want to read a few of them. Jill from Rossland:

"I'd like to remind the Liberals that by stripping our contract to suit their agenda, they have taken away conditions for kids and teachers that were fairly bargained for. Teachers forfeited salary increases for those trade-offs. Thus, by stripping the contract with this draconian legislation, they have rolled us back in salary further, without mentioning the implications for kids and teachers inside the classroom.

"I teach a grade 4-5 split with 28 lively students. The government wishes me to be current in technology, provide individual learning plans for students, assess and evaluate according to each student's needs, manage the behavioural students, provide excellent teaching strategies and methodologies, and be happy and alert, kind and considerate, while making sure the parents' needs are also met, no matter the time of day.

"Yes, I can do all of that in a respectful environment where conditions are not eroding, where funding supports the expectations of the minister, where school boards aren't pitting communities against each other because more schools will have to close…"

She acknowledges what our school district has already announced, that it's a $1.55 million shortfall in school district 20, and they are trying to figure out how they are going to make ends meet.

"…where mediation and creative thinking move us forward for the education system in B.C. for kids, and yes, to the Premier, for families. She doesn't walk the talk at all.

"Bill 22 is a massive slap in the face of hard-working, passionate teachers who care about what they do, will forfeit days of salary to stand up for the rights of teachers and education.

"I tell my daughters that there are times that you must stand up for what is right."

Those are excerpts from Jill Spearn's letter from Rossland, B.C., who says she's still very proud to be a teacher.

I had a father in my constituency contact me. He wanted to remain anonymous because he was afraid of the backlash to his daughter. His daughter is a teacher. When we talked he said:

"I wanted to drop you a note on the situation the teachers find themselves in. My daughter is a school teacher in Kelowna. In my opinion, she is a great teacher, and so do the kids in her class.

[1445]

"Every time I meet one of the parents they are so happy they have her as a teacher. The kids love her. They invite her to all of their birthday parties, and she makes the time on weekends to go.

"I can tell you that her morale is now at an all-time low. What I find disturbing is that she attended UVic for five years, waited four years at Kelowna to get a full-time job, and her wage increases
[ Page 9954 ]
have been zero percent, or less than inflation, for that whole time. A janitor at Teck makes as much or more than her. Nothing against janitors. They deserve it too.

"What concerns me is that Bill 22 does not give the teachers union any input. I know from my political experience that if you hire a mediator without input from the other side, you do it to get the answer you want. The mediator gives you the answer the government wants, or they'll never be hired again.

"Everything the teachers want to talk about is not on the table. I just wanted to give you some feedback as a parent of a teacher that has invested her whole life to become a teacher — a profession she used to really enjoy.

"The majority of teachers are scared to say anything due to fear of being fired. My daughter does not know that I sent the note to you, but please, again, no names. I can take it, but I do not trust the dictator regime we have in power and the possible backlash on my daughter. I do not want these comments to reflect on my daughter."

What a shame.

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

K. Conroy: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

What a shame, because class size and composition is a very important issue to good education, and it is a part of Bill 22.

So many teachers are concerned about the class size and composition that's going to be taken away. The students will be left without the ability to learn in a teaching environment where teachers will have the ability to ensure that they get a good education, due to large class sizes and due to the composition.

You know, in the smaller constituencies in the province, in rural B.C., school districts are struggling to make ends meet. Bill 22 is not going to help those school districts to make ends meet. In fact, they're going to be faced with a choice — a choice of looking at this bill, when it comes in, and saying: "In order to make our budgets balance, we're going to have to increase class sizes." Not only are they going to increase those class sizes, but the composition of the classes is going to be very difficult for the teachers, very difficult for the learning environments of students in those classes.

It's so frustrating for the teachers that have talked to us, for the teachers and for the students. The students know that they will be in the same situation.

What I find interesting with Bill 22 is that Bill 22, if it becomes law — I'll say "if", as a dream — will actually prohibit teachers from striking and limit their collective bargaining rights. I think my colleague from Nanaimo talked about this rather eloquently, how the government is once again eroding workers' legal rights in this province. It's actually violating legal rights of workers in this province.

I think a number of times this government has violated legal rights, and they've been called on it — called on it in the Supreme Court of Canada. Here we are again in this situation with Bill 22.

If Bill 22 becomes law, the government will of course demand that the teachers respect its provisions, including those that make strikes illegal. It will condemn those who defy the law, this act, as lawbreakers, and punish them with severe fines — extremely severe fines: $475 a day for a teacher; $2,500 per day for a union officer; $1.3 million per day for the union.

When you look at that kind of money…. They're going to fine teachers $1.3 million, yet the government will pay out $6 million for the legal defence of convicted criminals. I ask you: where is the respect in that? I don't see that in Bill 22. I don't see respect for teachers. I see a government that is demanding that the rule of law be obeyed or respected, but at the same time is dangerously close to encroaching upon the rule of law. I think that they really need to relook at that.

[1450]

When we look at the experience in this House, when we look at the experience from the government, from their…. The reputation that B.C. has, as far as law goes, across…. It's not regarded as respectful of workers. It's not regarded as respectful of the law. If it was respectful of the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't be coming out and speaking against the laws that have been implemented by this government.

Once again we see it with Bill 22. We see an act that's coming in that is dangerously close to encroaching upon the rule of law — the very law that the government will come out and say needs to be respected.

I want to touch from a retired teacher and a fellow whose wife is also a teacher. He's from Cranbrook. Dean says his wife is still working, and she's a high school physics and chemistry teacher. He sees her coming home exhausted every day, doing the job she loves, teaching the kids she loves. It's her lifelong calling, he said.

He asked a number of questions in relation to Bill 22. He says:

"Now, I ask you to think about what it would take for a dedicated professional like my wife to continue to dedicate her life to this vocation and serve kids like she has for the past 20 years.

"Does she hear government leaders who value the work that teachers do and support those teachers by recognizing and valuing their professional autonomy in designing educational programs for kids? Or does she hear a government that seeks to harness and control teachers' voices and attempts to demonize dedicated professionals in the eyes of the public by restricting teachers' rights to bargain the conditions of their work and improve learning conditions for kids?"

It's the very essence of Bill 22 — to bargain conditions of their work and improve learning conditions for kids being taken away from teachers.

"Does she hear government leaders who treat her with respect by bargaining in good faith and recognize that every expenditure on education is an investment in our future that goes directly into providing better services to kids? Or does she hear a controlling government that takes rigid and unreasonable positions in a fake bargaining position that no thoughtful professional could accept in good faith?

"Does she see government policies that support the creation and extension of trusting, collaborative, professional working environments through authentic recognition of teachers' voices
[ Page 9955 ]
and professional opinions in designing educational systems? Or does she see a government who fails to understand the importance of true collaboration in education and, instead, focuses on irrelevant data collection, disrespectful hypervigilant monitoring and continues to advocate an archaic model of hierarchical administrative control?"

He was still teaching when the B.C. Liberals began what can only be described….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Black: Thank you for the opportunity, on International Women's Day, to debate Bill 22 and to wish all women in British Columbia a happy International Women's Day — just take a quick opportunity to do that.

Bill 22 is called the Education Improvement Act, and I just have to say it's such an Orwellian title to a bill that really will not improve education, will make it much more difficult for students in the classroom and much more difficult for teachers in the classroom, administrators and for the whole system. So to watch kind of doublespeak in the title of the bill really is quite astounding.

I come from a family where everybody went through the public education system, just like most of the members of this House. My father graduated from Magee high school many, many years ago. My sister and brother and all of us went to school in that area.

My husband graduated from the other side of town. He graduated from Britannia. In the time when he and I met, it was rather revolutionary for a girl from the west side of town to be dating a boy from the east side of town. But thankfully, those kinds of attitudes have changed over the years.

When I think about my time in school, just as most of us in the House do, in public education, I remember a number of really outstanding teachers who had an impact on my life, just as they do today on the lives of my grandchildren. I have five grandchildren now in primary school education in New Westminster and Coquitlam. My three sons went through the public education system. They're all now in successful careers and have done very well through public education.

[1455]

My husband spent many years in the education system both as a teacher and as a principal in Vancouver and, most of his years, taught and was an administrator in the inner-city schools. So he understood and worked with a very complex group of students who came from many parts of the world as refugees, as immigrants. Children from…. At one school, the last school I think he was at, there were 140 different language groups in the school. That speaks to the complexity now of the education system in British Columbia.

I think it's important to put Bill 22 into context. It has to be put into context over what's been happening in education for the last ten years under the leadership of this government, of this Premier, who was a previous Minister of Education. Since the year 2002 the system has lost 1,500 — 1,500 — specialized educational teachers. That includes 277 teacher-librarians, 106 school counsellors, 736 special education teachers, 328 ESL teachers and ten aboriginal teachers.

I'm really looking forward to hearing from the Premier her rationalization for this bill, why it is she believes it's good for education — why it is she believes that this Bill 22 could be called the Education Improvement Act, where everywhere I look in the bill, I only see parts of this bill that will have a continuing negative impact on the system and on the children the system serves.

Madam Speaker, you know and most people in this House know that the classroom today is a very complex environment, much more complex than when any of us went to school, and today we ask a great deal from teachers in the public education system.

Our expectations as a society of the teaching profession are incredibly high. We want teachers not only to instil in their students a love of learning, an excitement about learning and an anticipation of onward learning in their lives. We also want them to watch for signs of abuse in children. We want them to raise the self-esteem of the children that they teach. We want them to provide a quality education to students regardless of their abilities or their disabilities. We even ask them to check for lice in the hair of the students today. There is a very complex environment.

We have students who come to British Columbia from all over the world, from all kinds of difficult past situations — countries at war, countries where famine exists — and we integrate all of these students into our public education system and ask our teachers to lift them up. We really do have incredible expectations at the same time we have a government that has been reducing the support systems and the tools teachers can use in the classroom.

Like other members before me, I want to read a few letters and e-mails that I've received from students, parents and teachers in New Westminster, and all of them are from New Westminster.

The first one is from a student at New Westminster Senior Secondary, and his name is Luke McAndless-Davis. He is a grade 11 international baccalaureate student from New Westminster Senior Secondary. He wrote this to me when the government was considering bringing in this back-to-work legislation. He says:

"I'm deeply concerned by your government's recent decision to attempt to end this teachers' job action by legislating against it."

I'm reading this one because it speaks to what members on the other side of the House have said about the disruption in education for students. He says:

"You've claimed that this must be done because the government and the BCTF are too divided on the issue. You claim you're doing this because 'it's always students who pay the price when adults can't cooperate,' but I'm writing to inform you that this has not been my experience of job action.

"I'm a motivated student who engages in many extracurricular
[ Page 9956 ]
activities that require the intensive involvement of my teachers. I am in my school's chamber and jazz choirs that compete and tour, compete in festivals, perform regularly, have rehearsals every day. These amazing opportunities would not be possible without my committed teachers, who continue to run these groups while job action continues.

[1500]

"I'm also completely aware of all my grades, can count on extra help from my amazing teachers and continue to attend rewarding field trips. I'm not suffering from the job actions of my teachers. In fact, I feel that seeing my teachers participate in Canada's grand tradition of peaceful protest and democracy has given me a valuable lesson — that individuals can make a difference.

"It's clear that the job action of the teachers is not causing my education, or that of my peers, to suffer."

He goes on further than this, but he concludes with:

"I call on you to do simply this: cooperate." Wise words from a student. "Continue to negotiate with the BCTF. Come to the table with open arms. Come to an agreement that will benefit all parties involved. Show us students that negotiation and compromise is possible and that it's not the bully with the big stick or legislative powers that wins the day.

"Thank you, and I urgently await a reply from the government."

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington seeks leaves to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: We have in the gallery with us Drew Farrance and Leann Dawson. Drew Farrance is a resident of Fernwood and an employee at the University of Victoria. Drew is also the president of CUPE Local 4163, representing educational employees at the University of Victoria.

Leann Dawson is a resident of Nanaimo. Leann is a former chair of the Quesnel school district and a retired employee of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Susan Jansen is a former employee of the city of Victoria. Susan is now a staff representative with the Canadian Union of Public Employees and has spent a number of years working in the Fraser Valley before returning to Victoria to work at the CUPE area office here.

As well, joining them is Trevor Davies, the occupational health and safety adviser with the city of Colwood. Trevor is also the president of CUPE Local 374, representing municipal employees in a number of communities in the lower Island, and is the general vice-president with CUPE B.C., which represents 85,000 members across B.C., including 27,000 school staff support.

As well, we have Jason Dales, who is the president of CUPE Local 1978, representing employees at the capital regional district, West Shore Parks and Recreation, Greater Victoria Housing Society and health science professionals at Vancouver Island Health Authority.

I ask for the House to give them a warm welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Black: I will continue by just reading a short e-mail that I received from another student in New Westminster. He writes:

"My name is Howard. I'm 14 years old, currently a grade 9 student in New Westminster Secondary School. I value my education, and I know my teachers also value it. But do you? If so, bring an end to the teachers contract dispute by actually acting like the adults you claim to be. Bullying isn't what adults are supposed to do; listening is."

That is another student, a 14-year-old from New Westminster.

From parents on Bill 22, parents in New Westminster. A woman writes to me, and she says:

"My husband and I are extremely concerned with the current issues regarding the teachers having the right to strike and to bargain terms and conditions of employment revoked due to a new law being brought forward by the current government."

She talks more about Bill 22, and then she says:

"We would appreciate it if you would speak on our behalf as constituents and parents against Bill 22 during debate. This law, Bill 22, sounds like bullying behaviour to me, and I'm shocked that a government whose Premier has spoken out against bullying would resort to this kind of legislation."

More e-mails — I won't have time to go through them. I've received an inordinate number of e-mails just from my community, as well as e-mails from around the province.

This one is from a teacher in New Westminster. Her name is Kelly. She said:

"I'm writing to you as a resident of B.C. — New Westminster — and a proud teacher at NWSS. I teach music, and I am the fine and performing arts department head at the high school. I am by no means a unionist. I am a critical thinker, and I look at all sides of a situation before making an independent decision.

[1505]

"But I am so horrified at the heavy-handed, extreme legislation introduced in Bill 22. Should this bill pass — leaving out the punitive measures against teachers and salary arguments — the situation is dismaying.

"As well, the punitive measures against teachers are an extreme bullying tactic meant to divide and conquer our profession — demoralizing for the profession and lacking in general humanity, which I think is essential to building an efficient, positive and forward-moving community."

She goes on to talk about what she calls a faux mediator in the legislation and then ends with:

"I have never spoken up like this before, but I feel so strongly that I had to communicate this to you, and I hope that you will communicate it to the Legislature. If the current government's plan moves ahead, education and the teaching profession will certainly be diminished in British Columbia."

Another e-mail from another teacher and resident of New Westminster who says she's a longtime Vancouver elementary school teacher. It's a very long e-mail, and I'll just read a few lines from it. She says she started working in Vancouver in 1989, and at first she thought she'd died and gone to heaven.

She said 1989 was a very exciting time to be a teacher in Vancouver. The district was working actively to support immigrant families, develop programs for ESL and respect for diversity, and the Year 2000 education plan had just been introduced. "As a teacher I was empowered.
[ Page 9957 ]
I worked with dedicated professionals and participated in quality teacher-led professional development."

She went on to talk about where she had taught before, in Spain, and she taught in California, to migrant Mexican families, and expands on that. Then she talks about how happy she was to come back to B.C. and work in the public education system here. She talks about class size and composition throughout this letter. But she finishes with this:

"Further, Bill 22 is not about education improvement. It's a mean-spirited attempt at getting back at teachers. It is about gutting the public education system." She says it's an abuse of democracy and makes a mockery of the Legislature.

She says: "Is this our Premier's plan, to table a law that is unconstitutional and then spend ten years and tons of taxpayers' money again fighting it in court?" She finds that unconscionable. She goes on with some stronger language, but I'll move to the end.

She says: "So I call on all MLAs to defeat this bill in honour of our children, in honour of all those who came before us and sacrificed so much to create a Canada that is worth living in. I call on this government to honour the constitution of Canada and support free collective bargaining. Teachers should be applauded for advocating for their students rather than vilified." That's from Paula in New Westminster.

The last one maybe I'll read parts of from a teacher is from a woman also in New Westminster. Her name is Tanya. She says she's a grade 5-6 teacher in New Westminster and she's saddened and upset about what's happening with the negotiations and with her government.

I'm quoting her directly now: "I have been so passionate about teaching my students about the government in the grade 5 curriculum." And I think most of us as MLAs know that this is part of the grade 5 curriculum, and I know I've often gone into classrooms to talk to the students about what it is like to be an MLA and to be a Member of Parliament, something I always enjoyed.

She said:

"It's something I have been so proud of as a Canadian. I've been proud of how our government listens to its citizens and allows us to have a say in what happens. It's really difficult to teach my students with the same passion when I don't feel like we have a say with this government. They decide what they think is best without being properly informed or having a real understanding of what teachers do on a daily basis."

She worries, she says, that our system is in danger of becoming similar to the U.S. system, which she doesn't believe is something to hold in high regard. She talks about what's going on in her classroom, and she says she has a class of 30 students, five of them with individual education plans, special needs.

[1510]

She says she struggles every day to meet the needs of such a diverse group and asks us to imagine hosting a birthday party of 30 children, five of them with special needs, and to attempt to teach them math. She feels that that might give us a better idea of what teaching in a classroom is like.

She says she hasn't had a current math textbook now for the past four years and has had to photocopy from a textbook for two different grades. Add five students who are each on individualized plans, and you have a tremendous amount of work just for one subject. She asks us to multiply that by six subjects. This certainly doesn't fit within a five-hour work day. She honestly says she works nine hours every day and takes work home on the weekend.

She finishes up with:

"In the past ten years I have seen a real change in the students who are coming to school. They are needier in many ways, both socially and academically. If you don't support the teachers who care so much about them, you will have a much bigger problem on your hands in the future. We are the last, best hope to make a difference in children's lives. Please make a difference in their lives by supporting their teachers and listening to them."

Maybe this will be the final one I read from teachers. There are so many of them that it's hard. This is a teacher who has been in the British Columbia education system for 17 years. She says she spends money on her students who come to school without school supplies, book bags, breakfast, mitts, toques and winter coats. She lives in New Westminster but works in an inner-city school in north Surrey.

"I have a split class of 28 grades 4 and 5 students who are nine and ten years old. I have 11 grade 5s. Two of those students are designated special needs. Both are severe behaviour problems. Three more of my grade 5 students are kids who fall into the grey area. This means that they do not qualify for learning support because they are 'low and slow.'

"I have 17 grade 4 students. Two of those students have moderate intelligence disorder designations. One of them is Down syndrome and has chronic health issues. Both are working at a grade 2 to grade 2.5 level. In addition to that, I have one who is not designated but is in the process of being designated severe behaviour.

"All of this means that on top of having to teach two curriculums, I have to write behaviour plans for my behaviour kids, make adaptions to my curriculum so my grey-area kids can be successful and modify areas of curriculum for my MID students.

"Having said this, I would like to walk you through my work day."

Then she goes through her work day, which is astounding.

She ends with:

"Don't get me wrong. I love teaching. I'm a good teacher. I try hard to make a difference. Working in an atmosphere of intimidation and distrust is not the way I want to finish my career.

"I urge you and your colleagues to do everything in your power to defeat Bill 22. We just can't afford for our students to be subjected to any more of this callous disregard for public education and the teachers who teach our children."

That's just a sampling of the many e-mails and letters and visits I've had from teachers, from students, from parents in my community, phone calls. It's of real concern in New Westminster, and I think that's shared, quite frankly, across the House. I'm sure that other MLAs on both sides of the House have been receiving these kinds of letters from students and from teachers who are very
[ Page 9958 ]
concerned about our public education.

One of the things I've noticed during the debate in the House is that a couple of members from the government side of the House have made comments saying that teachers are intimidated by their unions, that they're being bullied by their unions. There has been more than one member say that in relation to Bill 22.

I think we really need to look at the reality out there, and the reality is that the BCTF received an 87 percent strike mandate. I know teachers. I've lived with one. I know that the last thing most teachers want to do is walk out of the classroom. I think that is an overwhelming majority of their membership to indicate that they were prepared to walk off the job if the education system wasn't treated with more respect.

[1515]

Bill 22 lays out conditions for a mediator, but we didn't need legislation to do that. A mediator could have been appointed without this legislation. In fact, in Bill 22 it's a sham mediation process that's being imposed, and the terms of reference in Bill 22 basically predetermine what the outcome will be.

The government has claimed that they repealed the earlier legislation that was ruled unconstitutional in Bills 28 and 29. However, they have reintroduced into this Bill 22 the same provisions, the same language that the courts found to be unconstitutional and invalid.

It's clear that Bill 22 weakens class-size rules. It allows for more children in the classroom. It allows for more children with particular special needs in the classroom without putting in place the kinds of supports that the classroom teacher needs in order to accommodate more children with special needs. It's very clear that this legislation is playing politics with students, teachers and their families.

The key question on Bill 22 is: will this legislation make the classrooms better for students? And the answer is also clear. The answer is no. It will not. The legislation will actually do the opposite. It will add to the deterioration of the classroom situation for teachers and for students.

Over the years public education has really been the great equalizer in our society and in our province. It can be argued that public education has actually created the middle class in Canada and in British Columbia. Now with increasing inequality in our province, we need a strong, well-resourced public school system more than we have ever needed it before, and this bill is taking that system in the opposite direction and, I think, is very worrisome for our society and for our future citizens.

There was a recent B.C. Stats report that came out, and it revealed that in British Columbia we have the largest gap in Canada between the affluent and the most vulnerable. This government's own agency stated that "compared to other provinces, B.C. ranked dead last in 2009, with the largest gap between the top 20 percent and the bottom 20 percent of income earners."

This is reason enough to oppose and vote against Bill 22, because it will further weaken our education system and further perpetuate the growing inequality in our province if children don't get the quality education they both deserve and want and that their families want for them. It may deprive by weakening our public education system. We deprive many students of a chance to succeed. We deprive them of a chance to flourish and to be everything that they can be with the help they need to succeed. I feel very strongly that Bill 22 is taking us in the wrong direction. It's eroding our public education system, and I will be here to vote in the House in opposition to Bill 22.

I thank you for your time and take my place.

Deputy Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington seeks leave to break an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome…. In the gallery we have John Burrows. John Burrows is the long-time president of CUPE Local 50. In that capacity, he represents employees at a variety of workplaces, including the city of Victoria, the Victoria police board, United Way of Greater Victoria and the Victoria SPCA. I ask everyone here to make him feel welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: I rise to take my place to debate Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. When I received this bill, when the government tabled this bill, my heart sank, frankly. It brought back the days and some history around the education system and some of the legislative changes that were debated in this House.

[1520]

The history of this bill, I think, is important. I want to enter into this debate by bringing forward the history so that we can contextualize what has happened in the past and what it means today — Bill 22. Because if we don't know our history, then I would argue that we won't be able to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Let me bring us back to January 26, 2002, when the Liberal government at that time tabled Bills 27 and 28. Now, Bill 28 was called the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Some members of this House would remember that. Sounds like nice words, kind of like this bill, Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. But I have now come to learn to not let the title of the bill trick you into believing that is in fact the substance of the bill.

Back in January 2002 — in fact on a Saturday, January 26 — we were called back to this House to do what we
[ Page 9959 ]
now know was around-the-clock, all-night debate on the series of legislation that the government brought in. The government brought in, in the area of education, Bills 27 and 28. It took away the rights of teachers to collectively bargain and effectively took away the rights of teachers, in their collective agreements, to a say in class size and composition.

At that time the current Premier, when she was the Minister of Education, in debating Bill 27 said: "It's the role of government to decide on a policy direction, and it's the role of the Ministry of Education to decide what would be good for children in our schools. That's what we've attempted to do today…."

Then following that bill, Bill 28, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, was rushed through the House in an around-the-clock, all-night sitting. The then Minister of Education, now Premier, said that the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act "marks a turning point for public education, a turning point for every student in British Columbia." At that time the Minister of Education claimed that Bill 28 makes a move toward more flexibility, a more responsive, better-managed system that meets students' needs.

Then the matter was challenged in court. To the courage of the B.C. Teachers Federation, they challenged the government in court, and the Supreme Court struck down the B.C. Liberals' changes to the teachers collective rights as unconstitutional. Let me be clear. The Premier was the Minister of Education at the time when the Liberal government brought in these changes.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Liberal government was in breach of the B.C. Teachers Federation's guaranteed right to freedom of assembly as expressed through collective bargaining. The judge found that the Liberal government had trampled on the collective bargaining rights of teachers by legislating away class sizes and composition.

The judge further said: "By passing the legislation without so much as consulting with the BCTF, the government did not preserve the essential underpinning of collective bargaining — namely, good-faith negotiation and consultation." The ruling outlined that the government saved $275 million a year by stripping teachers' right to bargain class size and composition in Bills 27 and 28. Today the government says that they will put back $30 million in the new learning improvement fund to deal with class size and composition.

[1525]

That's the history of this. It is important to highlight some aspects of that history, because it brings us back to today. What does Bill 22 do? Has it shown that the government has learned from the history of the past?

I would argue not, because the most important lesson of that is about ensuring that we have the proper and appropriate learning environment for the students. The government says over and over and over again that they care about students, that they respect the teacher, yet here we are. At a time when the government could be spending this time in good-faith negotiations with the B.C. Teachers Federation, they are instead bringing forward a bill that says: "I've got the hammer, and if you don't do what I tell you to do, I am going to bring down the hammer."

The Premier said that she is going to bring down the hammer anyway, yet the government wants you to believe that they are bringing in a mediation process that is going to be fair and square — that somehow the last three days, when the teachers were not in the classrooms, protesting Bill 22…. The government wants to blame the teachers for having done that, when in fact the government could have taken that time to engage with the teachers, to find a solution and work with a mediator that is an independent mediator to find the answers.

The government didn't do that. They are itching for a fight, but for what? I don't know, other than, I have to think, the Premier must think that somehow this is a good political fight for the sake of it. At the expense of that who pays, Madam Speaker? I'll tell you who pays. It is the students who pay, and it is the parents who pay, and it is the teachers who have to pay.

I have known so many teachers in my life. They are these wonderful, wonderful teachers all across the province of British Columbia. I so admire what they do each and every day, because their task is not easy, and this in a context of diminishing funding in the education system.

The Premier said a decade ago that she was bringing in legislation and actions in this House to ensure that we have a top-notch education system. Well, what has happened since that time?

In reality this is what has happened under the Liberal watch. On class size and composition, in the year 2010-11 there were over 16,000 classes that have had over 30 students or more than three individual education plan students in that classroom. That is actually in violation of the government's own law around class size and composition. The BCTF has stated that they now have over 10,000 outstanding grievances from the year 2009-10 through to the initial legislation and that all of those 10,000 grievances are on class size and composition.

The government and the ministers, the Minister of Finance…. I heard him say that the teachers don't care about class size and composition. Are you kidding me? They fight day in and day out to make sure that the learning environment is optimal for their students, because they do care.

They throw their heart and soul into this. Why? Because they love their children and they love their profession. That's why they do it. How dare anybody suggest that they don't care?

If you take a look at what's happening in the classrooms today, the per-pupil funding formula introduced by the then Minister of Education, now the Premier, has
[ Page 9960 ]
led to a systemic shortfall in funding for school districts across the province. B.C.'s educational funding fell from the national average under the Liberal government.

[1530]

There's no one else to blame except for the government themselves. The Liberal government wasted money, nearly $90 million, on a failed experiment called the BCeSIS student information system. That's what the government has done, and that is what I call mismanagement of taxpayers' money.

And in Budget 2012 the Education budget is virtually frozen. With inflation alone and the increased costs that came from government being forced onto the school districts, that means is that there will be cuts in programming in the education system to the tune of at least $100 million. You can just imagine what that would look like in the classroom, Madam Speaker.

I spoke about teachers a moment ago and the wonderful, wonderful, dedicated teachers across the province of British Columbia. I've come to know one particular teacher quite well, I would say, through her public advocacy for students in the inner city.

In the inner city we're different. We're unique. We are a beautiful community with love and care for each other. That said, we're also a community with many challenges. Today's teachers, in the inner-city schools particularly, face challenges in a very different way.

Back in the days, there was a time when your focus was about teaching, but today the situation is such that the complexity of the makeup of the classroom is beyond measure. I'm not just talking about ESL students in terms of demographic changes. I'm not just talking about special needs children because of their different levels of development. I'm also talking about family structures and what that brings into the classroom.

We have students who are homeless in our community today. We have students who have parents struggling with addiction in our communities today. We have students who live in poverty in our school system today. They come to school with no food in their bellies, in the winter months with no jackets on their backs, in shoes with holes — and, sometimes, sandals — in the snow.

We have children who come to school with bedbug bites all over their body. They have lice in their hair. They are traumatized with experiences that I cannot recite in this House because it is just too much for any one child to take. The teachers see that, directly in their classrooms, and it plays out.

The teachers told me that in the inner city they have a code-blue system. I'd never heard of it. What does that mean? That means that they have a crisis in the classroom, a child is in a traumatic state, and they literally have to have a lockdown in their classroom. They tell me that their cloakroom has become a counsellor's office, where children hide under their coats because of the issues that they are dealing with at home.

Teachers try to play counsellor-teacher-mentor to these children. They try to play social worker to these children, and they're doing it at a time that the resources are completely diminished. Teacher-librarians are slashed. Special needs workers are diminished in the classroom. Counsellors are barely available. Children that they know should have been designated for special needs are not getting the designation, because there's a wait-list. Children who should have received additional support are not getting that support, because they don't fit the classification that has been defined as what are special needs.

[1535]

Yet the need continues. The schools don't have the resources to buy speech therapy for a child who is struggling. Imagine that — a child who cannot learn because that child is having trouble articulating what he or she wants to say. And the resource to support that child to grow and the opportunity to flourish is not there because the resource is not there. It breaks my heart.

The person who brought this to my attention is a woman by the name of Carrie Gelson. She's a grade 2, grade 3 teacher at one of my inner-city schools. She is a beautiful mom, a beautiful human being, in trying to advance all these issues. She's not alone in doing this work. She, among so many other front-line workers, is doing all of that work, and they're struggling each and every day. They are begging and asking for donations. They're fundraisers. They're doing fundraising for the kids.

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

J. Kwan: Absolutely. They are doing fundraising in the classroom. How does that relate to Bill 22? It relates to Bill 22 because the government, in this bill, is taking away the ability to address effectively the issue of class size and composition.

I kind of think that I've actually got stuck back in 2002. Somehow the lessons that should have been learned from the courts have completely been missed by this government. They don't see it at all. Then they pretend that Bill 22 is somehow a process of cooling off those teachers.

Oh, and those angry, angry teachers. It's supposed to cool them off. "It's a cooling-off period," they say. Well, what kind of cooling-off period is that, when the government does not put forward an independent mediator and does not put in a process that actually respects the teachers?

They have failed to listen to what the teachers have been crying for — and calling for help so that they can have a better learning environment. The government ignored all of that. That's how the context of what I talked about and those classrooms that the teachers face each and every day relates to Bill 22.
[ Page 9961 ]

[D. Black in the chair.]

I want to put on the public record this beautiful letter. I've received over a hundred of them in my riding, just like all of my colleagues. I'm sure that the government's side, as well, has received letter after letter from dedicated teachers, from parents — people who are concerned about what's happening right here in this Legislature. They want to voice their opinion, to share it with us around Bill 22.

This one I have chosen amongst the over a hundred. I am sorry I can't put them all on the public record. I chose one because I think it's a representation of what people are telling me as their MLA, as they're telling other MLAs in this House.

It reads:

"I'm a teacher, and education is something I'm passionate about. For me, trying to create an environment where each child can grow is at the very root of a civilized society. I think that this battle the teachers union is waging is one worth fighting. The provincial government is making it impossible for teachers to do their jobs well.

"I have a grade 7 class of 30 wonderful children. I have a diverse mix of personalities, learning challenges and cultures. Each day we come to school to learn about the world around us and how to best interact with and contribute to it.

"Sometimes it is hard. Sometimes there's a child who is so angry about the divorce of her parents that she comes to school and lashes out with violence because it is a place where somebody will take notice. Someone — a teacher, an aide, a counsellor, a principal or a vice-principal — will stop and ask them what's going on. Sometimes there's a child who struggles every day to learn what some of the other kids already seem to know.

[1540]

"As the teacher, I look for their strengths, the things they do well. I try to build on them, show them how to look at the world through the lens which is uniquely their own. If I fail, that child might carry anger and frustration through his whole life, a life where dreams are not realized, where perhaps drugs and alcohol abuse seem to provide the only relief. If I don't build a child's hope and engagement with a world around him, I have failed him.

"This was a time when children with disabilities went to a separate school. Now they're integrated, contributing to the increasingly diverse microcosm which is the classroom. It takes a village to raise a child. We need the diversity, but we also need the specialists who are trained to identify and adapt for that diversity.

"It is impossible for one person to meet the learning needs of 30 students. I see my 30 students for more time per day than their parents do. I think every one of their parents wants the very best for their child. They want them to grow up to be good, contributing members in society.

"What is the alternative? As a teacher, I would like the government to come to the bargaining table in good faith, to look at options for how we can create social environments where teachers can do their jobs well.

"Education is the means by which we transfer the values of our culture: honesty, integrity and respect for the individual. I believe Canada is a place where everyone has the right to the best education possible."

This is the letter from a teacher from the east side of Vancouver. It is, I think, a letter that reflects all of the teachers across the province of British Columbia, who wish that they could have an educational system that they can work in to support the children in their classrooms so that they have the best opportunities for the future.

After all, this is why, I think, we as human beings engage with each other and do different things in our community and then have children — so that we can build on the future for a better tomorrow, to give those opportunities to the younger generation and the generations to come. The education system is key to that.

The damage of Bill 22 to our system is going to be devastating. It builds on, yet again, the hostility that the government had already brought on when they brought in Bills 27 and 28. Since that time, little has been done to try to engage in such a way that builds on the relationship with the teachers.

We hear over and over again that the government says that they respect and value teachers, yet time and again, through their very actions, you see something else. Why else, then, would Bill 22 be brought to this House, when the government says that they really want to ensure that there is a cooling-off period, that there's mediation, that we can actually cool our heads and find solutions?

We're not finding solutions when the government is taking action to escalate the emotions and to penalize the teachers, who are simply just trying to advocate for the students in their classrooms. So when the government says that they care deeply about our education system, those words ring hollow in the context of what's before us and in the context of the actions that they have chosen to take.

Now, the Premier not very long ago even violated the rules of the House in question period. Right on the day when the Minister of Education tabled the bill, Bill 22, the Premier was so eager to get into the discussion of Bill 22 that she violated the rules of the House in question period by talking about the bill. You're not supposed to talk about the substance of the bill once a bill's been introduced.

[1545]

This is a Premier who knows about those rules, because she's been here…. Albeit she took a short period of time where she was out of the Legislature, but she's been a parliamentarian since 1996, minus the time that she was a talk-show host on a radio show. So she knows about the rules of the House.

Yet to date, debates have taken place, and the Premier has yet to take her place in this Legislature to officially put her comments on the public record about Bill 22, where it should be done — not during question period or any other time, really, but rather to do it in this House, like we're all doing it right now.

In fact, many of the Liberal MLAs have stopped taking their place in the Legislature, as well, to debate this bill. I don't know why that is, when they say that education is a priority for them, when the government and the Premier keep on saying that they have a family-first agenda.

Well, education is the cornerstone of families — wouldn't you think? I most certainly think so myself, as
[ Page 9962 ]
do many British Columbians. Yet we don't see the Premier engaging in that debate. Why is she not doing that? It's curious to me why she's not taking her time to put on the public record her comments around Bill 22. As much as the opposition would like to know what those comments might be, I think that all British Columbians would like to know.

I want to take a moment to go back to this. Now, I know that we talked about the education system, we talked about the inner-city schools and we talked about the impacts of what's going on in the classroom. We talked about Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act.

In fact, the act itself removes the requirement that there be no more than three students with individual education plans in the classroom. It removes maximum class-size district averages, which work in conjunction with maximum class-size limits to ensure that class sizes overall do not increase to unmanageable levels.

The government has been told by the courts that class size and composition are issues that must be dealt with. Then, on July 1 of 2013, the government states that teachers will have the right to bargain class size and composition. But Bill 22 does not guarantee this right. Is the government once again showing British Columbians and the courts of British Columbia that they have failed to learn the lessons of the past and must be engaged in yet another process that is not helpful but, rather, damaging to our education system?

I call on the government to take pause and to reflect on that. I call on the government to stop this game — and it is not a game — and truly put the interests of students first; put the education system and the importance of the education system first, before their political agenda; and stop fighting and trying to engage in a fight with the teachers. Let's work together and find an independent mediator that can solve this problem for all of us and for future generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to engage in this debate, and I look forward to hearing other colleagues who would have something to say about this important bill.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to stand in my place and represent the people of Juan de Fuca in the debate of Bill 22, the poorly named Education Improvement Act.

Hon. Speaker, you were not in this place at the time, but in 2005, when I was first elected, the then Leader of the Opposition gave me the privilege of being the Education critic at a time when there was unease in the system. There had been concern as a result of actions by the B.C. Liberal government in the early part of the century, and it was a real honour to take on the role of opposition Education critic.

[1550]

I have to say that it was eye-opening in many, many ways. First of all, to be upfront and personal with the contempt that government had at that time for collective bargaining, the contempt that they had at that time for the teaching profession generally…. It was also very rewarding to meet with teachers, to meet with trustees and parents all across the province and get a true understanding of the challenges our complex system faces as we move into the second decade of the 21st century.

Those challenges are even more acute than they were in 2005. We have, by all measurements, one of the most robust and successful K-to-12 systems in the country and perhaps even in the continent. I think all of us are proud of that on all sides of the House. But it's not without its challenges, and those challenges, in my view, are not resolved or not assisted or not improved by using legislation to resolve collective bargaining issues.

At the heart of the challenges that we're facing today in 2012 are decisions that were made by the current Premier, the then Minister of Education, in 2002. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was one of two members of the opposition at that time in this place. So 77 to two was the number. It was like a Nebraska football game.

It was something that certainly most British Columbians were concerned about. Governments come and go. They rise and fall. I've been observing politics as a student and as an employee and now as a member of the Legislature for over 30 years. I know that this isn't a partisan statement. Governments sometimes run their course.

"To each a season," as it's been said. Certainly, it's quite clear based on this legislation and the antics of the past number of weeks and months here in British Columbia that the season is coming to a rapid end for the current government. I'm fairly confident — although met by smiles from the member from Cloverdale, the current keeper of the deficits — that this is going to happen sooner than I think he would like, but not soon enough for most British Columbians, certainly not soon enough for people in the teaching profession.

But we got here in 2002. We've had challenges. Governments and the B.C. Teachers Federation have had challenges with collective bargaining. That's no secret. We've all been talking about that, members on the other side, members on this side.

But it's my view, and it's certainly the view of the official opposition, that you don't resolve conflict with a blunt object. I think in most instances — in family life, in communities, in schools — that blunt objects are the last course of action. Instead, nuance, cooperation, consensus is the approach that most people would like to see in this Legislature, in their families, in their communities and in their schools.

I do not believe that we resolve what has been, in this instance, a decade-old problem with respect to class size and class composition with legislation that takes what had been enshrined in legislation, previously enshrined in collective agreements, and then say: "Well, it doesn't matter; we'll worry about that next year." That's exactly
[ Page 9963 ]
what Bill 22 does.

In 2002 my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and her irrepressible sidekick, the venerable Joy MacPhail, stood two against 77 on a weekend — on a weekend — because the government didn't have the finesse to pass legislation with but two opposition members without using blunt objects.

Of course, I believe that is why the current Premier, the then Minister of Education, has really not missed a beat. She went on the talk show circuit to talk about whatever her listeners wanted to talk about. "Bill on line two." "Vanessa on line three." "What do you think about this, that and so?"

Well, you know what, hon. Speaker? I think we'll all agree that life is not that simple. Oh, to be a talk show host. I'm confident that when many of those on the other side are retired after the next election they would be delighted to take up a perch on a radio show so that they could wax eloquent about the challenges of the day without any accountability for what the impacts might be.

I want to just highlight for a minute that notion of accountability, because we are in a delicate situation. All members on all sides of the House recognize that the labour disruption in the K-to-12 sector and the implications of Bill 22 are profound on the functioning of our school system. The impact on children will be great. The impact on families will be great.

[1555]

I believe there is a way out of that impasse, and over the course of my remarks, I'm hopeful that I will lead the government to its senses. The force of my arguments will be so successful that the Health Minister and others will stand in their places and agree: "The member for Juan de Fuca is onto something. Why don't we put down the cudgels? Why don't we put down our weapons? Why don't we put down the hate and start a little bit of love in this place?" A little bit of love.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, yeah. We've got to pay the rent, I guess. Unless you own a football stadium, and then it doesn't matter.

But it's that aggressive approach to collective bargaining that I believe has been an abject failure over the past number of years. When Bill 22 was tabled just last week — it was on a Tuesday — first reading was granted just before question period and the orders of the day, as is customary with legislation. Introduced a first time and, by the rules of the House, it was not eligible for debate at second reading until the next sitting of the House after the day it was tabled.

Minutes after the member for Shuswap, the Education Minister, tabled the legislation, the Premier was on her feet firing jabs back and forth. I want to just remind the House and those who may well not have been able to watch question period on the day of the debate…. I want to just remind members of some of the comments that the Premier made the very day the legislation was tabled in this place.

She said: "This is the place for that debate to happen, and with this withdrawal upon us" — that being the potential, at that point; withdrawal of services — "I'd urge the Leader of the Opposition to step up. The government is being entirely reasonable in this debate" — which had not yet begun.

Entirely reasonable. I guess if something hasn't happened yet, it's dead simple to be reasonable. I guess that's what the thinking was at the time.

"It is time for the opposition to stand up and be responsible and place the issues on the floor of this Legislature, where they belong."

Well, hon. Speaker, that's exactly what we've been doing for the past week. As Opposition House Leader, I made it abundantly clear to the Education Minister and to the Government House Leader that every member of the official opposition had an interest in this bill, every member had a view that education was fundamentally important to their constituents, and this was the wrong approach to repair a broken relationship.

Every one of us was going to speak. That's what I said then. That's what we've been doing over the past number of days. But the Premier, who was so anxious just a week and a day ago to debate this issue in this place, said the following: "This matters to families, and this debate needs to happen in the Legislature."

I agree. I'm glad that the Premier is backing us up on this. The Premier believes that the debate should happen in this Legislature. She went on to say that parents in British Columbia "are watching this Legislature, and they want to know where every single member in this stands on the issue of a work stoppage in our schools."

I agree. I absolutely agree with the Premier. We should all be standing in this place, taking our positions to speak on behalf of our constituents on the issues of the day — most importantly, this legislation.

Lastly, she said: "If the opposition refuses to debate that, refuses to put it on the floor of this chamber, refuses to ask questions about it, I'd ask this. What does it say about the priority they put on public education in this province if they refuse to even discuss it?"

Well, I agree, hon. Speaker. I agree with the Premier of British Columbia. It may never happen again, but I absolutely agree that each member….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah. Wait for it. Wait for it.

Each member should stand in this place and talk about the substance of this bill and the implications for their communities.

Well, here's the deal. Every single member of the op-
[ Page 9964 ]
position will have stood in this place and will have debated the substance of this bill — will have stood up for teachers, will have stood up for collective bargaining. But you know who will not have stood up and spoken on this, hon. Speaker? The member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey has not participated in the debate to this point in time. I'm advised by the Government House Leader, who I always take at his word…. I do that sincerely and genuinely. He has advised me that the Liberals are done. "We're not talking about this anymore." A week ago, hon. Speaker….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The Premier will not enter the debate.

Now, members on this side will know that sometimes she comes not quite on time for the debate and she misses her opportunity. I am certain, hon. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

J. Horgan: I withdraw that comment, hon. Speaker. Particularly for the member from Prince George I do so, but also for you.

[1600]

The Premier has an opportunity at any time to come into this place and speak on issues of importance to the people of British Columbia. That's what you get with the title. You don't get just the corner office. You get the privilege to come here at any time, interrupt the orders of the day and speak on the substantive matters that are before the people of British Columbia.

That has not happened. The Premier was so anxious a week ago to have a fight with anybody: "Anybody, fight with me, please. I'm looking for a wedge issue. I'm looking for something to divide British Columbians so that my numbers in the polls will not go to single digits." That's what this is all about.

If the government was genuine about resolving the impasse in the K-to-12 system, they would try another approach. I mentioned to the government Minister of Health, who I know is a loving fellow, that the hate should stop now and that we should perhaps try to find some way to bring the parties back together. That's an appropriate thing for citizens to do. That's an appropriate thing for legislators to do.

I know, hon. Speaker, that you have sat in this House and that you have sat in Parliament in Ottawa. You have seen lots of seasons, I'm afraid to say, and I do that with the greatest of respect as a longtime friend. You've seen a lot of stuff come and go as a legislator and as an observer of public life.

I appreciate that I'm not asking you a question, that I'm being rhetorical, but have you ever seen a situation where the two parties were at an impasse, where they both appealed to the Labour Relations Board for a mediator, and instead of facilitating cooperation and a way through the impasse, the government said: "You know what? I don't think so. I believe that the hammer of legislation will pick the fight that we need to get our poll numbers out of the ditch."

That's what this is all about. It's not about class size and composition. It's not about improving outcomes for children. It's not about finding a way to break the logjam on bargaining between teachers and their employer, BCPSEA. It's all about a fight.

I say this advisedly. I was watching the evening news the other day and the Premier, having not yet spoken in this place, was trying to goad people on, to urge people to fight amongst themselves. I saw her on the evening news, and she said: "The NDP is using every trick in the book to stop this legislation." Every trick in the book — that's what we were doing.

Sorry. I hate to disappoint you, Premier. We're taking our place in debate.

The standing orders say that when a piece of legislation comes forward, all members are entitled to stand in their place and speak on behalf of their constituents for 30 minutes about the substance of the bill, the principles of the bill and the impact it may or may not have on the people that elected them to come here. That's the whole deal.

That's why we come here — not necessarily to pick fights with each other, as the Premier wants to do in this instance. We come here to represent the people in our communities. I am absolutely convinced that each of us proudly comes here, whether we be government members, opposition members, independent members. We come here with purpose, given that purpose by the people who elected us.

Something happens on the way to this place though, when you get the big corner offices. Somehow holding on, clinging onto power is more important than having a lasting impact on the people in the communities that we represent. That's a challenge.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: With respect to Bill 22, I don't believe that's the case, hon. Speaker.

Thanks very much for the friendly prod, Attorney.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, relevance is something that I don't believe you're qualified to talk about at this point in time.

I'm on my feet, hon. Speaker, and if it's all right with you, I'm going to keep speaking about Bill 22, the poorly named Education Improvement Act.

I have been approached by a number of teachers over the past number of weeks and months. I've had them come to me with their concerns. I've had people come
[ Page 9965 ]
to me with their concerns about the impact this legislation will have on outcomes for students.

I've had them come to me and talk about what they believe the negative impacts and consequences of Bill 22 will be. But the letter that shocked me the most came from a former teacher in Comox Valley, now the member for Comox. He's heard the letter already, and he's acknowledged writing it. I do respect that as an educator he had concerns about the challenges of class size and class composition when he was in a classroom before his election in 2009.

He's acknowledged this. This isn't a gotcha thing, hon. Speaker, but I think it illustrates that this isn't a partisan question. The member from Comox has been a Liberal for a long, long time. He didn't just wake up one day and say: "I want to be a Liberal." He's been supporting the Liberal Party and the Liberal movement for some time.

[1605]

At the time he was a teacher, and he was concerned about government policy and the system that he was operating in. He was concerned about class size and class composition — issues that are scrapped by this legislation.

I talked earlier about 2002, and my colleague from Mount Pleasant and the irrepressible Joy MacPhail standing against the army of Liberals that were stripping contracts — Bill 27 and Bill 28 — of language that protected classes in terms of their size and their composition.

When I was critic in 2005, the last time there was a disruption, the solution — and it was actually, I believe, the member from Prince George who introduced the bill, Bill 33 — put hard caps on class size and class composition — hard caps. You shall not have more than this number of children in K-to-4 and from 4-to-8 and then in the senior secondary years.

Independent education assessment, IEP, students — no more than three so-called special needs or English as a second language or any other host of special needs categorizations. No more than three. My colleague from Mount Pleasant identified 16,000 classes that are in violation of Bill 33 — legislation brought forward by the B.C. Liberals to try and address the issue they had created by stripping language out of the contracts in 2002.

The challenge, of course, is that they missed the mark with Bill 33. It was unanimously supported by both sides of this House at the time. The importance of addressing class size and class composition was at the top of the list for teachers at that time, absolutely the most important issue to them at that time. I believe it's the most important issue to them today as well.

The member from Comox in his letter, which has been read, I believe, numerous times into the record…. It's no longer required of me to do it, but I want to highlight it for the very purpose of saying that this is not a partisan debate. There are Liberals, Conservatives, Greens, browns, lefts, rights, ups and downs all across British Columbia that want to see an end to bludgeoning people into submission. They want cooperation.

With that in mind, I'd like to move the following amendment, which I give to the Clerk now.

I move the following motion:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word "that" and substituting therefore the following: "it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Are you going to continue on the amendment?

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will.

I bring forward this amendment that imposes on the situation a mediator for the following reasons. We know that over the next number of weeks, over approximately the next three weeks, classrooms across British Columbia will be empty because of the annual spring break.

Districts have different perspectives and points of view on that. Some districts will start on Monday, other districts will start on the following Monday, and some the Monday after. So we've got a three-week window where we could have a legislative cooling-off period.

I bring this up because a cooling-off period is a technique used in labour relations to get the parties to sit down and reflect and pause. In fact, it was contemplated in this legislation that there would be a cooling-off period for the parties.

I'm proposing, however, a cooling-off period for the parties in this Legislature. We have been at an impasse on this legislation. We believe that it's bad, it's flawed, and it should not proceed. The government, although not having each member speak to the issue, has a different point of view.

It's our view that we would like to join with the teachers union and the bargaining agent for the government and the BCPSEA, who earlier in the year in February approached the Labour Relations Board separately and asked for a mediator in the dispute. This happened in the case of the teachers following an end of bargaining, as they saw, it on February 9. Then BCPSEA followed up two weeks later on February 23 — both parties seeking a mediator.

Now, within the Labour Relations Code, there are a number of tools are available to the LRB to impose a mediator. Section 74 says that either party can apply to the mediation division of the board for appointment of a mediator after collective bargaining is in progress, which we have in this case.

[1610]

The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, who will review this, can also appoint a mediator in a collective bargaining dispute if he or she feels that a mediator will likely assist the parties in reaching a collective agreement — section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

It strikes me that if both parties to the dispute — the bargaining unit and the employer — have applied to the Labour Relations Board for mediation, then that would be the first step he would take. If I were — which I hope to be after the next election — on that side of the House, the first thing I would have done….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Well, I thank you for that.

The first thing I would have done is seen if there was some way that a third party could intervene and try and find a resolution to this impasse. That would be the thing that all thinking British Columbians would have wanted to see in this situation.

Instead, the day after the employer went to the LRB, the Minister of Education said that legislation was being drafted. "We're going to draft it over the weekend." That was the word from the government, the funder of the employer in this impasse.

Other actions that can be taken by the Labour Board — a special mediator. The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services has the power under section 76 to appoint a special mediator and specify terms of reference to help the union and employer negotiate a collective agreement. A special mediator keeps the minister informed on the progress of the mediation. An appointment of a special mediator does not restrict or prohibit a strike or a lockout unless the parties so agree.

Now, I'm not suggesting what clause the government chooses. I'm proposing to this House that a mediator be selected. There's a third opportunity.

Hon. Speaker, if you'll indulge me, I'll read this into the record — section 79 of the Labour Relations Code. An industrial inquiry commissioner — also a tool used if there's an impasse in bargaining between two parties. The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services may appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner "to maintain or secure labour relations stability and to promote conditions leading to the settlement of disputes."

That seems reasonable to me. All of us in this House, both sides — Liberals, New Democrats, independents — would prefer a negotiated solution to the impasse. So why then, in goodness name, would you not use the tools available to you in that instance? Why is it that it's the opposition that has to propose this reasonable amendment? It seems strange to me, hon. Speaker. Strange days indeed.

The Premier, when she was looking for a fight, any fight, suggested that we would use a hoist motion, which is a tool at the disposal of opposition members to suspend debate for a period of time. That would be deliberate obstruction, and I agree with that. We don't need deliberate obstruction right now. We need to find a way out of the impasse.

The reasoned amendment that I put forward in my name, I believe, accomplishes that goal. If we are genuine and sincere in every corner of this chamber about the need to resolve a broken relationship between employer and employee, it seems to me absolutely reasonable that we embrace this amendment and vote on it post-haste so that we can get a mediator in place.

It's not just me. It's not just members of the opposition that feel this way. It's not just the employer and the bargaining unit. I know the member from Prince George will be delighted to see this letter. I'm sure she has it in her file. She's been cc'd on it. It's dated March 6, 2012, to the honourable Minister of Education from the school district 57, from Prince George.

It says the following: "Dear Minister: The board of education of school district No. 57 respects the right of teachers to freely and collectively bargain their terms of employment." Well, good enough. I think we are all in agreement with the school district 57 from Prince George. "On February 25, 2012, the board joined boards of education across the province in passing a resolution to urge the government to support the use of a mediator to resolve the current bargaining impasse."

Well, there you go. If I'm not mistaken, the member from Prince George was once a member of school district 57's board of trustees, so she will know very well the processes and mechanisms in place. We're advised by this correspondence that I've just read into the record that a resolution was passed by members of school boards right across the province supporting the initiative that's before the House at this moment.

[1615]

It goes on: "Your government has recently introduced Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act." The legislated implications of Bill 22 "have increased the tension between the employer and the teachers." Increased the tension — now, is that a reasonable thing for people to do? We're adults here, I believe. We're all adults here.

We're talking about children's lives today and our children's future. We're talking about parents, we're talking about teachers, we're talking about administrators, and we're talking about staff in schools right across the province. They look to this place, as the Premier said seven days ago. They look to this place for leadership on profound issues of the day.

What better course of action could we have as legislators than to lead by example, to put down our partisan clubs today and unanimously support the notion of appointing a mediator so that over the next three weeks, rather than having headlines saying: "Government wants to fight with opposition; we're looking for a wedge issue on our by-elections that have yet to be called"? Instead of doing that, instead of playing the game of politics, why
[ Page 9967 ]
don't we try and solve the problem?

Hon. Speaker, I've talked to you over the years about how I believe this place should work, how I believe that elected representatives have an obligation to put their own interests behind them and put forward, in this place and in discussions outside of this place, the best interests of the people in their community.

Whether they got their support in elections or not, it just doesn't matter, because we will come and go. Many of us will go sooner than others, but we will all come and go. These 85 seats, 25 years from now, will be occupied by someone else, except maybe in the case of the member for Vancouver–West End.

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment.

J. Horgan: On the amendment. But I am speaking to the importance of mediation, and I will try and restrict my comments to that.

With respect to school district No. 57, which I alluded to earlier, I'll continue on. It's because they speak directly to the importance of trying to bring people together and to use the tools available in the Labour Relations Code to achieve those positive results.

It says, again: "This bill currently being debated in the Legislature includes the repeal of section 27 of the School Act and substituting 'Terms and conditions of teachers' employment and restricted scope of bargaining.'" Now, the bargaining question is where the mediator comes in and where this amendment will facilitate an outcome.

Certainly, the trustees of school district 57 are — and I know my school district 62 is — very anxious to get this dispute behind us so that kids can finish their year in a positive way, particularly the kids in grade 12 so that they can move on to do other things in their lives and look back on their last year in high school fondly rather than with some disappointment that they weren't able to achieve the issues and the aspirations that they set for themselves at the start of their education careers.

A teacher that came into my consciousness some days ago…. It was on Anti-Bullying Day. I'll just divert for a moment before I speak back to the mediator. Heather Benson, a counsellor at Reynolds high school, the school that I graduated from 35 years ago here in Victoria, was on crutches. She's had her foot in a cast for some weeks, but that didn't stop her from leading hundreds of kids in a demonstration on the Legislature steps about what we can do when we work together, what we can do when we put aside our differences and we don't bully each other.

A mediator would be able to do that in this instance. A mediator would be able to step in and take the lead from the Reynolds kids who were here in their pink shirts just a week ago under the guidance of Heather Benson, a proud teacher, a member of the BCTF bargaining unit — leg in a cast, crutches on each side. That did not deter her.

She didn't take a sick day. She didn't mail it in. She came in under duress to cooperate and show and demonstrate that if we work together with someone leading us, as a mediator would in this instance, we can achieve tremendous results.

The letter from my friends in Prince George carries on as follows.

"In a special in-camera meeting on March 5, 2012, the board of education of school district No. 57 passed a motion urging the government to appoint an independent mediator mutually agreed to by both parties, the B.C. Teachers Federation and the British Columbia Public School Employers Association, and to remove restrictions introduced in Bill 22 that limit the mediator's ability to engage both parties in thoughtful and constructive negotiations."

The letter is signed by Sharel Warrington, chairperson, board of education.

[1620]

That's the view of a school board, and it mirrors the views of school boards right across the province. The way through the impasse that is before us, the way through the labour dispute, is not Bill 22 but in fact is an amended Bill 22, as I proposed, that would appoint a mediator.

Now I've raised three options available to the Labour Relations Board with respect to mediators — section 76, section 74 and section 79 — and there's also a last-offer vote. I'm not suggesting that the government pick any of these. I would argue that the two parties — the employer, as represented by BCPSEA, and the bargaining unit, as represented by the B.C. Teachers Federation — could elect amongst themselves to work together to find what is the best way through the impasse that they have been experiencing over the past number of months.

Section 78 offers last-offer votes. This is, basically: "Let's get together, let's decide on what the issues on the table are, and let's agree that this is going to be it. We'll vote on it and see how it goes." I believe that those options are relevant to the debate today.

I believe that our residents, our constituents, the people that sent us here, would approve an approach that involved consensus and cooperation, rather than the approach that was put forward in Bill 22 prior to the amendment being introduced today in the Legislature.

The amendment provides us with an opportunity to step outside of our traditional positions of opposition and government. The adversarial relationship in a parliamentary system is very important, hon. Speaker. You know that. I know that. The members on both sides of the House know that. Our obligation is to hold the government accountable when they bring forward legislation. We've been doing that throughout the week, but we believe now that the best course of action for this Legislature is to embrace this amendment.

The best course of action for legislators at this point in time is to pause and take a drink of water, because I'm a bit thirsty, hon. Speaker. Good water, hon. Speaker. Some of the best water in the city, as you know.

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment.
[ Page 9968 ]

J. Horgan: On the amendment. I'm catching myself, hon. Speaker. I'll be right back to it, right back to it.

I'm pleased that my colleague from Comox is embracing this approach.

We have the two parties coming to the Labour Relations Board, and we have the two parties saying to each other that a solution is available. I would think that if you've had an impasse, you've had two parties that have not been able to agree on much of anything for a period of time….

I don't have the exact number in front of me, but I believe that there were 50, 60 or 70 meetings between the two parties, and they couldn't agree on much. But what they did agree on was that the way to go forward at this point was with mediation, not with legislation. The way forward was to put an independent party between the employer and the bargaining agent. That seems to me, again, to be a reasonable course of action.

We've seen this in other situations, other jurisdictions. Other labour disputes have used this proposal of mediation to find resolution. There are the four examples I cite within the act, but there's also, I believe, a sense within the community that we have three weeks ahead of us when the schools are going to be shut and shuttered for spring break. That's a time when we will be in this Legislature debating Bill 22 and other pieces of legislation, but it's a unique opportunity to have a resolution. We will not, I believe, be able to achieve that without access to this amendment.

The Minister of Education has said that in his view, when Bill 22 passes, a mediator will be appointed. But what he fails to say after that is that the bill, as it's currently written, has restrictions and caveats put in place that will, in my view, hinder and impair the ability of a mediator to effectively arbitrate between the two parties.

Bill 22 has in place a mechanism for mediation that is after the fact. It is after the legislation has been brought forward. It is after the class-size and class-composition issues that are so fundamentally important to this dispute…. It's going back, as I've said, ten years ago, when those elements were stripped from the contract that is now trying to be renegotiated. That is not going to be resolved by removing them, which is proposed by this bill.

With respect to mediation, the central piece of the fig leaf that the minister holds up when he's defending this draconian approach…. He says: "Don't worry about it. As soon as we're done…."

That's a bad visual. I apologize to the member.

"As soon as this debate is done, we'll appoint a mediator."

You might be asking yourself, hon. Speaker, and colleagues might be asking: "Well, if that's the case, if it's already in the bill, Member, why are you now proposing an amendment that would drive us to the mediator before the bill's passage?"

[1625]

The reason I'm doing that and the reason that I bring this forward is because, with the caveats that are in the bill today, I don't believe it sets the table for a successful resolution.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Back there, good to see you.

The caveats on the bill today make it difficult for mediation to take place. I believe, and I've said so over the past number of minutes, the best course of action is to clear the table. Put all of these issues aside, and let's get down to sincere bargaining with that third party with a mandate for success, with a mandate to put things aside and get resolution and a positive outcome for teachers and for the K-to-12 system in our province.

The challenge, however, I believe, if I interpreted the body language of the Government House Leader, is that he feels that that approach may not be the best one for him at this time, but I'm sure that we'll hear from him shortly.

An Hon. Member: He wants to get to it, you see.

J. Horgan: He wants to get to it? Is that the deal? Okay.

In Bill 22 the section with respect to mediation, which would be circumvented by this application, says: "The terms of reference for the mediator are as follows." And it says that "the new collective agreement must be for a term beginning on July 1, 2011 and ending on June 30, 2013."

Just that one clause alone, in my view, makes it very, very difficult for an appointed mediator — not one selected in cooperation between the employer and the bargaining unit, but by the government…. With that restriction alone, much less all the other restrictions that would be available to the government in those clauses, it's a recipe for failure.

It's a recipe for failure, and I believe the appropriate course of action today is to support this resolution. I'm urging all colleagues on both sides of the House to get behind this motion. We can vote on it right now. We could have the two parties before the LRB and a mediator in place tomorrow morning, working through the weekend to try and find an impasse….

That, I believe, is the wish of the public, certainly, that I represent in Juan de Fuca. That's the message that I've been receiving as I've been talking to people and corresponding through e-mails and telephone calls and meetings that I've been attending throughout my constituency.

The message that I've been receiving loud and clear from the people of Juan de Fuca is: "Why don't you people just work this out? Why is it that you can't find a way through the impasse? Why is it that you depend on legislation that divides people and a debate that divides people? Instead, why don't you find a way to bring
[ Page 9969 ]
people together?"

This amendment as it's constituted, I believe, is the way through that. I know there will be those that disagree. I look forward to hearing them. I believe there should be a vigorous debate on all aspects of our work here — not just legislation and not just during question period or during the estimates of various ministries that take place when the budget is tabled, but when members come forward with ideas and suggestions and proposals that will break an impasse. I believe that that's something that all members would embrace.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. I understand from the Clerks table that the mover of the amendment has a period of time to speak to the amendment, to make the case. I've touched on a number of issues. I'd like to — if I could, hon. Speaker — go back to the proposals as to why we get here. Why a reasoned amendment like this rather than some of the other tools available to us?

It's through a reasoned amendment that we express the opposition to the principle of the bill. We've done that. We've been debating. Some 20-plus members have spoken to the substance of the bill. We've made it clear that we don't believe that this is the appropriate course of action.

But we don't want to be obstructionists. We don't want to delay the work of the Legislature. We don't want to delay getting the two sides together. I believe this legislation will do just that, but the amendment does the opposite. It's a positive proposal put forward in good faith, sincerely and earnestly, to try and find a way through.

Now, the Labour Relations Board can use any of the four clauses that I've referred to, but I would also suspect that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education and advisers on the government side may well have other ideas. They may also have amendments to this amendment that might make it better.

[1630]

I welcome that. I'm hopeful that the Minister of Health, a longtime member of this place — in fact, one of the longest-serving members of this place…. Despite that, he still remains an active, vibrant member. He's got something in his throat.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, that's good.

I'm hopeful, with his experience, that he may well offer an opportunity that we have afforded him to stand in his place and make a submission to improve this amendment. I can't think of a member more qualified to do just that, to stand in his place and make a positive contribution.

If we go to mediation, as proposed by this amendment, we'll be able to get back to that crucial issue that I talked about at the beginning of my remarks, whether it be on the substance of the bill or on the reasoned amendment that we've put forward, and that is the importance of addressing the issue of class size and class composition.

It is my view, hon. Speaker, that the impasse started, as I said to you at the start of my remarks, in 2002. A decade later we're no closer to resolution, and I don't believe we get there by using a legislative hammer. I think we can get there if we follow the proposal that I have laid before you and my colleagues here — to look at how we can solve the impasse in a cooperative way, with a third party experienced in these matters.

I look back to 2006. A mediator was put in place to resolve the impasse of the strike in 2005 that led, in a material way, to Bill 33, which is now rendered obsolete by Bill 22. The class size and class composition issues were at the crux of the dispute then and remain at dispute now. A mediator was brought in at the time. I can't remember her name, but it was Vince Ready who recommended that she be brought in to address that specific issue.

If we bring in a mediator on the broader substance of the negotiation between the employer and the bargaining unit, we'll be able to maybe hive off some of these contentious issues. Compensation issues are always challenging, and the government has its point of view on that. I believe they could be put to one side, and we could burrow down to the issues that really, really matter to kids, to parents and to teachers in classrooms, whether it be the number of teacher-librarians or the complement of other special needs teachers within the complement that are available to school districts and to schools specifically. That's one area that a mediator would be very helpful for.

A mediator could look at Bill 33, could look at the proposals that have been put on the table by the bargaining unit on class size and class composition, and we could come to a conclusion that would be in the interests of both sides in this dispute and also in the interests, I would argue, of the government. I don't believe the government really wants to be in the hole that it's in right now. I know that no one benefits — no one benefits — when we are constantly at loggerheads.

What I do believe is that there are substantive issues at play in this negotiation that are being lost in the back and forth on the debate of this bill. If we're going to get to the root of the problems, if we're going to be able to resolve those issues in a meaningful and thoughtful way, a mediator, unencumbered by restrictions and obstacles laid forth in this bill, is the best course of action. That will lead to the solutions that I believe we all want.

I'm a parent, and my kids graduated from school in district 62. They were involved as students during the last impasse, with respect to labour relations between BCPSEA and the B.C. Teachers Federation. They got through that. They did pretty well. They're okay. I'm happy with the outcomes. I think that parents who have to work through the disputes that we're looking at today would prefer that the two sides not battle with each other, that the two sides in this Legislature not battle with each other but that we work together to find a solution.
[ Page 9970 ]
Mediation is the way to go.

Hon. Speaker, you've asked me to stick to the substance of the amendment, and I will continue to do that as soon as the member passes it back to me. Thanks very much.

The appointment of the mediator by the government, I think, gives the opportunity for members on that side of the House to find that face-saving mechanism, if that's what it's all about. If you want to feel good about yourselves in this instance, the power is still with the government, hon. Speaker.

[1635]

They have the opportunity, through this motion, to select the individual that would sit between the two parties over the next number of weeks, perhaps a month — who knows? — to try and find resolution to this impasse.

We had 5,000-plus people on the lawns of the Legislature earlier in the week, and the message that we were hearing from them was: "Negotiate; don't legislate."

I believe that if we get a mediator in place, negotiation will follow. I believe that if we put the legislation to one side and we bring forward an individual…. There are many, many very seasoned and experienced mediators in British Columbia. The Labour Relations Board is very experienced at picking individuals that best reflect what we need to do in this situation.

I know that the Minister of Labour, I'm sure, instead of having her record with respect to labour relations tarnished, still would prefer instead to step up and find a solution through the mechanisms available within the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia. The government appoints that individual under the board, and the collective bargaining dispute will be resolved without legislation — without legislation.

That's the crux of this reasoned amendment. I believe it's one that is not obstructionist, but it's a proposition that I believe will assist the government in getting out of a jam. It will take away the opportunity to pick a fight. I know that will disappoint some. It will certainly disappoint the Premier. But I do believe that it's the mature and responsible thing for us as legislators to do. I do believe that it's in the public interest that this take place.

I believe that the Speaker's chatting with you, so I'll turn and talk to the member for Saanich North and the Islands. He's right over there.

M. Farnworth: That's a very good idea.

J. Horgan: Yeah, but I'm not making any reference to whether anyone's here or not. I learned that….

M. Farnworth: He's listening very intently.

J. Horgan: They all are. All members are listening intently, and I appreciate that.

The notion, however, hon. Speaker, of the fact-finder…. It's usually one of the steps before mediation, and it was used in this instance. A fact-finder was appointed by the government, but there was no resolution as a result of that. The parties were not satisfied with the results of that component.

The normal progression, the normal course of events in those instances where there is a labour dispute, is to go from a fact-finder to a mediator. Somewhere along the line the government missed that piece, and instead they put in legislation the prospect of mediation with restrictions. It's those restrictions that will, in my view, destine this suggestion to failure. It may well end the dispute with respect to a collective agreement, but it will not change the hearts and minds of educators and parents right across British Columbia.

What would give people hope in this situation; what would give people a sense that there is some positive outcome possible when we collect ourselves in this place, when we come here to debate issues; what would give people some sense that there's a point to all of this is if we all agreed that we need to get mediators in place. We need to get the two parties sitting down.

Clearly, there's an impasse between the government and the B.C. Teachers Federation. I don't think there's a person in British Columbia that doesn't see that. That's as clear as clear can be.

As some of my colleagues are happy to say, let's be clear — as if being muddy is a good idea. "Let's be clear," I'll say, and my wife will laugh at me when I get home tonight for dinner.

The challenges ahead of us are enormous because of the divide that's been created over the past number of years between the bargaining unit and the employer, but that's not to say we just give up. That's what Bill 22 does. It just gives up. It says: "Ah well, we can't fix this."

We've been angling for a fight for months and months. Now we have precious weeks left in this school year, precious weeks left to capture and salvage the year for students right across British Columbia. Parents would want that. Teachers would want that. Trustees would want that. Members of the opposition want that. Let's hope that members on the government side agree with that.

We could have this amendment voted on right now. We could vote on it right now, and with a positive outcome. We could have a mediator in place tomorrow morning. Isn't that something? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be something for the people of B.C.?

Instead of wrangling, instead of picking a fight, instead of saying, "Oh boy, those opposition members, they're bad people" or "Oh boy, those government people, they're bad people," put all that junk away and say: "Here we are, adults — elected, selected on a list and ballot in a democratic election — who come to this place to make the case on behalf of the people that we represent."

[1640]

Enough is enough with the poking each other in the
[ Page 9971 ]
eye. Instead, let's say in this instance, on behalf of kids and teachers right across B.C., that a mediated settlement is a better course of action at this point in time. Let's have a mediator. Let's not have legislation.

It's just that simple, hon. Speaker, and I want to thank you very much for the time you've given me. I know there are a number of members from my group here on the opposition side that are anxious to speak to this amendment. I'm hopeful that members on the government side will avail themselves of that.

With that, hon. Speaker, thank you very much for your time. I thank members on both sides of the House for their patience and their attentiveness. I look forward to a vigorous debate on this amendment and a successful resolution before day's end so that we can have a mediator in place tomorrow to put kids back in school and to put teachers comfortably and respectfully back where they belong — at the front of a class creating the new economy and the new generation for the challenges that face us, and also educating those that will come and replace us.

We will most assuredly be replaced — some before others, as I've suggested. But we are not here forever. We're here for a short time. Let's make the best of it. Let's make something positive happen. We can do that today with this amendment.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and debate the amendment to Bill 22 proposed by my colleague from Juan de Fuca, who I think has really thought this through and really paid attention, in my mind, to the needs of the government.

I mean, we have said in this House that we would be a strong opposition, but we would be a constructive opposition that would propose ideas. When we had concerns about something, we would say: "Yes, we have concerns." But we would also spell out what we would do, what we would suggest, and be a constructive opposition,

With that spirit of constructiveness, I stand today to speak to my colleague from Juan de Fuca's amendment to Bill 22. For members who may not have heard it, I just want to repeat it. I do that not out of any sense of vindictiveness but rather out of sense of….

I want to make sure they understand the resolution. I want to make sure they understand every word so that they can think upon the wisdom of this amendment. They can think upon what it says and what it means and why, in adopting it, they are putting themselves in a position to step back from brink, step back from the abyss and take a second look.

My colleague's motion was:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.'"

I think that is a remarkable solution to the predicament that the government finds itself in right now. Right now they find themselves in an absolutely unenviable position of legislating teachers back to work — alienating teachers, alienating parents, alienating students and depriving them of educational opportunities. This was a government that talked about the great golden goals of becoming the most literate, educated province in all of North America.

We are not going to achieve that if this government proceeds with its plan of action that it has indicated so far. That's why it's so important that we pause and look at if there are opportunities, and this amendment does that. This amendment says to appoint an independent mediator.

[1645]

You know, hon. Speaker, I've talked to lots of teachers and lots of parents, and many students have contacted me. They understand what mediation is about. They understand the concept of an independent mediator, and they think that's the way to approach the issues in this legislation, to deal with the dispute around Bill 22.

It is a reasonable thing to do, which reasonable people would expect would be something the government would consider. The problem is that they haven't considered that. The result was Bill 22. I am speaking to the amendment in that regard, because I'm explaining why this particular amendment is so important.

I mean, Bill 22 does not allow for independent mediation. As my colleague from Juan de Fuca has so ably put it, it takes that away. It puts — after a cooling-off period to August 31 — basically a straitjacket on. It closes doors, and that's not a good thing.

I'm reminded of an old saying: God closes one door, and God opens a window. Now, I know that on the government side, God — in this case, the Premier — has spoken and has closed doors. One only has to listen to the statements that she's made over the last few days to realize that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: "All doors," my colleague from Fraser-Nicola says.

God, in the form of the Premier, has closed the doors, but God has an opportunity — in this case the Premier, the Premier on the other side…. You know, that is how her colleagues reverentially do, I think, refer to her. Certainly, that's how she does, on occasion, conduct herself.

But there's a window, a three-week window, around this amendment here. What this amendment recognizes is that, as my colleague from Juan de Fuca has pointed out, there is a three-week period where school districts
[ Page 9972 ]
are off. Not all together, not all at the same time, but there's a three-week period there where for spring break and March break they're off.

That is a window that this government can seize. It's an opportunity they can seize and set things right. The way to do that is in the road map that is being laid out by the opposition in a very constructive fashion.

I mean, I've heard the Education Minister saying that he wants to see a full, frank and fulsome debate on the issues in Bill 22. He has said that publicly. He said that the day it was tabled. He has said that publicly, and that's what's been happening.

Members of the opposition have been standing up, one after another, and speaking on this bill. Government members have participated in the debate. Not all, but there is lots of opportunity for them to participate, and we sincerely hope they do.

The Premier has participated in the debate, sending a somewhat mixed message from her Minister of Education. When debate had started, and the Minister of Education wanted to see fulsome debate, and the Government House Leader said that he wanted to see fulsome debate, the Premier stood up and said: "Well, you know, the opposition is using every procedural move in the book to block it."

That just simply wasn't true, hon. Speaker. All that was happening is that we hadn't started. When we did start, it was on the basic second reading debate that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, on the amendment.

M. Farnworth: On the amendment on Bill 22.

We have heard from lots of members. What we're saying is: "Look, we don't intend…. We've got our concerns, so what we want to do is present to the government a road map as to how to address those concerns — address the concerns of parents, address the concerns of teachers — and it's through this amendment."

It's called a reasoned amendment. It gets that name for a very good reason; that is, it's thoughtful. It lays out an option, an opportunity, for the government to consider and to adopt and to agree with and to pass. It allows them to step back, as I said earlier, from the abyss. It is constructive.

[1650]

If you talk to teachers and talk to parents, they're really clear in their message. They want the government to sit down and mediate, not legislate. I think that's something that, for this government, they seriously need to consider. They need to think about what their actions are doing to education, what their actions are doing to their relationship with teachers, what their actions are doing to their relationship with parents. If they are concerned about that, then this amendment allows for them to address those concerns.

I'll repeat it again: "it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve collective bargaining dispute without legislation."

Do you know, hon. Speaker, it's something that the employer association, BCPSEA, asked for. They wanted a mediator. They understood the value of a mediator. The BCTF, the duly-elected representative of teachers, also understood the need for a mediator, and they did just that. They asked for one. Here's a perfect opportunity to put those two concerns into play in a way that is independent.

As my colleague from Juan de Fuca so ably stated, and I'm sure other members will, I know sometimes in dealing with government there is that fog of obfuscation, as my colleague from the West End said earlier — obfuscation that you have to get through. That means repeating a message a number of times in order for it to sink in. It's one of the reasons why robocalls are so popular. So I am going to be speaking about this amendment again and again, and the importance of this amendment put forward by my colleague from Juan de Fuca.

The appointment of an independent mediator. The government can use that as a way forward. You know something? It is anticipated in the Labour Code. It is anticipated in the Labour Relations Code as an effective tool to resolve disputes. I think that's important.

Before we go down a road that the public doesn't believe we should be going down…. Recent polls show 80-plus percent of the public would like to see mediation to resolve this dispute. Before we go down that road, the government should consider all the tools available to it, and this motion, this amendment, allows them to do just that.

What an amazing thing the opposition has done for the government. They have given them an opportunity…. You know, hon. Speaker, part of me is, like, "Why are we doing this? Why are we giving them a road map out? Why are we showing them a way to resolve this dispute?" when we could just sit back and go: "You know what? They've got themselves into this quagmire. They've got themselves into this tar pit. Let them get themselves out." We can sit back and reap the electoral rewards, because they are heading down a very slippery slope that has got nowhere out but problems — fraught with danger.

When we got elected, we agreed that we would be the loyal opposition, and a key part of being a loyal opposition is to be constructive — to be constructive. Being constructive means putting forward solutions, and this amendment and speaking to this amendment does just that.

In the Labour Relations Code, if the government…. I'll just go through some of the options that government has in terms of making this amendment work.

They could use section 74, mediation. "Either party
[ Page 9973 ]
can apply to the mediation division of the board for appointment of a mediator after collective bargaining is in progress. The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services can also appoint a mediator in a collective bargaining dispute if he or she feels that a mediator will likely assist the parties in reaching a collective agreement."

[1655]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague…. You know, I have a really good feeling about things. I have a great feeling about things. I know that I'm looking forward to you speaking in this debate to the amendment, and I just know that government members are chomping at the bit to rise and support this amendment.

I'd even be willing to think and suggest or perhaps even place a bet that our Premier will speak on this amendment, because she too has stood in this House and said it's important that we know where everybody stands on the issues. So I know she'll want to avail herself of an opportunity to speak to this amendment just as other members on the government side will want to stand up and be on the record and let the public know that this is a great amendment, worth supporting, and that a loyal opposition has constructively put it forward and shown them the way out.

If they don't like section 74, they could always try and take a look at a special mediator appointed under section 76. Now, 76 is different than 74 because 76 says: "The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services has the power to appoint a special mediator with specified terms of reference to help the union and employer negotiate a collective agreement. A special mediator keeps the minister informed."

That's always a good thing. That's not something we've always seen in this House — you know? I mean, most ministers are informed, but there are occasions when they have not been. Hon. Speaker, you know we don't want to see that. So the Education Minister, under section 76, would be informed, and, as we all know, that's important.

Now, under this amendment the government could, going further with section 76: "The appointment of a special mediator does not restrict or prohibit a strike or lockout unless both parties so agree." That's an option the government could do.

They could also, under section 79, if they don't like that, under this amendment…. This amendment is really clear, because what our amendment says is that it's "not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation," just to make sure that members fully understand.

So they could appoint an industrial inquiry commission, under section 79. That is five sections after section 74 and three sections after section 76. In section 79,

"The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services may appoint an industrial inquiry commission to maintain or secure labour relations stability and to promote conditions leading to the settlement of disputes. Such commissions work with a specific mandate from the minister. The union and employer may agree to be bound by the report of an industrial inquiry commission."

Now, that is an interesting one — section 79, industrial inquiry commission. "To promote conditions leading to the settlement of a dispute." Well, if they chose that route, for example, that would send a strong message to the public. But you know what? They are serious about settling the dispute through mediation and without legislation. As I said, that's extremely important, because that's what most people want.

So there are three options right there. But again, we are a constructive opposition. We believe there are a lot of tools out there, and we want to make sure that the government members are aware of all those tools that they have available to them. So section 78, which of course is the section before 79 in the bill, is called "Last offer votes."

An Hon. Member: It's after section 77.

M. Farnworth: That is correct.

Now, section 78, "Last offer votes," is

"Before a strike or lockout commences, the employer can ask for a vote by the employees in the bargaining unit on the employer's last offer received by the union during bargaining. Similarly, a union bargaining with a group of employers represented by an employers' organization can request a vote of member employers on the union's last offer. In both cases, where the vote favours acceptance of the offer, the terms of the offer voted upon become the new collective agreement between the parties. Only one last offer vote may be held for…dispute."

[1700]

The Minister of Environment seems to think that that is a bit complicated, and perhaps it is. No, no. There is a lot of language there, and I think it's important that the minister fully understand this, so I will repeat it, again, for the minister's benefit. So under this amendment….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Okay. I will do that.

Under section 78, "Last offer votes," by using our amendment you can apply this section and avoid legislation. Now, it says: "Before a strike or lockout commences, the employer can ask for a vote by the employees in the bargaining unit on the employer's last offer received by the union during bargaining." I think that's fairly straightforward. I see the minister does not appear to have a problem in comprehending those lines.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: This is section 78. This is a tool that
[ Page 9974 ]
would be available under our amendment, and it's why I'm arguing in favour of our amendment.

Now, the next part goes on to say: "Similarly, a union bargaining with a group of employers represented by an employer's organization can request a vote of member employers on the union's last offer." Again, quite straightforward.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

"In both cases, where the vote favours acceptance of the offer, the terms of the offer voted upon become the new collective agreement between the parties. Only one last offer vote may be held for the same dispute." Again, I think that's pretty straightforward, and I think that that is an offer, an option, that the government can think about as part of the tools they can make a choice to decide on.

Now, if members on the government side or government supporters are still concerned about that, those options that I have outlined for them, or if they are concerned about, particularly, section 78, because it is quite long, then they can go to a website.

And I have to commend the government that they do have this up on line. I think that's a good thing. When discussing an amendment like this, it's important that everybody is informed. We do know from past experience — and I'm not being critical of all members on the government side — government, you know, centralized in the Premier's office, does have a tendency sometimes to keep information to itself and not want to share information.

L. Popham: Shocking.

M. Farnworth: Shocking, my colleague from Saanich South says. You know, that's not how it should be, but it is a fact of life sometimes, under this government, that that is in fact what happens. So I want to make sure that all members on the government side are familiar with where they can find this information.

They go to Labour Relations Board's Guide to the Labour Relations Code, and it is at the following website: http://www.lrb.bc.ca/codeguide/.

An Hon. Member: How do you spell "dot"?

M. Farnworth: Now, the member says: "How do you spell dot?" Well, in the member's case, I think the first thing he has to do is learn how to connect the dots.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would draw you back to the amendment under discussion.

M. Farnworth: Absolutely. I'm just giving…. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I am speaking to the amendment as to why the options that I have outlined are tools that they can use to make this amendment work and where they can find these tools if they don't know the information is at the website. So if they do that — and it was http://www.lrb.bc.ca/codeguide/, which is one word — they will find the one, two, three, four options available to them that they could use under this amendment.

Now, if they take advantage of any one of these options, they could make this amendment come to fruition, and what a remarkable thing that would be. Because what they would do, as I've said earlier, is avoid an abyss. They would avoid an abyss. I mean, they'd live to fight another day.

[1705]

Now, I don't necessarily want that, but that would be the fact. And hey, I'm quite happy to have that fight another day, preferably May 13, 2013. I'm quite happy to do that. In the meantime, until we get to May of 2013 or the by-elections, whenever they're called, I want to be a constructive opposition. That's why this amendment is worthy of support.

My colleague from Chilliwack is grateful. I genuinely believe that, because I know that the member from Chilliwack…. That's one of reasons why he was so successful as mayor, because he listened to good, sound advice. That's why he was mayor of Chilliwack for so long, and that's why I hope that he will seriously consider this amendment.

I want to make sure that everybody knows what the amendment is. I know members are paying attention, but members also are thinking about important constituency matters. They're composing important correspondence. They're thinking about, you know, important political issues.

This amendment is as follows:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.'"

I think it's pretty straightforward. It's not hoisting. It's not unduly delaying anything. What it's saying is, I think, reasonable — eminently reasonable. As we know, and as the Minister of Education knows, there is a three-week period coming up when school districts across this great province of ours are out for different…. Some for a week, some two weeks; overlapping, not overlapping. The basic premise is, over the next three weeks, there's a window of opportunity.

As I said, you can close doors and open a window. The Premier can open a window and let the sunshine of cooperation and mediation shine in on this dispute. I think that if you do that, it will be amazing the results that you are able to achieve. I think that that's what all of us
[ Page 9975 ]
in this House want. That's what all of us in this chamber want. It's certainly what constituents want. It's certainly what teachers want. It's certainly what parents want.

I mean, I could go through some of the correspondence I have received….

J. Les: I'd rather have that forward slash.

M. Farnworth: Well, funnily enough, the member says he'd rather have the forward slash. Well, a by-election in Chilliwack-Hope may be a forward slash against the government but not quite in the way that they expect. But let's go see what some constituents have to say.

From a teacher in school district 43, where I happen to reside. I've highlighted one of the things that this teacher pointed out: "From the beginning of last April's bargaining process, we remained optimistic that a negotiated settlement would resolve at least some of the issues that exist in the education system, easing the strife between teachers and the current government."

You know, I think that's pretty reasonable. I think that's pretty reasonable, and I think that that's reflective of our teachers.

We want good teachers in our school system. This person sounds like just the type of person that we need in our school system and why it's so important that we pass this amendment, to send this teacher a strong message of encouragement that government recognizes the value of public education and has decided to step back and take advantage of the path forward shown them by the opposition.

This letter goes on to say something else which I think is concerning:

"In February I was offered a job overseas and accepted. Over the last few days I'm feeling less compulsion to come back to B.C. and teach. As educators currently in the system, we are very conscious of the environment that we would be introducing their children to — overcrowded classrooms, stressed teachers, limited resources and poor environmental conditions.

[1710]

"Bill 22 and the attitudes of the Education Minister and the Premier display when speaking to teachers show that the system is leaving a disarray of struggling students, broken children and introducing problems that we cannot even comprehend yet."

Those are teachers who are going to leave the province, and that's not right. We do not want that. We want the best and brightest to stay here in British Columbia. We can achieve that if we send a strong message, if this government sends a strong message. And it can do that by supporting this amendment.

As my colleague from Juan de Fuca said: "We can pass this amendment right now." I could sit down and be the last person to speak on it, and all of us on this side would probably be very glad if I did, as, I'm quite sure, on the government side they would be too. Because if we held a vote and passed the resolution, we would be able to take this dispute out of the contentious conflict that we've had over the last few weeks and get it back in front of mediation where it belongs.

It's been said right across this province — in school districts across this province, in schools across this province and homes across this province — that mediation is better than legislation any day. Negotiation is better than legislation any day, and that is the way to solve a contract dispute. It is not through legislation. It is not through a heavy hammer. And that's why I ask for the support on this amendment.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise and follow the member for Port Coquitlam who has spoken eloquently about the amendment before the House. You know, I think it was Winston Churchill who said, a very long time ago, that it was better to jaw-jaw than to war-war. Churchill had a point. The possibility of people talking and continuing to talk, as opposed to fighting, is a far preferable alternative.

Indeed, this very House, until the recent expansion of members, had the traditional double sword-lengths between the parties, harking back to a time when we used to argue and fight about everything and sometimes bring swords into parliament.

What the opposition and the member for Juan de Fuca have done today by proposing this amendment, to make this motion, is to say in a very straightforward manner to the government: "Listen. Take some time." As the young people would say: "Chill out, man. Just cool it." There's no need for to us proceed in this manner. It's not going to lead to a solution.

The motion is very simple. Be it resolved:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.'"

What the motion speaks to is something really quite sensible. You don't necessarily want to go creating solutions for problems that don't exist. What the government has said through the bill and its insistence on proceeding with it is that, because a fact-finder came to a conclusion that it would be — I believe it was said — very unlikely that a voluntary settlement would be reached, the government chose the option of legislation when it had a number of other tools available to it to solve the problem.

There is a problem, hon. Speaker. The teachers in this province are without a contract. Parents are concerned about the education of their children. School trustees are concerned about the state of education in individual districts. Voters are concerned about the state of the economy and whether or not the province can handle the agreement.

[1715]

They're very concerned about the spending of public moneys on public education. They need to know that
[ Page 9976 ]
they're getting the results they're paying for. What they do know, and what this amendment speaks to, is the concept that something is wrong in the education system. The opposition, through this motion, is asking the parties to come and reason together, to sit down, to talk about it, to see if there are options.

We know, and the history of this is very clear, the parties met on many occasions. Apparently, no progress was made. I don't intend, nor would it be appropriate for me, to go through the length of excuses and explanations as to why that process didn't produce the result that it should, that is desirable for that process to generally produce, which is a collective agreement, a settlement. That would serve no useful purpose for the purposes of today's debate.

What we do know is that it came to no resolution after a very long period of time. That being said, and notwithstanding the conclusion that the fact-finder came to — the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations, Trevor Hughes — no one ever suggested that it was impossible to mediate an agreement. Indeed, mediation doesn't appear to have been on the table, so to speak.

What we do know, following the release of Mr. Hughes's report, was that the member for Shuswap, the Education Minister, announced that ministry staff would be putting together a bill or bills over the weekend to deal with the situation and recommend a package for the government to legislate.

What do we know about that? We know that both the BCTF, representing 42,000 public educators in this province, and the representatives of the employers association…. We know that the B.C. Public School Employers Association indeed backed up the call of the BCTF for mediation. We know that, indeed, the BCTF went to the Labour Relations Board in good faith, proffering a hand of settlement, if you will, and applied for mediation.

Now, I appreciate that those on the government benches will say, "Well, that's what the bill is all about" — the Education Improvement Act that we're seeking to amend the motion for second reading of. But as I discussed earlier this morning in speaking to second reading of this bill, it frankly narrows it down so that there is no effective and real mediation process. The conclusions are made almost inevitable.

It will very be difficult for a professional mediator to look at this and say, in all good conscience and honesty, that they could in fact mediate this process with the legislative constraints that are proposed — which are the substance of Bill 22.

So when the member for Juan de Fuca brought forward this motion, I would have hoped, firstly, that the government members might have stood to respond, at least, to explain why it's not a good idea, if that's how they feel. You know, this isn't like some cheap song. Silence is not in fact golden in this place. Silence indicates that this government has made up its mind with respect to this motion, that it is not prepared to stand up and debate it.

We had a singular throwing down of the gauntlet a few days ago in this chamber by no less than the Premier, the member from Point Grey, demanding that the opposition debate. And we have debated. We have spoken about this bill for several days now.

What we haven't heard is the response from the Premier, and what we haven't heard also today is a response from the government to this motion, a motion that at its heart speaks to what we indeed want and hope to teach our children in the classroom: that instead of fighting, they should actually settle their differences. They should settle the issues through discussion. They should come to reasonable conclusions through those discussions. That's the appropriate thing to do. That's what reasonable people do. That's what sensible legislators do.

[1720]

Now, hon. Speaker, I'm not here to talk about the structure of this place and how it encourages a certain discourse which sometimes, to the viewing public, looks pretty childish and silly. What I am here to talk about, though, is an opportunity. It is the hand of fortune being proffered, if you will, by the member for Juan de Fuca, who is saying: "Look, no one believes it's in the best interest of the education system for legislation to be the solution to this problem."

How could one possibly believe that the imposition of a legal remedy on 42,000 teachers who have spoken loudly and clearly and say they don't want it, who speak on behalf of public education, who speak on behalf of the parents of this province…? I think it's fairly clear for a variety of reasons too numerous to enumerate here…. It appears that the public of British Columbia has woken up to the fact that after 11 years, when they contrast the public education system today to what it was 11 years ago, they've concluded that we're not doing the job we should be.

I say "we," hon. Speaker. I'm trying to be kind here today in proffering my support for the motion. Perhaps the opposition didn't yell loud enough. Perhaps we didn't reason well enough. Perhaps we didn't make it clear enough on behalf of our constituents that they weren't satisfied with what was happening. It wasn't just the teachers. It was the parents. It was the parents of special needs kids. It was the parents who were anxious to get their kids into programs at various schools that they couldn't. It was all those people accepting and understanding that the hope for our future is indeed our children.

After all — and I try to say this with as little sarcasm as I can muster…. How long ago was it — 2005, the throne speech? The government introduced their five great goals. Former Premier Campbell…. No. 1 was making B.C. the most educated and literate jurisdiction in North America by 2010. We know that in 2007 that goal got shoved back a bit to 2015, so we've still got an opportunity.

Let's just assume for a moment that all British
[ Page 9977 ]
Columbians shared in that goal, were inspired by that possibility that we would be the most educated and literate jurisdiction in North America. Let's just say we can still achieve it by 2015.

What this motion speaks to is…. How in heaven's name are we going to get to that goal in three years when you are imposing contracts on the very people, most of whom — I think I am fair when I say this — are the products of our public education system, in whom the taxpayers directly and indirectly have invested literally millions and millions of dollars over many decades educating? How are we possibly going to get to that goal when you are imposing on people who care about public education an arrangement that they do not find acceptable?

They have made it very clear. I would have thought the numbers on the lawns of the Legislature the other day, the thousands of British Columbian teachers, ordinary citizens, supporters, children and students who came to say to this government in no uncertain terms: "Do not do this…." One would have thought that would be enough, that it wasn't in the best interest of public education to legislate teachers back to work, that it was better to mediate.

This is a fleeting opportunity. I had a little time earlier today. I wanted to check the wording of some of Robbie Burns's poetry. I came across a couple of lines — "Tam O'Shanter." I used to read it to my sainted grandmother, who imposed on me her will and her belief about the value of public education.

There's a little portion there.

But pleasures are like poppies spread,

you seize the flower, its bloom is shed;

Or like the snowfall in the river,

a moment white, then melts for ever.

Or like the borealis race,

that flit ere you can point their place;

Or like the rainbow's lovely form

evanishing amid the storm,

Nae man can tether time nor tide.

[1725]

Deputy Speaker: If I can draw you back to the amendment.

L. Krog: I am, hon. Speaker. My point is this: "Time nor tide." This is the opportunity. This is precisely that moment. If this government continues to jam this legislation through, that opportunity to step back from the brink, as my friend, the previous speaker, said — to step back from the precipice — is gone.

The teachers will know and believe that this is about politics in the raw, rough sense — not public policy, not improving public education, not enhancing the learning experience of our children or our grandchildren. The member for Chilliwack, I'm sure, has a few of them in the public school system with the numbers he's got.

This is not going to make their lives or their educational experience better. It is not going to create the new bright, young generation that we need to take over when some of us old war horses get a little too tired of doing this. This is that opportunity. This is that time. This is that moment.

It's why I use a little Robbie Burns. You know, he's a radical sort of guy. He said:

If I'm design'd yon lordling's slave —

By Nature's law design'd —

Why was an independent thought

E'er planted on my mind?

What are we trying to encourage in students? Critical thinking. That's what public education is about — that's what good teachers do — to think critically.

And that's the job of the opposition — to think critically, to criticize the government, to take them to task where it's appropriate and, on the odd occasion — and they are much less frequent than they have been in the history of some parties in power in this province — compliment them and say thank you for a job well done, indicate to them that they're on the right course. But they're not, in this instance. They're not. We know that. That's why we have been debating this bill for the last few days. That's why this motion is before the House now.

Many have spoken to the importance of a mediation process that would be far better for public education — brighter, greater, smarter and cleverer people than I. B.C. School Trustees president Michael McEvoy stated: "If there is any opportunity whatsoever that it can be done through mediation, and that was the focus of a lot of discussion, then what's the harm in giving that a try." Trustees want a conclusion quickly, but they don't see back-to-work legislation as a resolution.

If the government is under the illusion, somehow, that the passion of our public educators for public education is somehow going to be crushed or thwarted by this legislation, then surely those voices we heard on the lawn of the Legislature the other day, surely the e-mails they have been receiving and surely the letters and the interviews and the speeches of the president, Susan Lambert, and the comments of the members of this House representing their constituents and their constituents' interests must tell them in no uncertain terms that it isn't going to work. It will not succeed.

So what the member for Juan de Fuca is saying is: "Look, here's the time." Now is the time. Now is the hour. Take advantage of it. Seize the day. Carpe diem. Send it to mediation. You know, it's not as if only one side was saying: "Let's continue to talk." I mean, if someone is shooting at you, it's probably a good indication that talking is over. But what were the employers saying? The employers' letter to the Labour Relations Board in support of the Teachers Federation request for mediation said:

"In BCPSEA's view, mediation can, in the appropriate circumstances, be…effective…in assisting a union and an employer to reach a collective agreement. As essentially a continuation of negotiations under the control and supervision of a neutral third party,
[ Page 9978 ]
the mediation begins with the progress to date and the necessary interest and commitment to identify the matters at issue, prioritize, and conclude an agreement.

[1730]

"The primary responsibility to reach an agreement rests solely with the parties themselves, as the union and employer must live with the result of the deal. In order to gauge the utility of mediation, it is necessary to review the bargaining process and results to date in totality."

Surely, when everyone is talking about mediation, it would be time now in this chamber to listen to that proposal.

Now, the BCCPAC president, Ann Whiteaker — I've known her, hon. Speaker, since she was a little girl — said in an article: "Perhaps, rather than waiting till the end, after seven months of failed negotiations, to appoint a mediator, perhaps a mediator has to be appointed at the beginning. There is a long history of conflict between the Teachers Federation and the government, and that being said, perhaps this is a tool that they could use in the future. Just start with a mediator."

Well, we know it's too late to start with a mediator — all right? We know it's too late to start with a mediator, but do we know that it's too late to finish with a mediator? Do we know that we have reached…? Do we know? Can we say with certainty, can we say with complete, moral certainty, that we have reached that point where it will be impossible for a mediator to succeed?

We understand the issues. British Columbians understand the issues. They are acutely aware of what proposals have been back and forth between the parties around wages, classroom conditions, all of those things. I think British Columbians are more intensely aware of what goes on in classrooms today than they were at any time in the last decade or two, and British Columbians, by and large, to the members — at least on this side of the House who've chosen to get up and speak — are saying: "Talk. Sit down. Get around the table." Even the teachers themselves have postponed the vote on whether or not they go out for another day.

Now, I've practised law for a few years now. And sometimes, you know, you just get the read on the other side that maybe there's a chance of settlement or negotiation. If the teachers were really anxious for a good old-fashioned, knock-down, drag-out fight, would they have postponed that vote? I don't think so. I think they have said to the government, as does the motion before the House: "Let's just step back a little bit. Let's talk some more. Let's employ a mediator. Let us try and make this work. Let us see if there is some alternative to the legislation."

It is abundantly clear from the wording of Bill 22 what the end result will be. To describe the mediator who will be appointed pursuant to the terms of the bill as being able to reach some fair-minded, independent conclusion within the confines of that legislation…. No one believes that. I don't think the Minister of Education believes that. I don't think the Premier believes that. And gosh knows, on this side of the House we don't believe it either.

What we're saying through the motion is: "Give us that opportunity — both sides. Give us the opportunity to come to a successful conclusion in the best interest of the students, in the best interest of public education."

If there's one thing we have learned, I would hope, through the various experiences of various governments legislating teachers back to work…. Unless there is some sense that it is fair — some belief that, as difficult as it may be to swallow, it's essentially going to resolve some issues in a way that can be even remotely seen as fair — unless that is the case, this will not solve the problems in our classrooms. This will not enhance morale amongst our teachers. This will not make students feel better. This will not make public education better.

[1735]

All we know for sure is that right now you have two parties — the employers, essentially the government, on one side, and the teachers on the other — and they're not talking. They're not talking today. They're not meeting today. They're not sitting around a table trying to resolve this. They're not achieving anything for the best interests of public education or the best interests of students. They are essentially living in different places.

What this motion says is: "Come together." If there is one thing we have in British Columbia, we have a remarkable number of individuals, great mediators, people who have mediated and arbitrated all kinds of disputes who, I am sure, being the high-minded people that they are, would love the opportunity to sit down with both sides, to bring about a resolution, to be able to go back to the government of British Columbia, which has got itself in a particularly nasty pickle here, and be able to say: "We've arrived at a resolution."

Now, it may be a resolution that puts off some issues that maybe the government has to legislate at that point. Maybe it does, but I don't believe it's too late. We know that up until the introduction of this bill the teachers and the employers didn't believe it was too late. We know clearly now, through the opposition, we don't believe that it's too late.

That's what this motion speaks to. It speaks to that opportunity to dialogue, to arrive at a resolution, because a labour dispute in British Columbia is not exactly an unknown aspect of our history.

I know that for some here it may come as a great surprise, but we've actually had a labour relations code since the great days of Dave Barrett as Premier. And when it was introduced, it was the model in North America. That bright young fellow Paul Weiler was responsible for helping to prepare it, first chair of the Labour Relations Board, as I recall. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant I think concurs with my conclusion and memory of that.

The existing Labour Relations Code provides for a number of processes to resolve labour disputes. You
[ Page 9979 ]
know, I hate that cliché "the toolbox." It's just so beaten to death. I mean, there are a number of clichés.

The member for Vancouver-whatever happens to agree with me. I think she hates the concept of the toolbox too. But the reality….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh, she loves it, she tells me. Well, then I'll talk about the toolbox for a few minutes, to bring pleasure to her in this chamber.

The toolbox of the Labour Relations Code has a number of ways of resolving disputes. Section 74: "Either party can apply to the mediation division of the board for an appointment of a mediator after collective bargaining is in process." Well, I think we can safely say collective bargaining between the teachers and the employers has been in process for quite a while, so we've certainly met that legal test, which is what the amendment speaks to. "The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services can also appoint a mediator" if they feel "that a mediator will likely assist the parties."

There were a couple of options right there — three, actually, in some respects. The employers could have gone to the labour board, the employees of the BCTF could have done it. Or the Minister of Labour could have stepped up to the plate, pounded the cabinet table and said: "You know what? We don't have to do this. We don't have to introduce this rather silly bill, in some respects, with that ridiculous name, the Education Improvement Act." That will become one of the great political jokes of B.C. history, but that's another day's discussion.

There were several options, and in this case we know that the employees, through the BCTF, the teachers, said: "Let's do it." We know that the employers in this case — the nominal employers, because we know the government is running the show — said: "Sure, we'll do it too." But the government — nah, wasn't going to do it.

[1740]

There's also the appointment of a special mediator. The minister could have appointed a special mediator, specified terms of reference, helped the union and employer negotiate a collective agreement, keep the minister informed of it — again, maybe a solution. I just don't understand why, when we have this wonderful opportunity to resolve this dispute, the government wouldn't take it.

You know, this is not Troy. We're not shoving a horse at the government here — okay? That's not what this is about. This is about an opportunity. Instead of continuing to fill the passages of some modern Iliad with blood on the floor and both sides looking worse for wear, the government could simply accept this opportunity.

"Nae man can tether time nor tide." Now's the time. Let the government accept this opportunity. Let the government respond. Let some member on that side….

The member for West Van–Capilano — an intelligent man, a well-educated man. I know that he is struck by the logic of the argument of the opposition on this, by the logic of the motion of the member for Juan de Fuca. I suggest strongly that someone on the other side stand up and say: "You know what? This makes sense."

Let's just do the smart thing for once in here. Instead of arguing, get the parties back together, pass the motion and give the opportunity for a mediator to do their work. No harm is going to come from it — no harm. Nothing can get worse as a result of having a good old-fashioned discussion. I just want to say to the members: "Take advantage of it. Take the offered gift."

M. Karagianis: I'm very pleased to take my place in this discussion and debate on the amendment that the member for Juan de Fuca has put forward.

I'd first like to point out that it is both a reasoned and a reasonable amendment. It would seem to me very obvious to British Columbians right now that we are at a bit of an impasse between the government and the teachers in this province.

Despite the fact that we are several days into a debate here, the government now seems to have downed its opportunity, its tools, in this debate and has not joined in and had its positions put forward on this debate for some time now. So it would seem to me that we have reached an impasse, both outside this House and inside this House.

The opportunity that the member for Juan de Fuca has taken to put forward a very reasonable amendment at this point really is throwing a lifeline to all sides of the debate. It's my hope that the government would take it seriously and give it serious consideration.

The crux of this amendment really is about this concept of an independent mediator. In the last few days we have certainly seen the mixed messages that have come from the government side on where they stand with regard to this dispute with the teachers. We've had the minister talk about reasoned and moderate consideration of the bill, Bill 22. We've had the Premier, however, talk about really wanting to ramp this up and have some kind of a real old-fashioned fight with both teachers and, perhaps, members of the opposition.

It sort of defies logic that we would see a Premier behave in this way — not take her place in the debate up to this point. Hopefully, she will find this amendment reasonable enough and provocative enough that it will tempt her to come out and speak to this, if nothing else.

We certainly saw, when the bill was first tabled here in the House, that the Premier, within minutes of it, really wanted to get into a real fiery and passionate debate here. A bit premature, I will say, at that point, because we weren't actually debating it. Unfortunately, her lack of familiarity with the way the processes are in the Legislature was somewhat embarrassing for us all to watch.
[ Page 9980 ]

Perhaps now, with this very reasoned amendment before us and this very reasonable offer that the member for Juan de Fuca has put forward with this amendment, there is an opportunity for the government to both move past the impasse that it finds itself in with teachers and that it also takes the opportunity to move to the heart of this amendment, which is about independent mediation.

[1745]

I will certainly want to talk more about the heart of the bill and the reasons why this motion is so necessary at this point, but I think that someone outside this House probably says this better than I do.

I received hundreds of letters from parents, from teachers and most notably from students in my community who seem very, very passionately engaged in watching what's happening with the government as they have this dispute with teachers, with the procedure of this Bill 22 through the House. They have sent me some exceptional letters — exceptionally well written, exceptionally well thought out from students who seem amazingly wise and bright about this topic.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is from a young woman at Esquimalt High School in my community, who writes to me personally and speaks very much to the heart of this amendment that the member for Juan de Fuca has put forward, calling for independent mediation. She says:

"As a concerned high school student, I'm writing to you about the recently proposed Bill 22. The restrictions imposed on the mediator suggested by the B.C. Liberal party are shocking. If a mediator can't mediate without restrictions, are they still a mediator? The confining conditions included in clause 27, section 3, directly contradict the changes necessary to rescue B.C.'s school system.

"I am a student at Esquimalt High School and therefore a qualified witness to recommend a non-partisan mediator be allowed to rule on class size and composition as well as to consider allowing teachers the freedom to adapt education to their classes. I believe that ignoring the opinion of the students is dangerous, as they are the most qualified to speak on the situation.

"Last year I packed my school bag five minutes before the end of social studies. It was a race to get to chemistry in time to win a coveted desk or sit on the counters in the back of the room instead. In our class of 37 chemistry-hungry grade 11s, seven students were denied their learning because they were relegated to the wasteland of the standing-room-only at the back of the class.

"How does the government justify legalizing the degradation of B.C.'s education? Class size is not discrimination, just common sense. It's a simple sign of respect for B.C. students."

Hon. Speaker, it seems to me that that is a profound message from a grade 11 student, and it speaks very much to the amendment that we have before us. I would say that if the students in school can actually see the wisdom of putting in place an independent mediator, then it is incumbent upon the government to give serious consideration to this reasoned amendment that the member for Juan de Fuca has put forward.

I have many other things I wish to say on this. I'd like to bring into this chamber more words of wisdom from the students who live in my community who are watching this debate with great interest because it is their future at stake.

I will take that opportunity to do that in the future, but noting the time, I will move adjournment of the debate.

M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

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

N. Simons: My questions continue about Community Living B.C., the stand-alone Crown agency responsible for looking after the needs of people with developmental disabilities in our province. Recently, after what was a firestorm, I guess, at the end of 2011 there was some announcement of change, and some reports were done.

Many in the community were concerned that a new vision was being established. It was often referred to in press announcements that CLBC was going to engage in a new visioning process. I'm wondering how many community groups were involved in that visioning.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Could I just ask for a clarification? Are you referencing the CLBC strategic plan or the work that will be ongoing after the deputy minister's report?
[ Page 9981 ]

N. Simons: The issue is more to do with the overall vision of CLBC. You know, I can quote that CLBC has "lost its way." I'm assuming that once one loses one's way, one looks for a map, but this map for CLBC was purportedly going to be determined by someone, whether it's by the board or by the ministry or by CLBC itself.

I'm wondering. The changes that have occurred and the changes that are likely to occur are being determined somehow. Where is the voice of the community in those changes?

[1435]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Let me frame this in terms of there are really two sets of work that need to be done and are being done. Firstly, CLBC is working to sort of get back to the vision that it was created with, the vision of families and advocates and government when we all came together to decide that there was a better way to serve people with disabilities and that people with disabilities should live full and inclusive lives in their communities. So it's a recognition that individuals and families need to be an integral part of that process.

A lot of the work that's being done there relates back to the interim report from the board and my direction to them in response to do that work and to get back to that original vision and that way of working with families.

As well, much of the work ahead cannot be done without engagement with community, with families, with stakeholders, with all of the groups that are so integral to service delivery for people with developmental disabilities. That needs to happen along with CLBC and along with the work that government needs to do internally to develop a one-policy framework for delivering services to people with disabilities in the province.

We've taken some time, and we're going to take a little bit more time, to determine how best to do that engagement and how to have that engagement inform how we design any changes to the system going forward. At this point that work is still underway, but certainly, none of the go-forward can happen without the involvement of those stakeholder groups.

N. Simons: So far the changes that are going forward are being designed and put into place seemingly without much input from community groups.

[1440]

There's a list of people that the Queenswood folks spoke to, and they don't include, as far as I can tell, much consultation with advocates or service providers. They do rely extensively on consultation with people within CLBC, within the Ministry of Social Development, but I don't see….

The report itself doesn't indicate that there has been a lot of broad discussion or consultation. Could the minister explain that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Let me clarify for the member. The Queenswood report and the things they lay out in there are strictly background on which we are formulating go-forward plans, but the way forward is actually summarized in the deputy minister's working group and informed by the meetings that I and my deputy have had over the last number of months with service providers, advocates, families — the broad community of folks that are intimately connected to this sector.

[1445]

Certainly, by doing that work and going out and listening to the concerns of all those groups and in hearing what they believe the issues to be, we believe that we got the issues at hand correct in the report — where the work needs to happen. In the response to the report, we feel that is the case.

But the go-forward is what we're planning now, which is how best to engage with all of those groups on the specific aspects and the specific points listed in the deputy minister's report as areas of work that needs to be done. That work has not yet been done. The engagement with those groups on all of those aspects is what we're planning now.

Just so the member is aware, if he's not, the groups that I have been meeting with and listening to and hearing from include but are not limited, of course, to the B.C. Association for Community Living and their associated agencies, the B.C. CEO Network, the Family Support Institute, numerous individual families and individuals, numerous service providers, the Federation of Child and Family Services and many others. I've also met with the advocacy coalition, Moms on the Move and the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities and that broader coalition as well.

By no means are those conversations complete. They are ongoing and will continue to be ongoing moving forward, once we have planned an effective way to engage on each of the go-forward actions.

N. Simons: What was the makeup and structure of the deputy minister's review? Who did they talk to? Who did they engage with to come up with the plans, on how to come up with plans? Who was consulted?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The deputy minister's working group was that — a deputy minister's working group. Primarily, the work in terms of pulling together the report and recommendations was their work. That said, the internal audit group was also provided by CLBC with a list of groups and agencies and so on, much similar to the list I mentioned in my previous answer, to consult with while doing their work.

My deputy, Mark Sieben, was involved in many of the conversations that I had with different agencies and service providers as well during the process. He was my conduit for that information I was learning and the questions
[ Page 9982 ]
I was hearing and the issues that were presented to me, back to that committee.

N. Simons: Okay. Well, thank you very much. That's good to know.

I'm wondering. We're at the stage now where we've had the internal audit, the deputy minister's working group, the Queenswood report, and now we are planning how to go from here.

In this part now we're going to include the broader community and how to implement the 12 recommendations or address the concerns raised. So we don't have to look at the Queenswood report — right? The deputy minister's working group has come up with the 12-point plan.

Am I correct that the 12 points are now going to be the structure of change in CLBC?

[1450]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We, the government, are committed to delivering on all of the things listed in the deputy minister's report. There is a great deal of work that will need to go into doing that, and a great deal of information will inform each of those steps.

N. Simons: Could the minister tell me what the process is and what the timelines are for the implementation of the changes that are likely to occur?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I have identified already, the scope of the work is considerable, so we are taking a little time at the beginning here to plan the work. As such, an ADM has been assigned in my ministry to look at the coordination of work that needs to happen on a cross-government basis, on the one-government approach that we are referencing. That has occurred as well.

The ADM of policy, sitting beside me, has been assigned, as well, to start and continue work on engagement with families and service providers and to start to ensure that they are being kept apprised of the progress at this point. We'll be working through that more fully.

I have requested and anticipate receiving the first plan for work over the year to be delivered to me sometime in the next couple of weeks for my review and advice that will seek to outline the timeline for the work ahead.

N. Simons: One of the issues not raised in the deputy minister's report was the issue around closure of group homes. It seems to have been something…. "What's done is done, and it's in the past." I'm not sure if that serves to engender confidence in the system that purportedly is self-examining in order to improve.

I appreciate, and I think the people who are impacted by Community Living B.C. appreciate that there is some introspection, but introspection, I think, has to begin with acknowledgment.

[1455]

Perhaps the acknowledgment has been made that some people have been forced from their group homes against their will. But the numbers suggest that there were over 200 people displaced from their group homes, and likely, if not in all cases, then in a vast majority of cases, those individuals were placed in home-share arrangements. If I'm wrong, I would appreciate clarification on that. Where did those people go?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it's important that we address this, so I'm glad you've raised it. I said publicly, early on in my tenure, that I wanted CLBC to address this issue in the interim report they provided to me. In my response I said that moves from group homes would occur only when there were circumstances as were listed in page 12 of the interim report, only when there were no alternatives, and that for people living in group homes, those group homes had to be viewed as their home.

I was very clear on that fact. In fact, CLBC has modified or changed their policy to match my direction on that issue. So now only in extreme circumstances — and those are listed — would that be acceptable. Moves from group homes must be agreed to by the individual and their family, except when there is no alternative.

I will address for you…. Of the individuals who have been moved, because over the past two years 67 group homes have closed…. From the homes, 179 individuals have transitioned to other residential arrangements.

However, I would like to read into the record that 99 moved to other staffed residential facilities — other group homes; 55 to shared living arrangements; 11 to supports for independent living; one to long-term care. One individual is supported by Community Living British Columbia but is no longer receiving residential services of any type, and 11 are deceased.

N. Simons: I'm glad to have had the opportunity to hear that enumerated — for the first time, I would say, since the issue was raised. You know, 67 group homes in the last two years…. But even the residential options review happened long before the most recent attempt. Over the last five years, I could say, you'd probably want to double that number, at least.

So the number of adults who were formerly provided services in staffed facilities has decreased significantly over the last four years. The numbers speak for themselves. I think that's a significant number. You also, combined with that, see the explosion in the number of home shares as the first entry for people with community living residential needs — the first entry, as opposed to ever going to a group home first.

Combined with the influx of the 55 individuals identified going to home share, including those who came out of group homes through the residential options review, combined with those who are transitioning to adult-
[ Page 9983 ]
hood into new living arrangements or whose parents are aging and need residential options…. How many people — did we say this? — are actually living in home share right now?

[1500]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll come back to that.

Firstly, I'd like to clarify for you that in addition to the 179 individuals that I listed there and their new arrangements, which include 99 in a new staffed residential facility, there were an additional 225 individuals who received new staffed residential services over that same period. In fact, there are more people in staffed residential today than there were a year ago.

If I could just take a moment now to get the answer for your second question.

Thank you for that brief recess there. The number of individuals in shared living was canvassed earlier this morning. I do have the exact numbers now. That is 2,920 people who are in home-sharing or shared living arrangements — so 1,459 individuals served by an agency-contracted home share and 1,439 individuals that are served in home-sharing, where they are contracted directly by CLBC. A further 22 individuals are receiving live-in supports in their home.

N. Simons: Does the minister have any indication as to how many of those 1,479 are supervised by non-profit agencies and how many are in for-profit companies?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We don't have that information here but will be happy to provide it to you.

N. Simons: That would be interesting.

Can the minister tell us if there are any current reviews over quality of care being conducted on agencies in this province right now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is one currently underway, and that is Fairview Management in Prince Rupert.

N. Simons: I'm asking because I think there are increasing concerns about the oversight of home share. I think that because of the rapid growth, I suppose, of home-share and shared arrangements, there may not be the concomitant increase in supervision capability.

From one of Kim Lyster's reports on one particular agency, it was rather concerning, I would say. Some of the quotes in that particular report indicated that perhaps there is something missing from oversight.

Accreditation is one thing, but actual checking on individuals…. I think about it in the context of maybe just the 55. Maybe it's not 99. Maybe it's 55 people who have moved out of group homes into home share.

How are they doing? Who is making sure they're all right? I'd like to say I know that most home-share providers provide excellent quality of care, but sometimes, when they're distanced from government oversight, perhaps the checks and balances aren't there.

[1505]

According to one report, there was a concern around how fast people were matched with home shares, how fast people had to be paired up with the home-share provider.

Perhaps the minister can tell me if there is a specific standard, on average, for how long it takes between the time someone is identified for a home share and the time that they are actually placed in a home-share arrangement.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Obviously, the oversight of home-sharing situations is incredibly important. There are a couple of things that are in place, and I'm not sure if you're aware of them. The first is that over the last fiscal year — for the entire last fiscal year, at least — the funding that is provided to home-share agencies was increased so that the funded ratio is now one FTE per 25 home-share arrangements. That FTE is there to enable them to do the oversight, specifically.

As a result of the review that you mentioned, CLBC met with CARF, which is the accrediting body, and CARF has agreed to increase the standards that are required for accreditation. They will be working with the service providers, the home care providers that provide very good care to those 2,900 people in the province, to ensure that the standards are there to ensure everyone's safety and well-being.

There is no set time frame for a home-share match. Obviously, the match is of the utmost importance in ensuring that somebody is comfortable in their environment.

[1510]

Obviously, a good match is very important, so it sometimes takes a very long time, months and more, to find that correct match for an individual. Sometimes families and the individual meet with a number of providers and caregivers before a match is found.

So I can't give you an exact number there. There's no set time. It's about finding the right match.

N. Simons: I would presume that those people are on the request-for-services list. Everybody waiting for a home share, actively being contemplated for a home share, is on the request…. There must be some indication somewhere of how many people are actually waiting for that service, if in fact sometimes it takes a long time. Does the ministry have those numbers?

Just to add to that question, what was the number, the ratio of FTE to home shares, before that change occurred?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are 634 people on the request-for-service list requesting shared living; 473 of those people are currently receiving services from CLBC and
[ Page 9984 ]
may in fact be in another residential arrangement at this time and requesting shared living. Of that 634, some 161 are not currently receiving other services from CLBC.

In regards to your question about the ratio, it was not consistent previously. It ranged from 1 FTE to 30 to 1 FTE to 40, depending on the circumstance. It has now been standardized and improved to the ratio of 1 to 25.

N. Simons: So these agencies…. I guess you've mentioned that already. They all got increases in their contracts in order to provide increased supervision.

There were concerns around training as well. Many home-share providers working for one particular private agency said that they didn't get any training, any support. I'm wondering if the minister has seen fit to increase FTEs to address training and support as well.

[1515]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The agreement that CLBC has come to with agencies that are providing home-sharing includes funding for the provision of training to caregivers. The funding is provided per individual in shared living. Therefore, as the number increases in terms of the number of individuals who are supported, the funding to the agency increases as well.

N. Simons: In fact, the 1 FTE per 25 home share includes training, supervision, monitoring and support.

Hon. S. Cadieux: They're separate training dollars per individual in home share. That is not the same as the FTE provided for on the 1-to-25 ratio for oversight.

N. Simons: Is there a dollar figure associated with each individual?

Hon. S. Cadieux: That's not a number we have with us, but we're happy to get it for you.

N. Simons: But the minister's response is that funding is directly associated with training, with support, with monitoring per individual home-share client.

Hon. S. Cadieux: That is correct.

N. Simons: I guess the concern that was raised has to do with the monitoring from within a private agency on how well they're doing. Accreditation aside, I know the company that was, I think, harshly criticized was an accredited agency. I'm not sure whether people necessarily can be entirely confident that accreditation in and of itself is going to guarantee any particular level of service.

Is the minister aware of the contract provisions that prohibit employees of private social service agencies from raising their concerns with Community Living B.C. directly?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Could I ask you to just restate that, to clarify for us so we can answer it correctly?

N. Simons: In the Lyster report it was identified that many home-share providers who were subcontracted by WJS and Associates…. It required that "the contractor not circumvent or attempt to resolve any issue with the company, other than by dealing with them directly."

[1520]

Obviously, that speaks for itself, but it doesn't allow an individual home-share provider to raise a systemic concern.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, indeed we are aware of the review and the recommendations. In fact, the agency has addressed those recommendations. That review was what led CLBC to speak to CARF and ask for a more robust standards for accreditation for home-share agencies.

N. Simons: My understanding was that the company was already accredited and that it wasn't the lack of accreditation or the presence of accreditation — which found, for example, that several binders were missing…. Documentation was missing. No evidence of due diligence. Information was limited on individuals. It goes on and on.

It's not about accreditation and whether or not the standards are increased in the accreditation standards. It's about oversight. When you have a company…. I understand that the company in question prides itself on being leaders in the privatization of social services. Perhaps there's a profit issue that forces them to charge for training programs.

Is the minister aware that some providers of umbrella home-share contracts charge home-share providers for training?

[1525]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To answer the member's question: no, that had not been brought to my attention as an issue. We fund the agencies through CLBC, both for-profit agencies and non-profit home-share agencies, to provide training.

Our expectation is and continues to be that they provide that training to their home-share caregivers without charge. If the member has a situation he would like to bring forward to me that is contrary to that, I would be very interested to look into that and investigate.

In addition, I would just like to reference that, certainly, oversight is an issue, and it remains one of the most important things that we can do and ensure. CLBC has put in place regular meetings between CLBC and the agencies, to look at all of the issues related to making sure the contracts are being followed and that all of the proper precautions, etc., are in place.

As well, that was put forward this spring — the mon-
[ Page 9985 ]
itoring framework — that CLBC does visit each service provider to ensure that those things are followed. Many of the things that the review brought forward are the same things that that monitoring framework seeks to ensure.

[1530]

N. Simons: I think that the problem I'm…. I don't mean to create a problem when there isn't one, but it was the WJS-Lyster report that identified that training was too expensive and that the home-share providers had to arrange their own respite in order to go and get the training, which, I presume, was mandated somewhere. Mandated by the government in their contract or mandated by the agency? I don't know.

You know, it's one thing to say that there's monitoring within the private company that's providing the services, and it's another thing to say whether that's actually what's taking place. How is the government going to ensure…? I don't want to just say it's the private agencies. There needs to be a good oversight process whether you're a private company or not.

In the private company I suppose you are looking to make sure that you can make money. I presume, as well, that you make money regardless of what your agency is being provided by CLBC. But if you're a private society, I don't suppose that's the same issue. So if they're making money off training, maybe they're saving money off supervision. I don't know if that's the case, but it certainly, in my mind, raises a few concerns.

So despite the accreditation, which we know doesn't necessarily imply better service, and despite the addition of FTEs for agencies to provide supervision, how is CLBC itself ensuring that its clients are being cared for by qualified individuals who are providing the necessary level of care?

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll answer this question by sort of laying out the layers of things that are in place to ensure individual safety.

First of all, that's the accreditation process. The agencies have to get accreditation and maintain it.

Secondly, we have Community Living B.C.'s monitoring framework, which ensures the consistent application and adherence to standards by the service providers. That includes staff from CLBC visiting the agencies to ensure that indeed those things are in place and being done. It includes the review of records of training and records of visits to the home-share providers to ensure those things are in place.

On top of that, we have in place the Advocate for Service Quality, which of course is there to review and intervene in circumstances where individuals or others are bringing forward concerns.

Finally, there's the client service team. It's a go-forward that is there, as well, to look into certain circumstances where anyone feels that there aren't adequate services being provided or where something may be off the rails. That's certainly there as a backup as well.

N. Simons: I think that the minister has just pointed to a bit of a gap. The monitoring framework, I'm sure, applies to the direct contracts that CLBC has undertaken with home-share providers. But judging from what I've read in terms of the one agency that was reviewed by Kim Lyster…. Let me just quote.

"Many home-share providers indicated they hadn't received sufficient introductory information on the person they were going to serve, particularly with respect to challenging behaviours and levels of personal care needs. Serviced individuals with specific disabilities — such as FASD, autism spectrum or unusual genetic conditions — were similarly not always supplemented with resources to support the success of home-share situations.

"Similarly, service providers did not always appear to have the qualifications or experience necessary, specific to the support needs associated with some disabilities."

It goes on. It says:

"It was not possible to confirm that home-share providers had received training….

"Some say instances of problems in the homes were dramatic, frequent, and injury to the service providers was a real possibility.

"In several instances, references weren't complete, resumés were not on file, and copies of credentials were not included. Although interviews are expected to be conducted in every instance, evidence of those interviews is not on file.

"These deficiencies create a challenge in confirming that due diligence has been performed in the recruitment of service providers and that they meet even the minimum standards of suitability."

Now, I could be relieved that the minister knows of the importance of monitoring, but what's happening on the ground suggests that that's maybe not happening enough. Maybe it's not happening in every situation. Maybe there's a reliance on self-reporting. That, I think, would be inadequate, in my opinion.

Does the monitoring framework…? The staff…. If they had visited that facility — had they not identified it before a special investigation took place — would they not look at those same things? What would they do if they came across a…?

I'm presuming that the monitoring framework applies to all agencies and all service providers. Maybe I should confirm that I'm correct in that assumption.

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The monitoring framework that is now in place is something that CLBC identified as something that needed enhancement and needed to be in place. It came into force around the same time as this review. This review is an excellent example of something that needs to be done periodically. It's a piece of due diligence that CLBC embarks on to find if there are issues and to then take those learnings and make changes and apply those changes across the system, which is exactly what the monitoring system is in place to do.
[ Page 9986 ]

N. Simons: Well, with due respect, the Lyster report was as a result of crises. The minister, on one hand, says that CLBC has ongoing monitoring and, on the other hand, says that is the standard way that changes are going to be made and systems will be improved.

We shouldn't wait for a crisis. We shouldn't wait until caregivers have, placed with them, people with challenges that they're unable to deal. We shouldn't wait until they're put in a position of having their well-being threatened. We shouldn't be waiting for that kind of circumstance to arise. I don't think that we wait for the worst-case scenario before we start figuring out better ways of doing things.

[1545]

If in fact the monitoring process is strong, these kinds of situations, where clients and caregivers are supported before the problem occurs.… I think that would be far better for everyone.

I'm not really that comforted by the fact that the minister says reports like the Lyster report are the foundation for improvement of service. Perhaps it's just one of the checks, and maybe the monitoring framework is supposed to provide that. But it clearly didn't in the case of this Lyster report.

What happened here? My question to the minister is: what happened here that the system that existed failed to address the concerns later identified in the Lyster report?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Let me clarify again in case perhaps the way I stated that confused the member opposite. What I stated was that CLBC recognizes the need for robust monitoring processes and, as such, was in the process of implementing a more robust monitoring process. That process went into effect, coincidentally, around the same time as this report came out.

The report itself, I'm saying, is an example, though, of due diligence where there was a concern raised. The report and the findings of the report raised concerns that can then be addressed. It's an important piece that when something comes forward and is looked into and deemed to be inadequate, correction occur and that that correction then be a learning to improve the system as a whole and not just one circumstance or one instance, for the learnings to then be applied on the larger scale, which certainly is the case here.

N. Simons: I appreciate that clarification. I think that it would be nice to see what the monitoring framework looks like. I'd love to see the standards that CLBC has for monitoring private agencies, non-profit agencies, direct home-share providers. I think that would be useful.

One of the other things that was raised in the Lyster report was the issue of conflict of interest. Maybe at the time that was one thing that the government was already interested in looking at, but it certainly doesn't seem to have been addressed until the deputy ministers' report, which was some time later.

With respect to conflict of interest, here's a quote from the Lyster report. "Where a current employee of WJS is also a home-share provider, the contract is held by their spouse or an associate to decrease potential for conflict of interest in the pre-existing employee relationships." I'm not sure if whoever wrote this did so in order to highlight a problem with standards around conflict of interest. But is the minister aware that each individual agency providing services — whether they be day programs, employment programs, home-share programs or group homes — has their own conflict-of-interest issues separate and apart, but similar to those issues of conflict that exist in CLBC itself?

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: First, just to follow up on the last question — or the commentary by the member — about the monitoring framework. I am a little concerned that the member opposite has not requested to be briefed on or to see that in the past. We are happy to provide that to you, so I hope that request will be forthcoming, to broaden your knowledge of the monitoring processes and policies that are in place with CLBC.

Moving on to the next question around conflict of interest. Certainly, the member is aware that home-sharing is evolving from something that was not at all standardized to something that is standardized and consistent across the province. Through accreditation, there is a requirement that agencies have conflict-of-interest policies in place.

The CEO Network has provided its members with specific advice in relation to contracts and conflict-of-interest policies that are consistent with CLBC's conflict-of-interest policies.

N. Simons: Does the minister think that when an employee of a service provider is also a home-share provider and the contract is held by their spouse, that addresses the conflict of interest?

[1555]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think the simplest way to say that is that I would agree with the member. A spouse being a signatory to a contract would be a conflict of interest. That would need to be addressed through conflict-of-interest policy in another way to ensure that there was no inappropriate ability to influence that contract.

N. Simons: I just wondered, you know, because we're talking about conflict-of-interest policies for agencies and companies, and the issue of conflict of interest in the CLBC itself somehow didn't garner enough concern to have it included in the 12-point plan. But the internal audit states that there were conflicts of interest with regard to staff receiving contracts from CLBC. I believe the audit made recommendations on how to address it, but
[ Page 9987 ]
the 12-point plan, like I said, doesn't deal with it.

The deputy ministers' report says, actually: "The auditors found that potential conflicts of interest are not well managed within CLBC. Although the policy is comprehensive, its implementation is poor."

I can quote from a study from the UBC School of Social Work on home shares. That actually also talked about…. That was 2008. The potential conflicts occur when former employees of CLBC end up being caregivers. In 2008 it said the conflict-of-interest policies were not rigorous enough.

So I can ask for the conflict-of-interest policies, but that's not going to make them implemented properly. I could ask for the monitoring framework, and that's not going to make them be implemented properly. The minister may ask why I didn't ask for it, but I'm asking for it now, and that's on the record. I'll ask for the monitoring framework, and I'll be glad to see it. But that does not, in itself, guarantee that the ministry is going to follow through and monitor adequately.

Don't forget, there's a history of being told one thing by CLBC and them doing a completely different thing. I spoke to Rick Mowles directly. I spoke to him on the phone, and he said: "We don't force group homes to close." Yet obviously, they were being forced to close.

So I can ask: do you have a monitoring policy? You can tell me that you have a thorough monitoring policy.

[1600]

I can tell you that nobody was monitoring WJS to prevent what came out in the Lyster report as being, really, a scary situation for a lot of people. So I'll ask the minister: why didn't the government include something in their action plan to address the importance of rigorous conflict-of-interest policy?

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We specifically asked the internal audit group to look at the conflict-of-interest policies and procedures at CLBC as a result of concerns that were raised. They provided, in the internal audit report, a number of things that CLBC needed to do. The deputy minister working group, therefore, in their report essentially just echoed the findings of the audit report in that regard — that, indeed, those things needed to be done.

CLBC has since done all of the things requested by internal audit to ensure that the conflict-of-interest policies were being strengthened and adequately enforced, and I would be happy to walk through all of the actions taken to date, with the member outside.

The Chair: Member.

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the exciting estimates of Social Development and the subset of Community Living B.C. We're talking about conflict of interest and the concerns that were raised by the media and the public and, perhaps, concerns reflected by government.

Does the minister now believe that the policies and the enforcement of policies are rigorous enough?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, the deputy minister working group accepted the findings of the internal audit report. CLBC has now implemented all of the response to that. So for the time being, yes, but I do believe that it's something we will be monitoring on an ongoing basis to ensure that it continues to be effective.

N. Simons: Just to get off the conflict of interest for now. I think, obviously, it's going to be scrutinized, and people are going to be monitoring that.

[1605]

I just have to say that by asking questions, we don't want to imply anything about the quality of care that people can offer regardless of their relationships. But I think that's why we have good policies: in order to protect the individual providing the service as well, so that they feel that people will know they're not receiving contracts because of any particular…. It's because of their quality of care. I think that should be noted.

I have seen similar issues in the child welfare system where people are perhaps, in some cases, difficult to look after. People with experience are the ones who are there to do it. I understand that. That's why I always think that oversight is crucial to protect the integrity of the entire system, including those being served as well as those providing the service.

Now, I know that the impression among the public is often that government, in an attempt to address fiscal restraints, makes cuts to programs, makes cuts to contracts. Sometimes they do so by expecting their contractors to pass those cuts on to the direct service providers. We saw situations in the past.

I guess in some cases, some group homes were closed because the contracts they were receiving from government were reduced. So the group homes themselves or the agencies overseeing or running the group homes were saying to their clients: "You no longer qualify for that program, and we'll have to implement these cuts." Group homes were closed, obviously, using many different explanations. Some I accept, and some I still strongly disagree with, as I know the minister does now. I do appreciate that. They are their homes. That's the fundamental issue.

But when it comes to home-share budgets and agencies that are the umbrella organizations for home shares, I've heard from home-share providers who say that their contracts are being unilaterally cut. Can the minister tell me if, in fact, home-share providers are seeing their contracts being reduced?
[ Page 9988 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The short answer to the question is no. There's no unilateral change to home-share provider contracts. There have been a few examples where the guide to support allocation was used for clients, and contracts were either decreased or increased, in various circumstances, as a result of that review.

[1610]

I have heard from a couple of home-share providers myself through this process that are concerned about how some changes have been implemented in, as I say, one-off circumstances where a review has been completed. That's an example, I think, of why we have the client service team in place, because I think those are the types of examples that need to come forward and be looked at in terms of whether or not that is indeed serving the purpose for which we were hoping.

So certainly, I am aware of some concerns from some home-share providers and individuals about their individual circumstances, but no, there is no unilateral system or process in place to see any changes to home-share contracts.

N. Simons: I understand that answer. I know that group homes weren't unilaterally closed either. The GSAs showed a lower need, and the resulting reduction in funding caused some homes to close.

Can I ask about the GSA for a moment? What percentage of clients of CLBC…? I don't mean those receiving government services but the ones who are receiving CLBC services. There's a big difference. How many have actually had the GSA administered?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We don't have that number here. That's a number we're happy to provide. It's not a large number.

N. Simons: Is there any policy or design in CLBC to administer the GSA? Is there any plan to administer the GSA to all clients? I know the GSAs were performed for every individual in a group home setting. That's my understanding, but that may not be the case. I have the feeling that it may not be the case. So I'm just wondering if there's a plan in place to administer the GSA for all CLBC service recipients.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Living in the moment, there's no plan to administer this to every person receiving services. At this point, the GSA is administered when somebody is attempting to access additional or new services. But as we spoke about earlier today, this is all in the moment, as we are undertaking, through this year, a review of the cross-government assessment platforms and how we use assessment platforms to best serve clients that we serve.

[1615]

N. Simons: The minister just gave an example earlier, though, of somebody receiving fewer services after the administration of the GSA. In that case, did someone come asking for more services, and the GSA was performed, and if it was found that they actually needed less, then was that taken away from them?

I'm just wondering, because the talk in the constituency out there, in the constituents of Community Living B.C., is that the effort to rein in the costs associated…. The 5 percent growth a year in need is being reined in by reducing people's eligibility for service.

The impression in the public, many in the public, is that that was first performed on people who were living in contracted, staffed residential care and that the move is now going towards people who are receiving or are in the high range of contracts. In this case it would be home shares.

There's an impression that the GSA will now be moved and applied to people who are in home share. I suppose that would possibly result in a reduction of services. I have heard from quite a number of people who think that the GSA is still unfair and that it threatens their ability to care for people in their care.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, I have heard some of those same concerns as the member opposite from individuals in the community.

I will say a couple of things. Firstly, the GSA, the guide to support allocation, is not a tool intended to be used for the purpose of reduction in services or anything of the like. To be clear, it has not been used and is not going to be used in any systematic way to review the services provided to individuals who are in group homes or home-share circumstances, past or future.

[1620]

I know that is contrary to some of the things I've heard, in terms of the individual or community perception, but it isn't the reality. Where it is used, certainly, is where someone — either the individual, their family or a service provider — is asking for a change in the level of service provided to an individual or where an individual or their family is asking for a new service to be provided.

N. Simons: I think that answer contradicted itself — unless I was confused, which is not unusual. However, my understanding is that guide to support allocation is used to assign a number to a person's level of disability — 1 being a low level of disability, 5 being a high level of disability. With that low or high level of disability comes the need for less or more support. With less or more support comes the need for less or more financial support.

We've seen cases where someone's GSA number has gone from a 4 to a 2, and they've been moved from a group home to a home share. It seems to me that there is a direct connection between the 1-to-5 GSA number and the amount of funding available to support that person.

If that's not the case, how does telling somebody that
[ Page 9989 ]
they're a 3 or a 2 or a 5 impact on the kind of care they're getting? It doesn't say a thing. It doesn't tell the person anything.

I've seen the GSA. It's not an assessment of need. It's an assessment of level of support for that need.

Then the minister went on to say that it's used for assisting in changing the level of care, so I'm confused by the minister's answer. Will the minister please explain how the GSA is used — whether it's used for determining funding levels and whether it's used for determining levels of support? Aren't those two often related?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think the member opposite might be confusing two separate issues. My answer in the previous question was not around the use of the guide to support allocation in the way in which the member is now referencing. The way the member is now referencing — we would agree that yes, that is how it's used.

What I was referring to in the previous answer was that there is no plan to go out and review everybody who's in a shared living or a residential care situation. The use of the tool to determine level of need and so on is only triggered as a process when someone requests an additional service. Then it is used to determine what degree to which that service is required. So it's to refine the actual request, not to take something away.

N. Simons: So if a family were to come to me and say, "I'm concerned that my kid needs more respite because I can't deal with life anymore. I need a couple of hours a week," should they be afraid of asking for a couple of extra hours because a GSA is going to come along and perhaps reduce their level of care?

[1625]

There was an indication that…. The minister pointed out one case where the GSA showed lower needs. How would that GSA have been asked for, if it wasn't to ask for increased support? How would I explain to that person that the GSA didn't have anything to do with them getting services cut?

I think it has to be very clear that the GSA is used as a funding tool by the ministry. It must be used as a funding tool by the ministry. It has been in the past. We've seen it in the Kleckner case. And unless its policy has completely changed on the application of the GSA, it is a tool to determine funding levels.

If the ministry identifies a case that seems to have a high monetary value, does the government — does the ministry, does CLBC — ever say: "Oh, I need to do a GSA on them"?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I'll thank the member for that clarification in that question, because now I understand where you were going with it.

And I agree. Indeed, I had heard some of those similar stories and concerns. As well, we were made aware in the fall of some circumstances that seemed to be occurring in certain parts of the province.

Shortly after the interim CEO took over, there was a clear message to those areas of the province that that needed to change. Certainly, it was also part of the impetus for my establishment of the client support team, so that certain cases could be reviewed once again.

Is it all right, Madam Chair, if we just take a five-minute recess?

The Chair: Yes, that's fine. We'll go ahead with a recess now.

The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

M. Sather: The minister will clearly recall the unfortunate incidences or the circumstances that occurred in Maple Ridge, specifically at the Ridge Meadows recycling centre, last year wherein the government decided, through CLBC, to give notice that they were not going to renew the contract for that longstanding program with a tremendous amount of community support.

[1640]

At that time there were back-and-forth discussions between CLBC and the society, and it was decided to extend the contract. I wanted to confirm with the minister about the timing of that.

My recollection was that it was extended, initially, to the end of the year and then, subsequently, to a further period of time. I'm not quite clear what that is. Is it October of this fall? Or was it to be December of this year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member opposite: happy to clarify that for you. The contract has been extended to September 30, 2012. That is to provide time in which a new contract for ongoing can be negotiated.

M. Sather: The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand, then, that it's to be an ongoing renewal of contract — that it's not just for the one year and going to end then. If I'm wrong, she can correct me on that.

I wanted to move on to some comments that the CEO — the person acting as CEO, I guess — had said on Bill Good not long ago. He was questioned about viability and the ongoing nature of that program and what was to take place with regard to those that work there. The CEO said: "Well, no one will be relieved of their position. No one will lose their job." But that's not quite the whole, complete answer, I don't think.

My understanding is that those that are working at the facility now will retain their employment, but anyone who is newly hired will be hired for a period of time — perhaps a variable period of time — and then will be
[ Page 9990 ]
transitioned into other employment. I wonder if the minister could confirm that or give me clarification on that.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Ridge Meadows recycling is engaging in a collaborative process with CLBC to examine how the contracts are going to be delivered in the future. That's post–September 30, 2012.

That collaborative process is starting with CLBC talking to the individuals and families who are employed there. There is no difference in how people will be treated, whether or not they are newly employed there or have been employed there for a length of time. The individuals that work there all work there equally.

[1645]

No final decisions have been made in regards to what that contract looks like on a go-forward basis at this time. The collaborative discussions and those discussions with families have just started as a result of the unfortunate incident in the fall.

I certainly was out there speaking to the individuals who worked there about their experience and about the value that they place on their job and what they get from their relationship with Ridge Meadows. It's heartwarming and exciting to see, but also to see the value that the community places on Ridge Meadows Recycling. So there's certainly a lot to celebrate and to ensure continues.

M. Sather: Yes, I'm glad the minister was out — and the Premier was out — and confirmed that in her view, in fact, they are real jobs that the folks have there. That, of course, was a very serious, I'd have to say, slur on the reputation of the society and on the people who work there when CLBC said last year that they wanted to get real jobs for the workers there.

The minister talks about a collaborative process that's ongoing. But I have to say that sounds an awful lot like what was going on before the rug was pulled out from underneath the society last year. So it's very clear that the government wants to make some changes with the way that the society is being run.

I would ask the minister…. Let's not go through the kind of chaos and catastrophe we had last year. Can the minister explain, so that the community knows and I know, what the changes are that the government and CLBC are contemplating?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll reiterate that the process is starting in the sense that the most important part of that process is the discussion CLBC is having with families and individuals about what it is they like, they want to see and they don't like in regards to their employment with Ridge Meadows, or whether or not they themselves are looking to something different. If there are individuals who would like to be in a different employment arrangement of some kind, then that's the type of thing we want to enable.

This is a process in discussions about how we ensure, for the individuals who want to continue working at Ridge Meadows Recycling, that that is indeed what happens in the future. We're not going to in any way prejudge the outcome of what that looks like in the future — short of saying that there won't be any rug-pulling-out, in the sense that we don't see any reason for there not to be a continuation.

M. Sather: There's a distinct lack of clarity around what's going on here. Let's be clear. I have heard nothing from…. I talk to my constituents and our neighbours down there a lot. They are totally happy with the program they've had there. They're not asking for changes. It's CLBC that keeps coming and saying: "You have to change. You have to change."

It's parents that have told me that CLBC has suggested to them very clearly that the program is not going to be the same as it was and that one of the changes they've said you can look at is that new employees will have a period of employment and then be transitioned into more, I guess, competitive employment or some other different kind of employment.

[1650]

I really would ask the minister to give my community a little bit more — maybe a lot more — information about what the government is contemplating doing with the program at Ridge Meadows Recycling.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Let me reiterate. There's no plan or purpose in the conversations that we're having to in any way reorganize the program or change it for the individuals who work there, short of ensuring that it meets the needs of the individuals who work at Ridge Meadows Recycling and operates in the same way other CLBC employment supports work and that that workplace is indeed meeting labour standards for the province.

We're confident that we'll get there with Ridge Meadows because we all have the same goal in mind, and that is to ensure that Ridge Meadows Recycling stays open and that people continue to have their jobs there that they enjoy.

M. Sather: The minister talks about employment standards and to ensure that those are being met. That's the same thing that the government pulled out of the bag last year to shut the program down. They said: "This program is not meeting employment standards." I spoke face to face with the then executive director, the CEO, and that's what he said to me. He said: "Your program, the program out there in Maple Ridge, does not meet employment standards."

Do you know why they said that? They said that because families would drop off their loved ones who worked there in the morning, and the CLBC was quibbling about the number of hours that they actually
[ Page 9991 ]
worked there. This is a supported-employment program. People there, a lot of them — and the minister must know this; she was there — have considerable needs. They can't be expected to get out on the floor quick — like that! — like a worker in a competitive employment situation might.

[1655]

That was going to be, and was, one of the main reasons that the government said the program had to go — because it wasn't in compliance.

The minister shakes her head. I can bring back the quotes, and I will. I mean, this is disturbing, because that's exactly the language that was used last year to threaten to cancel this program — it wasn't in compliance with employment standards. Plus of course, it wasn't real work for real pay. That was the other thing that was laid on.

So the minister says there's a process. What is the process?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll just read this so that I don't miss any pieces for the member. CLBC has developed a plan to work collaboratively with Ridge Meadows to negotiate the new contract to be put in place on September 30, 2012.

The first stage, as I mentioned earlier, involves meeting with families and individuals, jointly with Ridge Meadows, to hear their views and understand what they like or would like to see different about the program.

We will also jointly meet with the mayor of Maple Ridge and the council. CLBC and Ridge Meadows Recycling will connect with employment standards to research how an employment skill development program would best be constructed in order to fall within the employment standards. Research will also be completed with WorkSafe to examine other similar programs, such as North Shore Recycling.

The target completion date for the first stage of the review is the end of this month. The second stage of the review will be created jointly by CLBC and Ridge Meadows and driven by the information gathered and confirmed in the first stage.

The ultimate goal here is to ensure that the individuals that work at Ridge Meadows Recycling have the opportunity to continue to do that.

N. Simons: I thank my colleague for asking those questions and the minister for those responses.

If we can go back to just the last point the minister made with respect to the reason why we have a client support team. Does the client support team have the authority to increase or maintain funding for a particular individual service provider or program?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The client service team has the authority to look at individuals and what their service levels and needs are and to increase funding to support an individual in a circumstance. That's where the focus is.

N. Simons: What would the focus of the Advocate for Service Quality be?

[1700]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The advocate has been in place since the late '90s and is available to assist families by bringing issues of concern for them to CLBC or service provider agencies and to assist them in resolution of those issues.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

She doesn't just work, though, with CLBC families. She is also available to clients of the Ministry of Social Development and other ministries, like the Ministry of Children and Families, to assist families that are having issues in dealing with any of their services.

She has a great track record of being able to help resolve those issues. She is an OIC appointment and reports directly to me.

N. Simons: My question was trying to suss out the difference between the responsibility of the client support team and the role of the Advocate for Service Quality. I have to say I've only heard positive reviews of the advocate, who is compassionate. This is what I hear from people who contact me.

But they seem to suggest that she doesn't have the same clout, perhaps, as the client support team. I'm just wondering: is that duplication? I suppose I could be corrected on this, but I don't think she does a lot of advocacy for MCFD unless it's, maybe, future CLBC clients or clients in transition. It is not the child welfare side, for example.

Do we have two fire extinguishers now for the same fire? Is that good? Is it doubling the capacity, or is it copying the capacity?

[1705]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is a difference. To use your reference — different fire extinguishers for different fires — the advocate focus is specific to CLBC and may interact, as you mentioned, with clients from MCFD as it relates to transition. The client support team is there because of the cross-ministry necessity of some of the situations that certainly were becoming apparent to all of us last year, specifically some very, very complex cases with some very high needs that touch on a number of ministries at once and clearly were resource-related in terms of dollars.

The client support team has the ability of then making decisions in allocation of funds which the advocate does not have the ability to do. She can advocate to some degree for individuals cross-ministry, but she can't set service levels and so on with the service team. The client
[ Page 9992 ]
service team can.

N. Simons: Just to switch channels here a little bit. The issue of individuals who are eligible for community living support services who are waiting for those services in jails or in hospitals is one that sometimes gets public attention because it just seems contrary to our values, our shared values, I think.

Yet I wonder: the extent of that problem…. I wonder if the ministry has any estimation as to how many people are waiting for appropriate services who are in really inappropriate care situations — if we can call jail care, or if we can call hospital care, because we've seen a few examples of that. Does the ministry have any idea, an estimate, of how many are waiting for services there?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would definitely agree with the member that we would have shared values as it relates to circumstances that do occasionally make themselves known to us where there are individuals who have very challenging situations that certainly have a relation to their being a person with a developmental disability but, in most cases, some other significant challenges as well. Certainly, these are very challenging, and at any given time we are aware of a few. Thankfully, it's a very small number at any given time.

[1710]

We work very hard with our partners. CLBC works very hard with the other ministries involved in the criminal justice system and the health authorities, where we can, to try and find appropriate solutions to these situations. Certainly, I think it's very clear that there is a gap in the system as it relates to some of these very challenging situations. Although it is a small number, I think that it certainly requires a cross-ministry response, and I am committed to finding some resolution to that.

N. Simons: I just want to quote from the Lyster report again with respect to that specific issue — the use of hospitals and health care.

"In the month of February alone" — I'll just leave names out of it; it's the position — "the quality service manager in the Upper Fraser region received requests for service for more than ten individuals who were in hospital and requiring crisis response service. The quality service manager for Surrey-Delta reiterated that these individuals are not unique to any particular region and that her office is also fielding many requests for services in crisis situations.

"This demand on CLBC then extends to a demand on service providers, all juxtaposed against limited financial resources and the availability of qualified home-share providers able to serve these individuals."

Now, that seems to me like…. Maybe we only hear of a few. You know, sometimes it's difficult for people to advocate for themselves or people sometimes don't have advocates, especially if they're stuck in situations that are foreign to them or beyond their understanding.

Does the minister believe that these ten individuals in the Upper Fraser region, and similar situations in Surrey and Delta…? Are those unique to those areas, or is there any indication that this is actually as serious as this report indicates?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it would be safe to say that I would doubt that those are unique situations. There's a real issue in relation to the fact that there are going to be, at any time, individuals who receive services from CLBC in relation to their disability needs and also, from time to time, have pretty sizeable health care needs as well. There is a need, of course, for the system to find a way to serve them best, as there is for an individual that doesn't have a disability that has a health need.

It can be challenging. I think that is an illustration of why something like the client support team, which is cross-ministry, has the ability to look at those circumstances, when they arise, and find a solution together. These are not situations that are unique to one area of service provision or another.

In fact, my deputy has a meeting with Fraser Health tomorrow to discuss issues like this and how we can find a better way of dealing with people so that we don't see them as crisis situations and see them as individuals who require care.

[1715]

N. Simons: Is there any policy, written or unwritten, in CLBC that denies services if another need of that individual is greater — such as maybe a chronic drug-dependent individual or someone with a particular mental health problem, like a concurrent mental health issue? Is there any policy that says: "Health is responsible before we're responsible"? Or is there sort of an approach that says, like Jordan's principle, that the first agency of contact will deal with that individual?

I'm just wondering, because I've heard of some situations where a person with alcohol dependency, and otherwise entirely qualifying for CLBC services, is being denied because of that alcohol dependency.

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is absolutely no policy to that effect. The reality is that individuals who are eligible for CLBC services are eligible for CLBC services. I think what happens in certain cases is that somebody who is eligible for CLBC services, or perhaps is a client, is also in need of services that are not CLBC-provided services, such as a drug and alcohol program or something similar — a health service, perhaps.

Perhaps because of the individual's developmental disability, it has been difficult for them to access the services that they require in the systems in which they are provided. I think that then it can sometimes present itself as a CLBC issue, which in fact it's not. In that case, it's an issue in the other service provision.

I think, again, that illustrates further the need for this ability to work cross-ministry in a more cohesive way,
[ Page 9993 ]
which is what we hope to address through the work that we're going to do as a result of the deputy ministers' plan.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for that answer. I recognize the challenge in providing care for individuals with those dual diagnoses and developmental disabilities. Is it possible, when you think about the challenging needs…? It would be difficult to contemplate that the health authorities have facilities for people with a developmental disability and a mental illness.

It's difficult to contemplate that the Ministry of Justice, through its corrections branch, has facilities for those people. And it's clear that Community Living doesn't really have specialized programs for those.

It's nice that the ministries will cooperate, but none of them have a facility — and I'm saying "facility" — or a program to meet those needs. Is it possible that there might be a need for some specialized program, in order to deal with that? Maybe it's a handful. Maybe it's more individuals.

Even if the ministries talk to each other, they'll all be shaking their heads and shrugging their shoulders. I'm wondering: how do we get past that?

[1720]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think that's exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier answer, in that, clearly, there is a gap. I'm committed, as a part of this process that we're working through, to find a solution to filling that gap. I don't know that that is a bricks-and-mortar solution. I don't know that that is a program solution. What I believe that to be is that work needs to be done to figure out how best to meet the needs on an individual, case-by-case basis as the needs present themselves.

In that way, as you well know, an individual may come forward one time with one set of circumstances, and an individual may come forward next month with quite a different set of circumstances, requiring quite a different approach. But that's exactly what we are working towards with a one-government approach, a one-government funding envelope — that we are going to work diligently. I will take ownership of attempting to find some resolution in the next 12 to 18 months.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response. I look forward to seeing what that looks like, and I offer my assistance however I can.

Can I go to the 12-point plan now. We won't probably be able to get to each individual point. I'd like just some clarification on some of them.

I have to say, I used to write stuff like this, and sometimes the meaning is difficult to get to. It's almost like "find the quarter inside the birthday cake" here. Maybe it's a dime now. I don't know. It's a net zero. It's probably just a piece of wax paper.

The second point is implementing "a more consistent assessment platform across the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Health, Education, and Social Development, along with the CLBC to ensure consistency and clarity of needs assessments and planning for individuals and their families. This will allow for better identification of individual needs, improving individual planning."

So is there an effort here to identify another measuring device or funding assessment tool that will be used across all the ministries? Is that what this point is about?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm going to attempt to answer that question. I think the short answer, somewhat naively, is yes — not yes, and not another tool, but yes, one tool. That would be the hope.

The reality is, I think — what we know we see — that an individual, who presents to government for services — and in this case, of course, we're talking primarily about CLBC, so let's use that — does so and is assessed in one way or another for a level of support and funding from government.

[1725]

At the time perhaps that person then turns 19, they go to a different ministry and a different program even within a ministry that then says, "Well, let's do this assessment and see what your need is and what your funding might look like." Then we might do that yet again in another area of the ministry — for example, when they go to CLBC for services.

So there is a desire to see that come together on the part of government and CLBC collectively, to minimize the number of times an individual would have to go through that type of process but also to create some consistency throughout one's life. That doesn't mean that there might not be times in one's life or circumstances that arise that would necessitate some sort of additional process for something specific, but we're looking to find some process on which to base a level of funding and support from government.

N. Simons: Will we be able to see specific evidence of this working in the future? Will we be able to see where this has occurred? Will it be measurable, or is it sort of a loose arrangement?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer to that is yes. It would be our hope that there would be the ability to do that kind of analysis. The challenge is, of course, that this is going to be a complex process, to say the least. We are aware that we are committing ourselves to quite a process, and that's why we're taking the time to plan how that implementation might look and to do the necessary work ahead of that and also, then, to engage beyond government on how that works.

N. Simons: Just in reference to that…. I think it's the
[ Page 9994 ]
second point — I might have numbered these wrong — on the use of "a coherent and integrated system to track demand, wait times and service delivery." I think that's No. 3. The fourth one is: "Improve cross-government planning for individuals who are transitioning." Are those all related to the same platform?

Hon. S. Cadieux: You did have your numbering right. There are some ways in which Nos. 2 and 4 would link up, in that if we are able to get to that common assessment platform, then what we are anticipating is that at somebody's transition, their assessment follows them and comes with them and there isn't a need to do another assessment at a life transition, which is what we are hoping for in that regard.

It would then also follow that the resources associated with that level of need, which was determined by that common assessment, would transfer with the individual as well.

The "coherent, integrated system to track demand, wait times and service delivery" across relevant ministries and Community Living is what we were talking about when we canvassed earlier wait times and the request-for-service list. That's something we're hoping to get to much quicker in being able to more accurately track the requests but also the demand for future services.

N. Simons: Is the Ministry of Social Development taking the lead on this? Is that where the initiative is housed?

[1730]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, the lead is with the Ministry of Social Development. All of the ministries are partners at the table on this and agree that this is the direction we are all going. But the responsibility to drive the agenda does sit with us. As well, CLBC is at the table to be a part of this and make sure that it all happens in our very condensed time frame that we are hoping to achieve it in — 12 to 18 months.

N. Simons: I'm just going to maybe have to speed up here. The time is flying, and I don't think we're going to stay in this chamber all night discussing this, as far as I know.

No. 5 is: "Maintain CLBC as a Crown agency. Implement changes to address mandate tension" — I've never heard of mandate tension before, but it sounds like a massage is in order — "created by generational change, and improve approach to and relationship with families and individuals."

That sounds good. Is there a measurable outcome or measurable progress that will allow us to know when this is working?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think that while it might be somewhat difficult to articulate at this point what the measurable product might look like, the reality is that yes indeed, we will be able to define that as we go forward. Part of that is because I did indeed ask the board to deliver a more cogent strategic plan as it relates specifically to focusing on the needs of the older CLBC clients who have really gone through their change.

The mandate tension relates to the fact that while there is that older cohort that CLBC must meet the needs of, the reality is that we also have a generation of youth presenting for service from CLBC who have grown up in a much more inclusive environment and society, thankfully. That youth that's presenting now has, overall, a much different anticipation of what their service is going to look like going forward.

There is that challenge for CLBC to manage in providing, through their agencies and through their service delivery mechanisms, programs and services that meet the needs of both those groups of individuals, whose needs actually present quite differently. So that's what that relates to. I think that yes, going forward we'll be able to see how that is measured.

N. Simons: Let's skip to No. 8: "The development of community capacity in conjunction with the move towards individualized funding." The minister may or may not recognize that there are some people who find the individualized funding model challenging because it's difficult to find respite providers at the rates they're provided.

Can the minister just elaborate on or give further details on this particular aspect of the 12-point plan?

[1735]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I think what I'll say is that certainly there's an understanding that this is not the right solution for everyone. This is a very good solution for some people. For the people who see that as the way in which they wish to receive their services or to manage their lives, then we want that to be available to them.

This is about a recognition that while it has worked well to a degree for some people, there is much more opportunity in that regard, and there is the need to support the development of some of the support systems in the community to enable that to be successful.

You know, there are similar circumstances and programs within the Ministry of Health, as well, that have had some success but that also require some dedicated effort to see those opportunities grow for the individuals for whom that is a good solution.

It is certainly not seen as a panacea that is going to replace service delivery for everyone, because it certainly isn't the right solution for everyone.

N. Simons: What specific activities are going to take place to encourage the development of community capacity?
[ Page 9995 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, this recommendation is tied to recommendation 11, for the member, in that B.C. and this sector particularly always have been innovators. There are lots of circumstances that we know exist where we could be encouraging replication, enhancement and so on. We'd like to see more cooperation and collaboration with the successful programs that exist to encourage the opportunity for more of that to happen.

N. Simons: Is there any specific plan to do that? Is there a team going out and saying: "Here are community centres; here are facilities and parks and" — I don't know — "employment programs that we can specifically target as options"?

[1740]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is nothing to point to directly right now. It's part of the planning process for this to be part of the engagement in defining which things we should focus in on and help and grow and achieve, and how we should do that.

It's our anticipation that those programs or ideas that are brought about through that engagement process could then be funded from the funds that are held in the ministry — the $10 million, the $20 million, the $30 million — over the next three years, to see those things grow and to develop those concepts.

If one had to point to a specific example of what that might look like, we could point to the community living venture fund and what it's been trying to do, going around the province and asking, "What are the things that we could do more of and do better?" — and to fund those things.

N. Simons: There's one here that says: "Reinforce government's accountability and responsibility for CLBC through more effective use of legislative authorities." Now, it goes on, and I'm repeating it here. I know you have it there. But for the people watching at home, live or later tonight when they're trying to sleep: "The province will require the development of standards for tracking and prioritizing service requests and identification of assessment tools." That sounds to me like there's contemplation of new assessment tools, a new way of prioritizing service requests. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: What this is really stating is that there are things that we could be doing more of, from a ministry or ministerial perspective, through the shareholder's letter of expectations — which we have, but it could be improved — or through standards that we are allowed, through the act, to put forward to be used.

So it's about the opportunity to use those tools that exist to us in the legislative framework to move forward with making sure that what we're hoping to achieve through the deputy minister working group plan and the 12 points that we want to work on over the next year…. It's to ensure that we actually can get there, in cooperation with CLBC and with all of our ministry partners.

N. Simons: I was informed that I had one more question, but in anticipation that this is my last, I just want to say thank you very much to everybody here who has assisted in getting to delve into this issue more.

It's the final point of the 12-point plan: to support ongoing innovation. Are there any resources to ensure the capacity to do that — to solicit innovative ideas, to encourage innovation in this sector and to bring in the public and people involved in the sector to be a part of that development of innovation? That will be my last question of the day.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer to that is yes. The recognition is that the sector itself is where the innovation, for the most part, happens. Certainly, a lot of it goes on in the regular course of business. We want to find ways of encouraging that. But also, as you say…. As to the resources, yes, we anticipate that some of the moneys out of the ten, 20, 30 that are held in the ministry for the purposes of working on these 12 recommendations and delivering outcomes for people with developmental disabilities — that that is, in fact, one of the areas that we will be directing resources to as a part of this plan.

Thank you very much for your questions. I appreciate your interest and knowledge in this subject area.

With that, I would 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 5:45 p.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